From Guru at ITforChange.net Fri May 11 05:24:10 2012 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 14:54:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Statement at the upcoming UN meeting on democratizing global governance of the Internet Message-ID: <4FACDABA.9000201@ITforChange.net> Dear friends, As per the UN General Assembly resolution of December 2011, the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development is holding a one day meeting on 'Enhanced Cooperation on Public Policy Issues Pertaining to the Internet' on 18th of May in Geneva.This important meeting will take stock of the future directions for global Internet governance and what may be needed to democratise it. *A joint statement by civil society organisations and individuals is being proposed on this occasion*. The statement is enclosed and also provided below. A document on 'background' information is also enclosed. This is a call to support and endorse the statement. We urge you to please pass this on to *your networks*as well. We are happy to provide any clarification that may be needed, and to engage further on this subject. *If you would like to support this statement, kindly send your endorsement – organisational or personal – to itfc at itforchange.net , before 16*^*th* *May.* ** ** Guru Director, IT for Change /In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC /www.ITforChange.Net | Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890 /*On behalf of the proposing organisations */ *Call for Support and Endorsement* /_*Global Governance of the Internet must be Democratised!*_/ /A joint statement by civil society organisations for the UN CSTD meeting on 'Enhanced Cooperation on Public Policy Issues Pertaining to the Internet' to take place in Geneva on May 18^th , 2012/ /*proposed by */ /*Focus on the Global South *(Thailand),*Instituto Nupef *(Brazil)*, IT for Change *(India)*, */ /*Knowledge Commons *(India),*Other News (*Italy),*Third World Network *(Malaysia)**/ /*and endorsed by */ /*organisations and individuals listed at the end of the statement*/ The Internet is a major force today, restructuring our economic, social, political and cultural systems. Most people implicitly assume that it is basically a beneficent force, needing, if at all, some caution only at the user-end. This may have been true in the early stages when the Internet was created and sustained by benevolent actors, including academics, technologists, and start-up enterprises that challenged big businesses. However, we are getting past that stage now. What used to be a public network of millions of digital spaces, is now largely a conglomeration of a few proprietary spaces. (A few websites like Google, Facebook, Twitter and Amazon together make much of what is considered the Internet by most people today.) We are also moving away from a browser-centric architecture of the 'open' Internet to an applications-driven mobile Internet, that is even more closed and ruled by proprietary spaces (like App Store and Android Market). *In fact, some Internet plans for mobiles come**only with a few big websites and applications, without the open 'public' Internet, which is an ominous pointer to what the future Internet may look like. *What started off as a global public resource is well on its way to becoming a set of monopoly private enclosures, and a means for entrenching dominant power. *At this stage, it is crucial to actively defend and promote the Internet's immense potential as a democratic and egalitarian force, including through appropriate principles and policies at the global level.* /*Who governs the Internet*/ It is a myth that /'the Internet is not governed by anyone'/. It is also not a coincidence nor a natural order of things that the Internet, and through it, our future societies, are headed in the way of unprecedented private gate-keeping and rentier-ing. The architecture of the Internet is being actively shaped today by the most powerful forces, both economic and political. A few US based companies increasingly have monopoly control over most of the Internet. The US government itself controls some of the most crucial nodes of the global digital network. *Together, these two forces, in increasing conjunction, are determining the techo-social structure of a new unipolar world.*It is important for progressive actors to urgently address this situation, through seeking globally democratic forms of governance of the Internet. While the US government and US based monopoly Internet companies already have a close working relationship to support and further each other's power, this relationship is now being formalised through new power compacts; whether in the area of extra-territorial IP enforcement (read, global economic extraction) through legislations like _SOPA _, or in the area of security (read, global extension of coercive power) through cyber-security legislations like _CIPSA _. The US government has stubbornly refused to democratise the oversight of the Internet's root server and domain name system, which it controls. While the US pooh-poohs the security concerns expressed by other countries vis-a-vis such unacceptable unilateralism, rather hypocritically, it seeks to contractually obligate the non-profit managing these key infrastructures to appoint its security officials only on US government advice. (The chief security officer of this non-profit body is already, in fact, a sworn member of the 'Homeland Security Advisory Council' of the US!) Apart from the direct application of US law and whims (think _Wikileaks _) over the global Internet, and Internet-based social activity (increasingly a large part of our social existence), default global law is also being written by the clubs of powerful countries that routinely draft Internet policies and policy frameworks today. The OECD and Council of Europe are two active sites of such policy making,covering areas like cyber-security, Internet intermediary liability, search engines, social networking sites etc. Last year, OECD came out with its '_Principles for Internet Policy-Making _'. These Principles, heavy on IP enforcement and private policing through large North-based Internet companies, are to guide Internet policies in all OECD countries. Recently, OECD decided to 'invite' other, non-OECD, countries to accede to these Principles. *This is the new paradigm of global governance, where the powerful countries make the laws and the rest of the world must accept and implement them. * /*Who is not allowed at the governance table*/ While Northern countries are very active at Internet related policy- and law-making, which have extra-territorial ambition and reach, they strongly resist any UN based initiative for development of global Internet principles and policies.*This is in keeping with the increasingly common Northern efforts at undermining UN/ multi-lateral frameworks in other global governance arenas*like trade, IP etc. For instance; trying to keep global financial systems out of UNCTAD's purview at the recent Doha UNCTAD meeting , and bringing in Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) as a new instrument of extra-territorial IP enforcement by the OECD, bypassing WIPO. The mandate of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) for building a globally democratic space for developing Internet related global policies is quite clear. The WSIS _outcome document _states that, “the process towards enhanced cooperation (on Internet-related international public policies), (is) to be started by the UN Secretary-General ... by the end of the first quarter of 2006”. However, six years down the line, developed countries do not seem to be willing to even formally discuss how to operationalise this very important WSIS mandate of 'enhanced cooperation', much less do something concrete about it. /*OUR DEMAND - Internet Governance must be democratised*/ *We, the undersigned civil society organisations,**affirm that the Internet must be governed democratically*, with the equal involvement of all people, groups and countries. Its governance systems must be open, transparent and inclusive, with civil society given adequate avenues of meaningful substantive participation. While we denounce statist control over the Internet sought by many governments at national levels, we believe that the struggle at the global level also has significant dynamics of a different kind. *Our demands with respect to 'global' Internet Governance espouse a simple and obvious democratic logic.*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, multi-lateral 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.) On the side of larger Internet related public policy-making on global social, economic, cultural and political issues, the OECD-based model of global policy making, as well as the default application of US laws, should be replaced by a new UN-based democratic mechanism. Any such new arrangement should be based on the principle of subsidiarity, and be innovative in terms of its mandate, structure, and functions, to be adequate to the unique requirements of global Internet governance. It must be fully participative of all stakeholders, promoting the democratic and innovative potential of the Internet. The Internet should be governed on the principles of human liberty, equality and fraternity. It should be based on the accepted principle of the indivisibility of human rights;civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, and also people's collective right to development. *A rights-based agenda should be developed as an alternative to the current neo-liberal model driving the development of the Internet,*and the evolution of an information society. The UN is the appropriate place for developing and implementing such an alternative agenda. Expedient labelling by the most powerful forces in the Internet arena, of the UN, and of developing countries, as being interested /only/in 'controlling the Internet', and under this cover, continually shaping the architecture of the Internet and its social paradigm to further their narrow interests, is a bluff that must be called. We demand that a *Working Group of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) be instituted to explore possible ways of implementing 'enhanced cooperation' for global Internet-related policies*. (Such a CSTD Working Group is also being sought by some developing countries.) 'Enhanced cooperation' must be implemented through innovative multi-lateral mechanisms, that are participatory. Internet policy-making cannot be allowed to remain the preserve of one country or clubs of rich countries. *If the Internet is to promote democracy in the world*, which incidentally is the much touted agenda of the US and other Northern countries, *the Internet itself has, first, to be governed democratically.* /*Click here for the current list of signatories to the joint civil society statement */ /**//*Click here to endorse the statement */ ******** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1. CS statement on democratic Internet.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 77714 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2. Background information.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 47475 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri May 11 11:10:15 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 17:10:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva In-Reply-To: <59E98D39B4254E79BF7F6E1491E14352@UserVAIO> References: <59E98D39B4254E79BF7F6E1491E14352@UserVAIO> Message-ID: <4FAD2BD7.1060306@apc.org> dear michael i am too busy to respond in full.... but i like the idea of looking at the OGP process a lot! i had a good look at the declaration, and the section on 'measures' the idea this gave me is that is needed is a process that will build such a declaration on EC - process which is inclusive of a wide range of instutitions, constituencies etc. so.. like the WGIG process.. but with its specific goal being agreement on a 'Declaration on inclusive, multi-stakeholder international internet governance' anriette On 09/05/12 16:46, michael gurstein wrote: > In this context, I think that the IGC should be paying extremely > close attention to the Open Government Partnership > which I pointed to earlier. > > The OGP has a formal "Declaration > " > (i.e. normative statement--"convention" if you will) to which > Members need to formally commit themeselves. The Partner > country's membership in the Partnership is initially accepted > based on their adherence to the Charter and whose on-going > performance is equally assessed (includng by CS) against their > stated plan/committment concerning the implementation of the forward > looking provisions of the Charter. > > Secondly, CS has a formally defined role as a full-fledged "partner" > in the Partnership with certain designated rights and > responsibilities including a co-Chairmanship of the overall > Partnership. > > Although there are a number of elements still in the process of > being worked out (not the least of which is the structuring of CS in > the context of the OGP) to my mind this is a direction towards which > EC/IG should be moving, towards which CS should be pushing IG, and > which overall represents a potentially very positive post Atlantic > Charter direction for the overall evolution of CS and Global > Governance in the Age of the Internet. > > Best, > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 09, 2012 6:41 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the > Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva > > On Tuesday 08 May 2012 08:40 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> It seems to me that the basic issues of Enhanced Cooperation from a CS perspective are twofold: >> > We, as a set of civil society players, have tried to present > concrete possibilities for both, but with no engagement from the > larger CS involved with IG. > >> 1. what is the normative framework within which EC should take place--my strong suggestion would be that it is that of transparency, accountability, democracy and inclusiveness (and of course there is the WSIS declaration etc. to support this). And that this should be presented as a declaration and within a framing document. >> > > A framework convention on the Internet was proposed, but found no > traction among the CS actors in IG. Yes, it needs to be informed by > the values that you mention. > >> 2. that having agreed on such a normative framework the question is what is the most appropriate institutional arrangement for achieving these within the context of Internet governance. >> > > UN CIRP proposal has as multistakeholder a structure as OECD's > Internet policy making mechanism (which is the default global > Internet policy making system at present), plus seeking strong > linkages with a rather empowered multistakeholder IGF (India IGF > proposal). If something else/more is needed and possible that it > must be spelt out. > > Still, we believe that even a CIRP kind of body should be an interim > arrangement, doing stop-gap work, but focussing on the activity of > being the nodal point for developing a suitable framework convention > on the Internet, which 'framework convention' then proposes the > right body for global governance of the global internet, which is > fully adequate and appropriate to the phenomenon, context etc. > > If someone has a different/ better roadmap, lets discuss it. > > Non engagement with and non-proposal of clear concrete road-maps is > simply an acceptance of the status quo in global Internet > governance, and we think that the staus quo is hugely problematic, > involves ever greater concentration of power, and is thus not > acceptable. > > parminder > >> Mike >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen >> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 1:08 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva >> >> >> Dear Bill, Adam and all >> >> The agenda is very basic. I will post it below. Parminder and I have both been asked to speak. APC will post our basic input here as soon as we have had a chance to present it to members first. >> >> Basically my idea is to shift the discussion towards the involvement of civil society in EC and rather than just the usual involvement of governments. My gut reaction to EC is that there is all this dispute about the involvements from States and while this is kind of going nowhere, there appears to be less cooperation and more concentration of power among large companies, rich country governments, and established IG 'institutions'. >> >> I hope this will complement Parminder's input which I hope will focus on the imbalances in governmental involvement from governments in the north (who tend to say they don't want control, but they already have it) and governments in the south (who say they want more control and who don't have much at global level, and who are not demonstrating, consistently, good use of the control they do have at national level - in my view). >> >> A serious discussion on what governments responsibilities are and of WHAT they need to be involved in would be useful in my view. >> >> And then finally, and I would appreciate IGC input on this.. among APC staff we have had a discussion of the parameters of EC. Is EC just something we should be talking about at global level, or also at national level. >> >> I feel stongly that we need to take the discussion to EC in IG at national level. And this should touch on global IG issues (how countries engage, whether there is capacity building, consultation, etc. around involvement in global issues/process) as well as on national IG issues. >> >> Anriette >> >> 11:00- >> 13:00 >> Welcoming remarks by the Chair of the CSTD, Mr. Fortunato de la Peña ■ Address by: Dr. Hamadoun Touré, Secretary-General of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) ■ Address by: Mr. Nigel Hickson, Vice President for Europe, ICANN ■ Address by: Mr. Markus Kummer, Vice President Public Policy, Internet Society ■ Address by: Mr. Jimson Olufuye, Vice-Chairman, Africa Region, World Information Technology and Services Alliance ■ Address by: Mr. Parminder Singh, Executive Director, IT for Change ■ Address by: Ms. Marilyn Cade, CEO, mCADE LLC ■ Address by: Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications >> 15:00- >> 18:00 >> General discussion >> >> On 08/05/12 09:06, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> Could you give a pointer to the agenda. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 3:55 PM, William Drake >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> Just wondering if we want to do anything about this? The draft >>> program has a couple of IGCers as speakers but no clarity on rules >>> of engagement for other attendees…? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> On Apr 18, 2012, at 11:05 AM, William Drake wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> As you know, there will be an enhanced cooperation consultation on >>>> 18 May in Geneva, following the IGF consultations and MAG >>>> meeting. http://archive.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=6227&lang=1 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It would be very important that all stakeholders are able to >>>> intervene and contribute freely (but strategically) during this >>>> consultation, rather than have to sit silently on the sidelines or >>>> be relegated to collective brief interventions at the end of each >>>> session. I imagine that ICC (business) and ISOC (TC) will be >>>> contacting the CSTD secretariat to make such a request. On behalf >>>> of civil society, the IGC should do the same. >>>> >>>> Assuming people agree with the proposition, may I suggest that the >>>> co-coordinators take a crack at drafting a one or two paragraph >>>> letter to Mongi to this effect? Probably it would be better to do >>>> it sooner than later, as the secretariat would then need to pass >>>> the request along to governments etc… >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>> *************************************************** >>>> William J. Drake >>>> International Fellow & Lecturer >>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >>>> william.drake at uzh.ch >>>> www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake >>>> >>>> www.williamdrake.org >>>> **************************************************** >>>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >> -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri May 11 11:51:59 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 15:51:59 +0000 Subject: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva In-Reply-To: <4FAD2BD7.1060306@apc.org> References: <59E98D39B4254E79BF7F6E1491E14352@UserVAIO>,<4FAD2BD7.1060306@apc.org> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0D8314@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, Anriette, I think you meant: "Declaration on Inclusive International Multi-Stakeholder Open Internet Governance" Lee ________________________________________ From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] on behalf of Anriette Esterhuysen [anriette at apc.org] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 11:10 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva dear michael i am too busy to respond in full.... but i like the idea of looking at the OGP process a lot! i had a good look at the declaration, and the section on 'measures' the idea this gave me is that is needed is a process that will build such a declaration on EC - process which is inclusive of a wide range of instutitions, constituencies etc. so.. like the WGIG process.. but with its specific goal being agreement on a 'Declaration on inclusive, multi-stakeholder international internet governance' anriette On 09/05/12 16:46, michael gurstein wrote: > In this context, I think that the IGC should be paying extremely > close attention to the Open Government Partnership > which I pointed to earlier. > > The OGP has a formal "Declaration > " > (i.e. normative statement--"convention" if you will) to which > Members need to formally commit themeselves. The Partner > country's membership in the Partnership is initially accepted > based on their adherence to the Charter and whose on-going > performance is equally assessed (includng by CS) against their > stated plan/committment concerning the implementation of the forward > looking provisions of the Charter. > > Secondly, CS has a formally defined role as a full-fledged "partner" > in the Partnership with certain designated rights and > responsibilities including a co-Chairmanship of the overall > Partnership. > > Although there are a number of elements still in the process of > being worked out (not the least of which is the structuring of CS in > the context of the OGP) to my mind this is a direction towards which > EC/IG should be moving, towards which CS should be pushing IG, and > which overall represents a potentially very positive post Atlantic > Charter direction for the overall evolution of CS and Global > Governance in the Age of the Internet. > > Best, > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 09, 2012 6:41 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the > Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva > > On Tuesday 08 May 2012 08:40 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> It seems to me that the basic issues of Enhanced Cooperation from a CS perspective are twofold: >> > We, as a set of civil society players, have tried to present > concrete possibilities for both, but with no engagement from the > larger CS involved with IG. > >> 1. what is the normative framework within which EC should take place--my strong suggestion would be that it is that of transparency, accountability, democracy and inclusiveness (and of course there is the WSIS declaration etc. to support this). And that this should be presented as a declaration and within a framing document. >> > > A framework convention on the Internet was proposed, but found no > traction among the CS actors in IG. Yes, it needs to be informed by > the values that you mention. > >> 2. that having agreed on such a normative framework the question is what is the most appropriate institutional arrangement for achieving these within the context of Internet governance. >> > > UN CIRP proposal has as multistakeholder a structure as OECD's > Internet policy making mechanism (which is the default global > Internet policy making system at present), plus seeking strong > linkages with a rather empowered multistakeholder IGF (India IGF > proposal). If something else/more is needed and possible that it > must be spelt out. > > Still, we believe that even a CIRP kind of body should be an interim > arrangement, doing stop-gap work, but focussing on the activity of > being the nodal point for developing a suitable framework convention > on the Internet, which 'framework convention' then proposes the > right body for global governance of the global internet, which is > fully adequate and appropriate to the phenomenon, context etc. > > If someone has a different/ better roadmap, lets discuss it. > > Non engagement with and non-proposal of clear concrete road-maps is > simply an acceptance of the status quo in global Internet > governance, and we think that the staus quo is hugely problematic, > involves ever greater concentration of power, and is thus not > acceptable. > > parminder > >> Mike >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen >> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 1:08 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva >> >> >> Dear Bill, Adam and all >> >> The agenda is very basic. I will post it below. Parminder and I have both been asked to speak. APC will post our basic input here as soon as we have had a chance to present it to members first. >> >> Basically my idea is to shift the discussion towards the involvement of civil society in EC and rather than just the usual involvement of governments. My gut reaction to EC is that there is all this dispute about the involvements from States and while this is kind of going nowhere, there appears to be less cooperation and more concentration of power among large companies, rich country governments, and established IG 'institutions'. >> >> I hope this will complement Parminder's input which I hope will focus on the imbalances in governmental involvement from governments in the north (who tend to say they don't want control, but they already have it) and governments in the south (who say they want more control and who don't have much at global level, and who are not demonstrating, consistently, good use of the control they do have at national level - in my view). >> >> A serious discussion on what governments responsibilities are and of WHAT they need to be involved in would be useful in my view. >> >> And then finally, and I would appreciate IGC input on this.. among APC staff we have had a discussion of the parameters of EC. Is EC just something we should be talking about at global level, or also at national level. >> >> I feel stongly that we need to take the discussion to EC in IG at national level. And this should touch on global IG issues (how countries engage, whether there is capacity building, consultation, etc. around involvement in global issues/process) as well as on national IG issues. >> >> Anriette >> >> 11:00- >> 13:00 >> Welcoming remarks by the Chair of the CSTD, Mr. Fortunato de la Peña ■ Address by: Dr. Hamadoun Touré, Secretary-General of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) ■ Address by: Mr. Nigel Hickson, Vice President for Europe, ICANN ■ Address by: Mr. Markus Kummer, Vice President Public Policy, Internet Society ■ Address by: Mr. Jimson Olufuye, Vice-Chairman, Africa Region, World Information Technology and Services Alliance ■ Address by: Mr. Parminder Singh, Executive Director, IT for Change ■ Address by: Ms. Marilyn Cade, CEO, mCADE LLC ■ Address by: Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications >> 15:00- >> 18:00 >> General discussion >> >> On 08/05/12 09:06, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> Could you give a pointer to the agenda. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 3:55 PM, William Drake >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> Just wondering if we want to do anything about this? The draft >>> program has a couple of IGCers as speakers but no clarity on rules >>> of engagement for other attendees…? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> On Apr 18, 2012, at 11:05 AM, William Drake wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> As you know, there will be an enhanced cooperation consultation on >>>> 18 May in Geneva, following the IGF consultations and MAG >>>> meeting. http://archive.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=6227&lang=1 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It would be very important that all stakeholders are able to >>>> intervene and contribute freely (but strategically) during this >>>> consultation, rather than have to sit silently on the sidelines or >>>> be relegated to collective brief interventions at the end of each >>>> session. I imagine that ICC (business) and ISOC (TC) will be >>>> contacting the CSTD secretariat to make such a request. On behalf >>>> of civil society, the IGC should do the same. >>>> >>>> Assuming people agree with the proposition, may I suggest that the >>>> co-coordinators take a crack at drafting a one or two paragraph >>>> letter to Mongi to this effect? Probably it would be better to do >>>> it sooner than later, as the secretariat would then need to pass >>>> the request along to governments etc… >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>> *************************************************** >>>> William J. Drake >>>> International Fellow & Lecturer >>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >>>> william.drake at uzh.ch >>>> www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake >>>> >>>> www.williamdrake.org >>>> **************************************************** >>>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >> -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Fri May 11 15:07:32 2012 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 12:07:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: Call for NomCom volunteers of 25 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1336763252.25391.YahooMailNeo@web161905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> I Volunteer Shaila The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! ..................... the renaissance of composure ! ________________________________ From: Deirdre Williams To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Izumi AIZU Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 4:13 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Call for NomCom volunteers of 25 OK - I do. Deirdre On 24 April 2012 19:10, Izumi AIZU wrote: A few days more to go, and we need 9 more people to volunteer for NomCom candidates. Please JUST DO IT, Now!! > >Izumi > >2012年4月16日月曜日 Izumi AIZU iza at anr.org: > > >Hi, so far, I received following 15 volunteers. >> >>Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>Iliya Bazlyankov >>Ginger Paque >>Charity Gamboa-Embley >>Sonigitu Ekpe >>Adam Peake >>Kerry Brown >>Ian Peter >>Thomas Lowenhaupt >>Baudouin Schombe >>Sunil Abraham >>Shaila Mistry >>Wilson Abigaba >>Dixie Hawtin >>Julián Casasbuenas G. >> >>10 more to go by the end of April. >>Please consider yourself. >> >>izumi >> > > >-- >                     >> Izumi Aizu << >Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >        Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,           >                               Japan >                             * * * * * >                          www.anr.org > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- “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.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From zads911 at msn.com Sun May 13 04:03:49 2012 From: zads911 at msn.com (Mohamed zahran) Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 08:03:49 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Call for NomCom volunteers of 25 In-Reply-To: <1334206046.31339.YahooMailMobile@web161902.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1334206046.31339.YahooMailMobile@web161902.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I volunteer . Regards, Mohamed Zahran Business Systems Analyst Cell: +20129614467 Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 21:47:26 -0700 From: shailam at yahoo.com To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org CC: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Call for NomCom volunteers of 25 Resending the following I volunteer . Shaila From: Izumi AIZU ; To: ; Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro ; Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Call for NomCom volunteers of 25 Sent: Thu, Apr 12, 2012 4:25:24 AM Hi, We got 13 now. Just half. 12 more to go. As you know, this is to randomly select 5+ Appeal Team members (including reserve), so it is around 20% probability to become the member. In the past, there have been no case dealt by the Appeals team. It is only when minimum of 4 IGC members could not accept the Co-coordinators decision, they can appeal to this team. So, again 12 more, please. izumi 2012/4/9 Izumi AIZU : > Dear List, > > So far, the following ten people have volunteered for the Appeals Team > pool. Thank you for the commitment. > > If you sent your name but not appearing here, please let us know. > There are a few messages sent directly to the coordinators, but not > to the list, because, perhaps, they were sent from the different email > address than the registered one to the list. > > We need 15 more. The earlier, the better. > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Iliya Bazlyankov > Ginger Paque > Charity Gamboa-Embley > Sonigitu Ekpe > Adam Peake > Kerry Brown > Ian Peter > Thomas Lowenhaupt > Baudouin Schombe > > ------------- > > Many thanks, > > izumi -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Sun May 13 05:18:31 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 11:18:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Statement at the upcoming UN meeting on democratizing global governance of the Internet In-Reply-To: <4FACDABA.9000201@ITforChange.net> References: <4FACDABA.9000201@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: I endorse the proposed statement. Louis Pouzin internet pioneer - - - On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Guru गुरु wrote: > ** > Dear friends, > > As per the UN General Assembly resolution of December 2011, the UN > Commission on Science and Technology for Development is holding a one day > meeting on 'Enhanced Cooperation on Public Policy Issues Pertaining to the > Internet' on 18th of May in Geneva. This important meeting will take > stock of the future directions for global Internet governance and what may > be needed to democratise it. * A joint statementby civil society organisations and individuals is being proposed on this > occasion*. The statement is enclosed and also provided below. A document > on 'background' information is also enclosed. > > This is a call to support and endorse the statement. We urge you to > please pass this on to *your networks* as well. We are happy to provide > any clarification that may be needed, and to engage further on this > subject. *If you would like to support this statement, kindly send your > endorsement – organisational or personal – to itfc at itforchange.net, > before 16**th* *May.* > ** > * * > Guru > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Mon May 14 18:28:54 2012 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 18:28:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: CIRP+ Message-ID: <63497E3F-B109-45FE-BACB-DC70C7758362@post.harvard.edu> This question - of what might be some new form of governance - is a perennial for IGC. We have circled around it, by now several times. To note some of points of discussion: From Wolfgang May 13, 2012 4:59:24 AM EDT > a body which is able to produce rough consensus Consensus implies legitimacy. In the case of civil society, that encompasses several billion folks. A handful of individuals, debating on a listserve, just are not - in the end - able to proclaim, with any credibility, that consensus. Very much more to the point - aggregating all the many, many views is one crux of the question. As below. > hierarchical thinking of the 20th century. What we need is a network > thinking for the 21st century Hierarchy is gone, network is in? Humans have been operating with social networks for thousands of years, at the least. Most decidedly there is nothing new underlying, certainly not on account of a calendar system that by happenstance turned a triple zero number, 2000 ... Nor have the hierarchical inclinations, also hard-wired into the genome, suddenly gone into hibernation. Evolution does not work that way. What could be new is some thinking that artfully understood, better, how these weave together. To address, notably, the aggregation of views question. As indeed Parminder asks May 13, 2012 5:53:44 AM EDT > tell us clearly what would be the structure of this new mechanism, > what functions will it perform, and how, what would be its outcomes > and how will they be implemented. Then again from Wolfgang > CS was invited to WSIS, now we are here and we want to participate > in Realpolitik. To give us a seat on the table On the one side, Realpolitik alerts that power is the underlying issue. Those who have it - governments, particularly of the North; increasingly BRIC countries et al,; several large private actors; among others - will not be ceding that power without good reason. As the interminable discussion of EC illustrates. At the same time on the other side, the prospect for some new, more suitable arrangements - as Wolfgang brings up - do turn it seems on an appeal to “more democracy.” A shibboleth that may, because its claims are sound, be more than a rallying cry for change. Power may actually shift. A robust democracy, built from understanding the mix of hierarchy and network, one that actually achieves legitimate aggregation of views - in other words, this could be a democracy that actually moves toward lofty goals. As Paul Lehto has said more than once, but once again here May 8, 2012 2:28:06 PM EDT > the "stakeholder" stuff can at most only be seen as an intermediate > and transition-state to real democracy. WSIS Forum week, MAG, IGF consultations, EC the end of the week - these will all take our time. In the meantime these large questions will not go away. David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 May 14 23:26:00 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 20:26:00 -0700 Subject: [governance] A Truly World-Wide Web: Assessing the Internet from the Perspective of Human Rights Message-ID: <83815E98A47D4994B1D263513C87DB2E@UserVAIO> http://www.law-democracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/final-Internet.pdf A Truly World-Wide Web: Assessing the Internet from the Perspective of Human Rights Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD), Halifax, NS -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jovank at diplomacy.edu Tue May 15 04:56:21 2012 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 10:56:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: CIRP+ In-Reply-To: <63497E3F-B109-45FE-BACB-DC70C7758362@post.harvard.edu> References: <63497E3F-B109-45FE-BACB-DC70C7758362@post.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4FB21A35.2010208@diplomacy.edu> It is a good point questioning some of the IG mantras. I wonder if one could argue that the online world is more hierarchical and territorial than the 'normal' world. A few points... The term 'hierarchy' is used so loosely, mainly in a negative context. It is a part of a government-bashing trend. But, hierarchy was not invented by bureaucrats as I heard at one recent conference in Geneva. It is a natural (or even mathematical) principle of making order. In human society, the main question is what the nature of the hierarchy is. Is it fixed and blocked by political, family, or economic reasons or open to newcomers? In the online world, you have hierarchy everywhere. How many followers do you have on Twitter or Facebook? How does your website rank on Google? The possibility that you may start your online business anywhere does not work easily in practice. Zuckerberg had to go to Silicon Valley and identify various hierarchies (venture capital, engineers, marketing) that helped him to make Facebook a great success. In many cases hierarchy is not explicit, but this does not mean that it does not exist. Paradoxically, in a way, governments are honest by making their hierarchies explicit (military, diplomatic and diplomatic ranks)? Another modern mantra is the 'end of territoriality'. You know the usual arguments that you can hear in IG parlance... the Internet is free from territorial bonds, etc. Is it true? Not necessarily. Our location can be easily identified via geo-location, GPS, and other devices. The fact that we can be ANYwhere (virtuality) does not mean that we can be NOwhere. And, when we are SOMEwhere we are more territorial in our online worlds than in our traditional worlds. Should we revisit these - and other - mantras? On 5/15/12 12:28 AM, David Allen wrote: > This question - of what might be some new form of governance - is a > perennial for IGC. We have circled around it, by now several times. > > To note some of points of discussion: > > From Wolfgang > May 13, 2012 4:59:24 AM EDT >> a body which is able to produce rough consensus > > > Consensus implies legitimacy. In the case of civil society, that > encompasses several billion folks. > > A handful of individuals, debating on a listserve, just are not - in > the end - able to proclaim, with any credibility, that consensus. > > Very much more to the point - aggregating all the many, many views is > one crux of the question. As below. > >> hierarchical thinking of the 20th century. What we need is a network >> thinking for the 21st century > > > Hierarchy is gone, network is in? > > Humans have been operating with social networks for thousands of > years, at the least. Most decidedly there is nothing new underlying, > certainly not on account of a calendar system that by happenstance > turned a triple zero number, 2000 ... Nor have the hierarchical > inclinations, also hard-wired into the genome, suddenly gone into > hibernation. Evolution does not work that way. > > What could be new is some thinking that artfully understood, better, > how these weave together. To address, notably, the aggregation of > views question. > > As indeed Parminder asks > May 13, 2012 5:53:44 AM EDT >> tell us clearly what would be the structure of this new mechanism, >> what functions will it perform, and how, what would be its outcomes >> and how will they be implemented. > > > > Then again from Wolfgang >> CS was invited to WSIS, now we are here and we want to participate in >> Realpolitik. To give us a seat on the table > > > On the one side, Realpolitik alerts that power is the underlying > issue. Those who have it - governments, particularly of the North; > increasingly BRIC countries et al,; several large private actors; > among others - will not be ceding that power without good reason. As > the interminable discussion of EC illustrates. > > At the same time on the other side, the prospect for some new, more > suitable arrangements - as Wolfgang brings up - do turn it seems on an > appeal to “more democracy.” A shibboleth that may, because its claims > are sound, be more than a rallying cry for change. Power may actually > shift. > > A robust democracy, built from understanding the mix of hierarchy and > network, one that actually achieves legitimate aggregation of views - > in other words, this could be a democracy that actually moves toward > lofty goals. > > > As Paul Lehto has said more than once, but once again here > May 8, 2012 2:28:06 PM EDT >> the "stakeholder" stuff can at most only be seen as an intermediate >> and transition-state to real democracy. > > > > WSIS Forum week, MAG, IGF consultations, EC the end of the week - > these will all take our time. In the meantime these large questions > will not go away. > > David > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- *Jovan Kurbalija, PhD* Director, DiploFoundation Rue de Lausanne 56 *| *1202 Geneva*|***Switzerland *Tel.*+41 (0) 22 7410435 *| **Mobile.*+41 (0) 797884226 *Email: *jovank at diplomacy.edu*| **Twitter:*@jovankurbalija *The latest from Diplo: *Learn about Internet governance and ICT policy: enrol for the 2012 Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (more info ). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu May 17 11:31:20 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 08:31:20 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGC Talking Points for Enhanced Cooperation workshop Message-ID: <3BD8FCF856BE4C14A2583A50BB3179ED@UserVAIO> In light of the earlier discussions concerning EC, both concerning the broader definition/framework for EC as introduced by myself and the discussions around the ITfC and APC letters, the following description of EC in the context of Open Government and "Enhanced Cooperation" as represented by the Open Government Partnership might be of some interest. (The below is taken from the Introduction to a Survey being circulated by a sub-Committee of the Steering Committee of the Open Government Partnership which includes both governmental and CS representation.) It seems to me that in areas where there is a broad (but not necessarily universal) multi-stakeholder consensus (as for example in certain areas of EC) the below provides a useful and about to be tested method for moving from good intentions to practical, transparent and accountable implementation. Something to my mind which the current discussion, IGF and "talking point" sorely are lacking. Mike -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Standards and Criteria sub-committee of the Open Government Partnership Steering Committee is responsible for putting forward recommendations on the Independent Reporting Mechanism. Civil society steering committee members on the Standards and Criteria sub-committee include Juan Pardinas, IMCO; Martin Tisne, the Omidyar Network; Suneeta Kaimal Revenue Watch Institute; and Warren Krafchik, International Budget Partnership (in his capacity as civil society co-chair). They will discuss the IRM in the subcommittee on May 24 and 25. Preliminary discussions about the IRM occurred during previous Open Government Partnership Steering Committee meetings (all minutes and materials are available online at http://www.opengovpartnership.org/news). These discussions have informed the following conception of the IRM: "The Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) is to be a key means by which all stakeholders can track the progress of OGP participating countries in implementing their commitments, as well as promote strong accountability between member governments and citizens. Every year, OGP will issue an independent assessment report for each OGP participating country, as a complement to governments' own self-assessment reports and independent civil society monitoring. The IRM is in charge of overseeing this process on behalf of OGP to ensure its credibility and independence. IRM reports will look at whether governments implemented the commitments made within their country action plans as well as whether they followed the OGP guidelines in developing that plan. IRM reports takes the commitments governments have made at face value, and assesses to what extent governments have delivered on these commitments. The IRM will also assess and verify to the extent possible the improvements these commitments have made for citizens. These reports are intended to help promote stronger accountability between citizens and their governments, and ensure governments are living up to OGP process requirements. The IRM will be overseen by an international expert panel appointed by the OGP Steering Committee. The expert panel will be charged with identifying respected local experts in each OGP participating country to draft these reports. Additionally this expert panel will develop a common framework and questionnaire for all local country researchers, and provide peer review to ensure that the highest standards of research and due diligence are applied for every report. The final country reports will be drafted by well-respected local experts from each OGP member country, using the IRM's common framework, drawing on a combination of interviews with local OGP stakeholders, analysis of relevant data, and governments' own self-assessment reports." Your responses to the questions below will help us to understand civil society expectations of the IRM and on how to shape the mechanism. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to be in touch. We anticipate further discussions over the next few months about reporting templates, dissemination of the reports and ensuring the quality of the reports ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 May 18 17:03:24 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 23:03:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] My personal intervention at the CSTD meeting Message-ID: Thank you Mr Chairman, My name its Avri Doria. I have been a network software engineer and protocol designer for over 30 years and am an active civil society participant involved in the process of Internet governance. With the resolution on the mandate of the IGF, the UN General Assembly unfortunately tore apart what the text of the Tunis agenda had put together. Paragraphs 67 through 78 had described a forum that included the special task of enhanced cooperation as well as other topics within the broader subject of Internet governance. Over the years, and despite the insistence of many that the IGF was not responsible for Enhanced Cooperation, Enhanced Cooperation occurred nonetheless. In many cases with the benefit of the environment provided by the IGF and the voluntary cooperation of the major institutions responsible for managing critical Internet resources, forward steps were taken in Enhancing Cooperation - Governments are developing a strong and active voice in the existing Internet governance institutions. Unfortunately many of the interventions today have been nearly identical to interventions given before 2006, in that they do not recognize the progress that has been made. The drive to create yet another mechanism for Enhanced Cooperation risks being a distraction to the progress currently being made, while everyone works one more time on the correct methods for the new mechanisms, opportunities for Enhanced Cooperation will be lost. The IGF might not have been ready for EC in the beginning, but over the years it has handled many issues once thought too hot to handle, e.g. critical Internet resources has been discussed in the IGF in an open and productive way. It is ready to handle EC now. The optimal solution would be to refer the subject of enhanced cooperation to the IGF, thus leveraging the capabilities that the forum has developed in Multistakeholder Cooperation. I believe that if we wish to succeed in making further progress in Enhanced Cooperation, no better mechanism could be found than the maturity the IGF has attained at bringing together stakeholders on an equal footing. If a working group on enhanced cooperation is formed, it should be done in the context of the IGF or at the very least in close collaboration with the IGF and its MAG. In any case it is critical that any working group that is be formed be one where all stakeholders participate on equal footing. Thank you. avri ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 20 03:29:07 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 12:59:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] : "It is crucial to address who and what shapes the Internet today" - UN expert on cultural rights Message-ID: <4FB89D43.5050600@itforchange.net> Hi all See as below a statement issued by the UN Special Rapporteur on Cultural Rights, noting that "it is crucial to address who and what shapes the Internet today". Welcoming the yesterday's meeting on enhanced cooperation, the statement underlines the urgency to arrive at a global consensus on Internet governance and architecture. The statement also stresses the need to uphold the principle of network neutrality. (We ourselves think it is important to bring the discussion about this basic architectural principle of the Internet to global IG spaces, which really hasnt happened in an effective manner. The manner in which the issue of global network neutrality remains unaddressed also quite effectively highlights the problem of 'what happens next' after a global IG issue has been discussed and re-discussed in the IGF) . BTW, we are also happy to note that the Special Rapporteur takes a positive note of the civil society joint statement on democratisation of global governance of the Internet, (issued by more that 50 CS organisations). parminder , IT for Change ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *(issued as received)* M/12/15 18 May 2012 *"It is crucial to address who and what shapes the Internet today" -- UN expert on cultural rights* (GENEVA. 18 May 2012) -- "With the Internet becoming such a powerful medium through which individuals exercise a wide range of human rights, it is crucial to address who and what shapes the Internet today," said the United Nations Special Rapporteur on cultural rights, Farida Shaheed, adding that a "human-rights based approach to the issue should always be adopted". "Since the Internet is essentially a global resource, it is crucial that appropriate Internet governance supports the right of everyone to have access to and use information and communication technologies in self-determined and empowering ways," Ms. Shaheed stressed prior to today's meeting in Geneva of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development to discuss policy issues regarding Internet governance.* Given the urgency to arrive at a global consensus on Internet governance and architecture, the Special Rapporteur welcomed the first steps taken to discuss these issues in an inclusive way, noting the demand expressed by some civil society organizations for a democratization of the global governance of the Internet. "The Internet has become a key element for the enjoyment and the promotion of human rights such as the right to freedom of opinion and expression, including the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds regardless of frontiers; the right to share and enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications; the right to participate in cultural life and engage with others through inter-cultural dialogue; as well as the right to development," she noted. "As such, it can also play an important role to promote democratic participation, accountability, transparency and economic development", Ms. Shaheed said. "It is therefore vital to safeguard the immense potential of the Internet to promote human rights, and to maintain it as a global resource for all to enjoy." Ms. Shaheed underlined the need to ensure that the Internet is not parceled into 'national spheres' and to guard against any monopolistic appropriation of the Internet, which could seriously reduce the public spaces where social actors interact as equals. In her view, "it is important that Internet governance policies and architecture promote public spaces on the Internet and be based on open and public standards." Moreover, she highlighted that discussions surrounding policy issues should seek to pinpoint basic principles to guide the development of the architecture of the Internet, fully taking into consideration all human rights and the principles of equality and non-discrimination. "The principle of net neutrality, whereby all content is treated equally over the Internet, is a foundational principle of the Internet and should be upheld", she stressed. "The Internet started as a collegial enterprise of communication and sharing informed by the principles of equality, non-interference and non-hierarchy," the Special Rapporteur said. "Its architecture was constructed in a manner which ensured that the flow of content was independent of the carrier infrastructure, making it very difficult for anyone to control the flows on the Internet. It is essential that these basic elements that make Internet such a unique and important tool for communication are maintained." (*) The UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development of the Economic and Social Council will hold an open, interactive meeting on enhanced cooperation on public policy issues relating to the Internet on 18 May 2012, in Geneva, Switzerland. The meeting involves Member States and other stakeholders, particularly those from developing countries, including the private sector, civil society and international organizations, with a view to identifying a shared understanding about enhanced cooperation on public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, in accordance with paragraphs 34 and 35 of the Tunis Agenda. ENDS /Ms. Farida Shaheed took up her functions as Independent Expert and then Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights in August 2009. She has worked for more than 25 years promoting and protecting cultural rights by fostering policies and projects designed in culturally sensitive ways to support the rights of marginalized sectors, including women, peasants, and religious and ethnic minorities. Ms. Shaheed has been the recipient of several national and international human rights awards, and is an experienced participant in negotiations at international, regional and national levels. / /Learn more about the mandate and work of the Special Rapporteur: //http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/cultural_rights/index.htm// / /For inquiries and media requests, please contact Ms. Mylène Bidault (+ 41* *22 917 9254 // /mbidault at ohchr.org/ /) //or Marcelo Daher (+41 22 917 9431 / //mdaher at ohchr.org/ /) or write to //ieculturalrights at ohchr.org/ /./ For *media inquiries* related to other UN Special Rapporteurs: Xabier Celaya, UN Human Rights -- Media Unit (+ 41 22 917 9383 / xcelaya at ohchr.org ) *UN Human Rights, follow us on social media: * *Facebook:* https://www.facebook.com/unitednationshumanrights *Twitter:* http://twitter.com/UNrightswire *YouTube:* http://www.youtube.com/UNOHCHR Join us to speak up for human rights in Rio+20, use *#RightsRio* __________ /For use of the information media; not an official record/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 5695 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Mon May 21 12:24:22 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 12:24:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: CIRP+ In-Reply-To: <4FB21A35.2010208@diplomacy.edu> References: <63497E3F-B109-45FE-BACB-DC70C7758362@post.harvard.edu> <4FB21A35.2010208@diplomacy.edu> Message-ID: Dear David and Jovan, It seems to me that so often bad things happen because ‘we’ the ‘masses’ abdicate our responsibility to look after ourselves. ‘We’ are, or should be, the ‘checks and balances’ that create balance in the system. Instead of that we allow ourselves to be distracted by smoke and mirrors and dust in the air. The jury is still out over whether the smoke mirrors and dust in the air are deliberate distractions or an accidental product of the current state of the world – a by-product of information overload. Mantras can be dangerous. Mantras are supposed to “create transformation” but mantras are sometimes the place where the ideas get stuck, as a type of self-defining infinite loop. Things that seem valuable to me are not to stop questioning, never to forget the need for balance, and to think comparitively, to try as much as possible to look at things from more than one perspective. In the end both a network and a hierarchy are probably necessary for success. Deirdre On 15 May 2012 04:56, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > It is a good point questioning some of the IG mantras. I wonder if one > could argue that the online world is more hierarchical and territorial than > the 'normal' world. A few points... > > The term 'hierarchy' is used so loosely, mainly in a negative context. It > is a part of a government-bashing trend. But, hierarchy was not invented by > bureaucrats as I heard at one recent conference in Geneva. It is a natural > (or even mathematical) principle of making order. In human society, the > main question is what the nature of the hierarchy is. Is it fixed and > blocked by political, family, or economic reasons or open to newcomers? In > the online world, you have hierarchy everywhere. How many followers do you > have on Twitter or Facebook? How does your website rank on Google? The > possibility that you may start your online business anywhere does not work > easily in practice. Zuckerberg had to go to Silicon Valley and identify > various hierarchies (venture capital, engineers, marketing) that helped him > to make Facebook a great success. In many cases hierarchy is not explicit, > but this does not mean that it does not exist. Paradoxically, in a way, > governments are honest by making their hierarchies explicit (military, > diplomatic and diplomatic ranks)? > > Another modern mantra is the 'end of territoriality'. You know the usual > arguments that you can hear in IG parlance... the Internet is free from > territorial bonds, etc. Is it true? Not necessarily. Our location can be > easily identified via geo-location, GPS, and other devices. The fact that > we can be ANYwhere (virtuality) does not mean that we can be NOwhere. And, > when we are SOMEwhere we are more territorial in our online worlds than in > our traditional worlds. > > Should we revisit these - and other - mantras? > > > > On 5/15/12 12:28 AM, David Allen wrote: > > This question - of what might be some new form of governance - is a > perennial for IGC. We have circled around it, by now several times. > > To note some of points of discussion: > > From Wolfgang > May 13, 2012 4:59:24 AM EDT > > a body which is able to produce rough consensus > > > > Consensus implies legitimacy. In the case of civil society, that > encompasses several billion folks. > > A handful of individuals, debating on a listserve, just are not - in the > end - able to proclaim, with any credibility, that consensus. > > Very much more to the point - aggregating all the many, many views is one > crux of the question. As below. > > hierarchical thinking of the 20th century. What we need is a network > thinking for the 21st century > > > > Hierarchy is gone, network is in? > > Humans have been operating with social networks for thousands of years, at > the least. Most decidedly there is nothing new underlying, certainly not > on account of a calendar system that by happenstance turned a triple zero > number, 2000 ... Nor have the hierarchical inclinations, also hard-wired > into the genome, suddenly gone into hibernation. Evolution does not work > that way. > > What could be new is some thinking that artfully understood, better, how > these weave together. To address, notably, the aggregation of views > question. > > As indeed Parminder asks > May 13, 2012 5:53:44 AM EDT > > tell us clearly what would be the structure of this new mechanism, what > functions will it perform, and how, what would be its outcomes and how will > they be implemented. > > > > > Then again from Wolfgang > > CS was invited to WSIS, now we are here and we want to participate in > Realpolitik. To give us a seat on the table > > > > On the one side, Realpolitik alerts that power is the underlying issue. > Those who have it - governments, particularly of the North; increasingly > BRIC countries et al,; several large private actors; among others - will > not be ceding that power without good reason. As the interminable > discussion of EC illustrates. > > At the same time on the other side, the prospect for some new, more > suitable arrangements - as Wolfgang brings up - do turn it seems on an > appeal to “more democracy.” A shibboleth that may, because its claims are > sound, be more than a rallying cry for change. Power may actually shift. > > A robust democracy, built from understanding the mix of hierarchy and > network, one that actually achieves legitimate aggregation of views - in > other words, this could be a democracy that actually moves toward lofty > goals. > > > As Paul Lehto has said more than once, but once again here > May 8, 2012 2:28:06 PM EDT > > the "stakeholder" stuff can at most only be seen as an intermediate and > transition-state to real democracy. > > > > > WSIS Forum week, MAG, IGF consultations, EC the end of the week - these > will all take our time. In the meantime these large questions will not go > away. > > David > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- > > ** ** > > *Jovan Kurbalija, PhD* > > Director, DiploFoundation**** > > Rue de Lausanne 56 *| *1202 Geneva *|** *Switzerland**** > > *Tel.* +41 (0) 22 7410435 *| **Mobile.* +41 (0) 797884226**** > > *Email: *jovank at diplomacy.edu *| **Twitter:* @jovankurbalija **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *The latest from Diplo: * Learn about Internet governance and ICT policy: > enrol for the 2012 Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (more > info ). **** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon May 21 18:12:59 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 18:12:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] : "It is crucial to address who and what shapes the Internet today" - UN expert on cultural rights In-Reply-To: <4FB89D43.5050600@itforchange.net> References: <4FB89D43.5050600@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I agree that "it is crucial to address who and what shapes the internet today." I'm recalling our past discussions about the fact that there IS "governance" throughout the internet today, and thus any calls to "keep governments out" necessarily helps to preserve the present status quo of "private regulation" with some governmental regulation, mostly of the "structural" variety. Regardless of whether one supports or opposes this status quo, it is necessary to be informed enough to know what the status quo at least is. The real question is not whether internet behavior is or is not going to be shaped by legal and non-legal forces, but the extent to which every force that comes to play regarding the internet holds sway or not. Paul Lehto, J.D. On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 3:29 AM, parminder wrote: > ** > Hi all > > See as below a statement issued by the UN Special Rapporteur on Cultural > Rights, noting that "it is crucial to address who and what shapes the > Internet today". Welcoming the yesterday's meeting on enhanced > cooperation, the statement underlines the urgency to arrive at a global > consensus on Internet governance and architecture. > > The statement also stresses the need to uphold the principle of network > neutrality. (We ourselves think it is important to bring the discussion > about this basic architectural principle of the Internet to global IG > spaces, which really hasnt happened in an effective manner. The manner in > which the issue of global network neutrality remains unaddressed also quite > effectively highlights the problem of 'what happens next' after a global IG > issue has been discussed and re-discussed in the IGF) . > > BTW, we are also happy to note that the Special Rapporteur takes a > positive note of the civil society joint statementon democratisation of global governance of the Internet, (issued by more > that 50 CS organisations). > > parminder , IT for Change > > ------------------------------ > > > *(issued as received)* > **** > > M/12/15 > 18 May 2012**** > > > *“It is crucial to address who and what shapes the Internet today” – UN > expert on cultural rights* > > > (GENEVA. 18 May 2012) – “With the Internet becoming such a powerful medium > through which individuals exercise a wide range of human rights, it is > crucial to address who and what shapes the Internet today,” said the United > Nations Special Rapporteur on cultural rights, Farida Shaheed, adding that > a “human-rights based approach to the issue should always be adopted”. > > “Since the Internet is essentially a global resource, it is crucial that > appropriate Internet governance supports the right of everyone to have > access to and use information and communication technologies in > self-determined and empowering ways,” Ms. Shaheed stressed prior to today’s > meeting in Geneva of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for > Development to discuss policy issues regarding Internet governance.* > > Given the urgency to arrive at a global consensus on Internet governance > and architecture, the Special Rapporteur welcomed the first steps taken to > discuss these issues in an inclusive way, noting the demand expressed by > some civil society organizations for a democratization of the global > governance of the Internet. > > “The Internet has become a key element for the enjoyment and the promotion > of human rights such as the right to freedom of opinion and expression, > including the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of > all kinds regardless of frontiers; the right to share and enjoy the > benefits of scientific progress and its applications; the right to > participate in cultural life and engage with others through inter-cultural > dialogue; as well as the right to development,” she noted. > > “As such, it can also play an important role to promote democratic > participation, accountability, transparency and economic development”, Ms. > Shaheed said. “It is therefore vital to safeguard the immense potential of > the Internet to promote human rights, and to maintain it as a global > resource for all to enjoy.” > > Ms. Shaheed underlined the need to ensure that the Internet is not > parceled into ‘national spheres’ and to guard against any monopolistic > appropriation of the Internet, which could seriously reduce the public > spaces where social actors interact as equals. In her view, “it is > important that Internet governance policies and architecture promote public > spaces on the Internet and be based on open and public standards.” > > Moreover, she highlighted that discussions surrounding policy issues > should seek to pinpoint basic principles to guide the development of the > architecture of the Internet, fully taking into consideration all human > rights and the principles of equality and non-discrimination. “The > principle of net neutrality, whereby all content is treated equally over > the Internet, is a foundational principle of the Internet and should be > upheld”, she stressed. > > “The Internet started as a collegial enterprise of communication and > sharing informed by the principles of equality, non-interference and > non-hierarchy,” the Special Rapporteur said. “Its architecture was > constructed in a manner which ensured that the flow of content was > independent of the carrier infrastructure, making it very difficult for > anyone to control the flows on the Internet. It is essential that these > basic elements that make Internet such a unique and important tool for > communication are maintained.” > > (*) The UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development of the > Economic and Social Council will hold an open, interactive meeting on > enhanced cooperation on public policy issues relating to the Internet on 18 > May 2012, in Geneva, Switzerland. The meeting involves Member States and > other stakeholders, particularly those from developing countries, including > the private sector, civil society and international organizations, with a > view to identifying a shared understanding about enhanced cooperation on > public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, in accordance with > paragraphs 34 and 35 of the Tunis Agenda. > > ENDS > > *Ms. Farida Shaheed took up her functions as Independent Expert and then > Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights in August 2009. She has > worked for more than 25 years promoting and protecting cultural rights by > fostering policies and projects designed in culturally sensitive ways to > support the rights of marginalized sectors, including women, peasants, and > religious and ethnic minorities. Ms. Shaheed has been the recipient of > several national and international human rights awards, and is an > experienced participant in negotiations at international, regional and > national levels. * > > *Learn more about the mandate and work of the Special Rapporteur: ** > http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/cultural_rights/index.htm* > * * > > *For inquiries and media requests, please contact Ms. Mylène Bidault (+ 41 22 > 917 9254 /* *mbidault at ohchr.org* *) **or Marcelo > Daher (+41 22 917 9431 / **mdaher at ohchr.org* *) or > write to **ieculturalrights at ohchr.org* *.* > > For *media inquiries* related to other UN Special Rapporteurs: > Xabier Celaya, UN Human Rights – Media Unit (+ 41 22 917 9383 / > xcelaya at ohchr.org) > > *UN Human Rights, follow us on social media: * > *Facebook:* https://www.facebook.com/unitednationshumanrights > *Twitter:* http://twitter.com/UNrightswire > *YouTube:* http://www.youtube.com/UNOHCHR > > Join us to speak up for human rights in Rio+20, use *#RightsRio* > > __________ > > *For use of the information media; not an official record***** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 5695 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue May 22 03:41:43 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 13:11:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] Statement also signed by Frank LA Rue - "It is crucial to address who and what shapes the Internet today" - UN expert on cultural rights In-Reply-To: References: <4FB89D43.5050600@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4FBB4337.5040908@itforchange.net> Dear All There was a miscommunication and the statement on the meeting on enhanced cooperation that I forwarded as signed by the UN Special Rapporteur on Cultural Rights, Farida Shaheed, is in fact also co-signed by the UN special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Frank La Rue. The joint statement is enclosed. parminder On Tuesday 22 May 2012 03:42 AM, Paul Lehto wrote: > I agree that "it is crucial to address who and what shapes the > internet today." > > I'm recalling our past discussions about the fact that there IS > "governance" throughout the internet today, and thus any calls to > "keep governments out" necessarily helps to preserve the present > status quo of "private regulation" with some governmental regulation, > mostly of the "structural" variety. > > Regardless of whether one supports or opposes this status quo, it is > necessary to be informed enough to know what the status quo at least > is. The real question is not whether internet behavior is or is not > going to be shaped by legal and non-legal forces, but the extent to > which every force that comes to play regarding the internet holds sway > or not. > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > > On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 3:29 AM, parminder > wrote: > > Hi all > > See as below a statement issued by the UN Special Rapporteur on > Cultural Rights, noting that "it is crucial to address who and > what shapes the Internet today". Welcoming the yesterday's meeting > on enhanced cooperation, the statement underlines the urgency to > arrive at a global consensus on Internet governance and architecture. > > The statement also stresses the need to uphold the principle of > network neutrality. (We ourselves think it is important to bring > the discussion about this basic architectural principle of the > Internet to global IG spaces, which really hasnt happened in an > effective manner. The manner in which the issue of global network > neutrality remains unaddressed also quite effectively highlights > the problem of 'what happens next' after a global IG issue has > been discussed and re-discussed in the IGF) . > > BTW, we are also happy to note that the Special Rapporteur takes a > positive note of the civil society joint statement > > on democratisation of global governance of the Internet, (issued > by more that 50 CS organisations). > > parminder , IT for Change > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > *(issued as received)* > > M/12/15 > 18 May 2012 > > > *“It is crucial to address who and what shapes the Internet today” > – UN expert on cultural rights* > > > (GENEVA. 18 May 2012) – “With the Internet becoming such a > powerful medium through which individuals exercise a wide range of > human rights, it is crucial to address who and what shapes the > Internet today,” said the United Nations Special Rapporteur on > cultural rights, Farida Shaheed, adding that a “human-rights based > approach to the issue should always be adopted”. > > “Since the Internet is essentially a global resource, it is > crucial that appropriate Internet governance supports the right of > everyone to have access to and use information and communication > technologies in self-determined and empowering ways,” Ms. Shaheed > stressed prior to today’s meeting in Geneva of the UN Commission > on Science and Technology for Development to discuss policy issues > regarding Internet governance.* > > Given the urgency to arrive at a global consensus on Internet > governance and architecture, the Special Rapporteur welcomed the > first steps taken to discuss these issues in an inclusive way, > noting the demand expressed by some civil society organizations > for a democratization of the global governance of the Internet. > > “The Internet has become a key element for the enjoyment and the > promotion of human rights such as the right to freedom of opinion > and expression, including the right to seek, receive and impart > information and ideas of all kinds regardless of frontiers; the > right to share and enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and > its applications; the right to participate in cultural life and > engage with others through inter-cultural dialogue; as well as the > right to development,” she noted. > > “As such, it can also play an important role to promote democratic > participation, accountability, transparency and economic > development”, Ms. Shaheed said. “It is therefore vital to > safeguard the immense potential of the Internet to promote human > rights, and to maintain it as a global resource for all to enjoy.” > > Ms. Shaheed underlined the need to ensure that the Internet is not > parceled into ‘national spheres’ and to guard against any > monopolistic appropriation of the Internet, which could seriously > reduce the public spaces where social actors interact as equals. > In her view, “it is important that Internet governance policies > and architecture promote public spaces on the Internet and be > based on open and public standards.” > > Moreover, she highlighted that discussions surrounding policy > issues should seek to pinpoint basic principles to guide the > development of the architecture of the Internet, fully taking into > consideration all human rights and the principles of equality and > non-discrimination. “The principle of net neutrality, whereby all > content is treated equally over the Internet, is a foundational > principle of the Internet and should be upheld”, she stressed. > > “The Internet started as a collegial enterprise of communication > and sharing informed by the principles of equality, > non-interference and non-hierarchy,” the Special Rapporteur said. > “Its architecture was constructed in a manner which ensured that > the flow of content was independent of the carrier infrastructure, > making it very difficult for anyone to control the flows on the > Internet. It is essential that these basic elements that make > Internet such a unique and important tool for communication are > maintained.” > > (*) The UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development of > the Economic and Social Council will hold an open, interactive > meeting on enhanced cooperation on public policy issues relating > to the Internet on 18 May 2012, in Geneva, Switzerland. The > meeting involves Member States and other stakeholders, > particularly those from developing countries, including the > private sector, civil society and international organizations, > with a view to identifying a shared understanding about enhanced > cooperation on public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, in > accordance with paragraphs 34 and 35 of the Tunis Agenda. > > ENDS > > /Ms. Farida Shaheed took up her functions as Independent Expert > and then Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights in > August 2009. She has worked for more than 25 years promoting and > protecting cultural rights by fostering policies and projects > designed in culturally sensitive ways to support the rights of > marginalized sectors, including women, peasants, and religious and > ethnic minorities. Ms. Shaheed has been the recipient of several > national and international human rights awards, and is an > experienced participant in negotiations at international, regional > and national levels. / > > /Learn more about the mandate and work of the Special Rapporteur: > //http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/cultural_rights/index.htm// / > > /For inquiries and media requests, please contact Ms. Mylène > Bidault (+ 41* *22 917 9254 // /mbidault at ohchr.org/ > /) //or Marcelo Daher (+41 22 917 9431 > / //mdaher at ohchr.org/ > /) or write to > //ieculturalrights at ohchr.org/ /./ > > For *media inquiries* related to other UN Special Rapporteurs: > Xabier Celaya, UN Human Rights – Media Unit (+ 41 22 917 9383 > / xcelaya at ohchr.org > ) > > *UN Human Rights, follow us on social media: * > *Facebook:* https://www.facebook.com/unitednationshumanrights > *Twitter:* http://twitter.com/UNrightswire > *YouTube:* http://www.youtube.com/UNOHCHR > > > Join us to speak up for human rights in Rio+20, use *#RightsRio* > > __________ > > /For use of the information media; not an official record/ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box 1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4026 (cell) > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 5695 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Press release cultural rights FREDEX 18.05.2012.doc Type: application/msword Size: 68096 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed May 23 11:30:35 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 21:00:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD meeting on enhanced cooperation Message-ID: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> Dear All I made the following statement at the opening panel of the discussion on enhanced cooperation at CSTD's substantive session (this is different from, and in a way continuation of, the meeting of May 18th) I have tried to see if the discussion on (1) technical governance side and (2) social/ economic policy side of global Internet governance can be separated, to the extent possible, as one way to make progress. I have also tried to list the major concerns of various actors in these two areas of global governance. I also suggest that a UN CIRP like body should perhaps exclude CIR oversight from its purview. Accordingly, for internationalising CIR management a separate arrangement may be considered. Parminder *CSTD Session on Enhanced Cooperation * *on Public Policy Issues Pertaining to the Internet* /*May 22, Geneva*/ /*Comments at the opening panel by Parminder Jeet Singh, Executive Director, IT for Change*/ I must first of all thank the chair for a very balanced report on the special meeting on 'enhanced cooperation on public policy issues pertaining to the Internet' held on May 18^th . I think that the meeting was an important and a positive step forward. We got a lot of good ideas which can serve as the basis for moving forward on this very important but long neglected mandate from the WSIS. What I heard from the meeting, and also note from the chair's report, is that many governments as well as other stakeholders have deep concerns both regarding the fact that there continues to be very substantial gaps in global public policy making, and in democratizing its processes, as well as the fact that an important and express mandate from the WSIS remains completely unaddressed. Others in the room were of the view that this may be an exaggerated view. However, at this stage, it is enough that many governments and other stakeholders do have deep concerns and they must be provided a formal space to express and discuss them. In this regard, the idea of a CSTD working group was proposed by many participants. I think it is a very good proposition. We heard in the last session how the CSTD working group on improvements to the IGF worked so well, and was able to produce such good results. There is no reason why a similar process should not be tried out for resolving the issue of 'enhanced cooperation'. At the same time as we agree to the next step for a formal space for dialogue on 'enhanced cooperation', we must also start discussing the most contested issues and area which have caused such deep political divisions. We should earnestly listen to and address the concerns of different parties. At the May 18^th meeting, I heard views that could roughly be polarized into camps – those who were more or less satisfied with the status quo, and those who wanted a new mechanism to deal with public policy issues pertaining to the Internet. The latter view, perhaps, has been most concretely captured by India's proposal of a UN Committee on Internet-Related Policies (CIRP). I will very briefly try to – just in an illustrative way - touch upon what concerns and what fears inform these two somewhat opposing positions, and how we could perhaps address them, and move forward taking all such concerns and fears into account. /*Need for institutional developments on the technical governance side */Before we start discussing the very complex area of global Internet governance, it is important to develop some overall sections and categories. Global Internet governance can be seen in two relatively distinct though related parts – technical governance and, what may be called as, larger public policy issues of a social, economic, cultural and political nature. These two areas of IG are rather different in the nature of the 'problem', the ecology of actors and, thus, the appropriate responses to the problem, including, very significantly, in the present context, the role of different stakeholders. However, one often sees that discussions about IG, especially when done in a politically surcharged atmosphere, often gets confused about what part of the global Internet governance system (or the absence of it) was being spoken about. Concerns coming from one side of this two-way division of IG space – technical and non-technical -– are answered by views and facts about the other side. India's CIRP proposal also got caught in this very unfortunate somewhat misguided cross-fire. While CIRP is mostly about larger public policy issues – the kind of work done by OECD's Committee for Information, Computer and Communication Policies (ICCP) – almost all the responses to it came from the side of, and concerning, Internet's technical governance. More about it later. Technical governance – or perhaps, 'technical management' is a better term here – of the Internet can be said to include the management of Internet's name and number resources, and the processes of development of technical standards, the kind of work which, respectively, ICANN and IETF does. Internet's technical governance is uniquely a very distributed system, which is relatively open and transparent, and also includes innovative bottom up processes. Such a distributed technical management of the Internet's core systems and standards has helped develop the Internet in a kind of creative tension with the nationally bound, hierarchical social order of the industrial age. This creative tension has an important role in the kind of social, economic, cultural and political impact that the Internet makes, the details of which I will not be able to go here. As one could would judge, I strongly support retention and strengthening of the current distributed model of technical governance in its general and essential characteristics. Although one must add here, that, it needs considerable improvements, which can be done in an evolutionary manner. It has not adapted itself enough with the Internet related developments of the past decade, and is often very prone to capture by big business. I also do not see opposition from too many quarters to this distributed system of technical governance, as such. In fact, Tunis Agenda too has some approving language about how this disturbed system has been managed. The real problem with technical governance of the Internet relates to its unilateral oversight by one government, the US, which is quite untenable and unacceptable to almost all non-US governments and many other stakeholders. It is this /key problem/ on the technical governance side that we must address. In fact, those most interested in safeguarding the current distributed architecture of technical governance of the Internet must be most pro-active in addressing this 'oversight issue'. Only by making a satisfactory resolution of the key oversight issue can we protect this distributed architecture. Otherwise, those unhappy with the status quo – for very valid reasons – will seek the solution in a manner that shifts the very architecture of the technical governance of the Internet, towards a top-down, cumbersome bureaucratic processes based governance, which we know is just not suitable for the Internet. This is one of the most important point to understand and appreciate by defendants of the distributed model – including the technical community. ICANN just cannot remain a US Non-profit, subject to all kinds of US law, small and big, as any US based entity is. ICANN controls too important and critical a global infrastructure for such an arrangement to be acceptable to the global community. The best intentions of the US Department of Commerce, the oversight body for the ICANN, cannot shield ICANN from the application of the US law. Till now, it is simply good luck, and perhaps some careful management by the executive part of the US government, that nothing has happened to expose this very deep inconsistency between ICANN's role and its legal structure and obligations, but one can be sure that something will happen, perhaps sooner that later. It would of little use to be very surprised when such a thing happens, and then look for ways around it. ICANN instituted the .xxx domain space over the objections of many governments. Here, I am not commenting on the merits of that decision or the processes followed for it. However, what is interesting is that ICANN has been taken to the court (of course, US court) by some US companies on grounds of anti-competitive behavior in setting up .xxx domain space. The very fact that a US court has accepted this case makes it at least possible that the ICANN decision on .xxx will be struck down, in which case ICANN will have no option other than to withdraw this domain space. Such a step would of course make a mockery of the global governance body status of ICANN. Non US governments have very valid security and other public policy concerns vis a vis US oversight of the critical Internet resources (CIRs), and these must be addressed. These cannot be taken lightly, or dismissed as efforts for taking control of the Internet. US has asserted its security concerns vis a vis the root of the Internet, by ensuring that ICANN's security staff is selected only with US government's permission. In this light, how can the security concerns of other governments vis a vis the root of the Internet be misplaced! It is quite ironical that when US exercises oversight, it is considered not a significant issue at all, but when exactly the same oversight – with exactly the same role and powers – is sought to be put under an international body, the alarm of governmental control is raised! At the same, we must also address the concerns of those who are wary of internationalising the oversight of CIRs. They are most afraid of a very bureaucratic process exercising excessive and undue control over technical governance system, which many claim the US has refrained from doing till now. It may not be the right arrangement to have 50 or 100 governments use the typical UN processes to try to do oversight of CIRs. In this regard, India's CIRP proposal may therefore need to be re-worked by removing the CIR oversight function of the proposed CIRP. Other more innovative methods for internationalizing CIR oversight can be found. I will not be able to go into the details here, but if we earmark this as /the key problem/, and list the various concerns around it, I am sure a mutually satisfactory solution can be found. At the very least, ICANN has to become an international body, subject to international law, with a host country agreement (shielding it from local laws vis a vis its global role and operation) has to be put into place. Next, we need to agree to a very light international oversight body, which may consist of such members as best represent global public interest, and which has a very minimal, and circumscribed, role with a clearly laid of process and procedure for exercising it. The members may have to be county-based representatives, with some clear relationship with governments, but perhaps coming from technical-academic side, with a broader national process of their selection (just an idea!). (Membership of some global technical bodies may provide some good leads in this regard.)Again, I will leave out the details, and different sets of possibilities, but I am very positive that something can be worked out in this direction. /*Mechanism for enhanced cooperation on social and economic policy issues */The other side of global governance is what may be called as the larger public policy issues concerning social, economic, cultural and political matters vis a vis the global Internet. These issues are in fact much much more important that those related to technical governance of the Internet, but get almost completely neglected in global discussions. There are three ways such social policy issues get decided today. First is the manner in which global Internet monopoly companies like Google and Facebook just decide important policy matters and the world gets subject to them. Second, and related, is the way these global monopolies incorporate the law and policy preferences of the country where they are registered – mostly the US – in their architecture and practices and once again the rest of world is the hapless consumer of such policies, without taking any part in making them. Thirdly, are the various plurilateral initiatives which are very active in making Internet policies that have default global application. One of the main sites of such policy making is the OECD's Committee on Computer, Information and Communication Policy (CCICP) referred to earlier, which is OECD's Internet policy making mechanism. Council of Europe (CoE) is also very active in this area. OECD recently came up with 'Principles for Internet Policy Making', which OECD now wants non OECD countries also to accept. One can see no reason why all countries should not be a part of developing such principles in the first place. This is a simple and straight-forward demand for democratic global governance of the Internet, and we are sure everyone will be better off for it. OECD has also developed guidelines for Internet intermediaries, and CoE has been working on guidelines for search engines and social network sites. It is somewhat surprising that many stakeholders of the very same countries that are involved with OECD's and CoE's cross-border Internet policy mechanisms are found raising the question; whether there are at all any significant global pubic policy issues pertaining to the Internet that needs to be addressed globally, and are not being so addressed at present. To anyone asking me this question, I simply re fer them to the very busy and full calender of events, and their agenda, of these plurilateral Internet policy making bodies. India's proposed UN CIRP should principally be doing this kind of policy work, and perhaps leave out the CIR oversight function to a different, more innovative, international body or mechanism. The above few points on the possible ways forward are only illustrative to show that there are real concerns as well as real fears of different stakeholders, and that these can indeed be addressed. Progress on shaping new institutions that are adequate to the task and mandate of 'enhanced cooperation on public policy issues pertaining the Internet' may not be as difficult as it may appear at first sight. Internet is now a central force shaping the social dynamics, architecture and structures of the emerging information society. If we have to ensure and maximize the democratic and egalitarian potential of the Internet, we must take charge of shaping the architecture and processes of the Internet in global public interest. In this regard, I refer to the press release issued by the UN Special Rapporteur on Cultural rights, Farida Shaheed, and Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Frank La Rue, which was issued in the context of the May 18 meeting on 'enhanced cooperation'. It observes that “it is crucial to address who and what shapes the Internet today” and goes on to highlight the “urgency to arrive at a global consensus on Internet governance and architecture”. That is the real task of 'enhanced cooperation'. Thanks you, Chairman. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ITfC- CSTD - EC panel.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 64011 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sylvia.caras at gmail.com Wed May 23 13:44:15 2012 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 10:44:15 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fight for the Future Message-ID: Fight for the Future is dedicated to protecting and expanding the Internet's transformative power http://fightforthefuture.org/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed May 23 14:49:56 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 20:49:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] Cerf: Internet Freedom under Attack References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD76@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/228561-father-of-the-internet-warns-web-freedom-is-under-attack Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Wed May 23 16:36:38 2012 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 15:36:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] CSTD meeting on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Dear Parminder: Congrats on a very sober statement, especially with the consideration to separate the technical governance from the social/economic policy sides. It is hardly possible for any disagreement with your identification of the major bugbear issue; true internationalisation of oversight of CIRs. In this context, I note your recognition of the weaknesses of of the oversight model represented by the CIRP proposal. This is goodwill in action which hopefully, spurs development of a more inclusive approach. Warm regards, - Carlton ________________________________________ From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 11:30 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] CSTD meeting on enhanced cooperation Dear All I made the following statement at the opening panel of the discussion on enhanced cooperation at CSTD's substantive session (this is different from, and in a way continuation of, the meeting of May 18th) I have tried to see if the discussion on (1) technical governance side and (2) social/ economic policy side of global Internet governance can be separated, to the extent possible, as one way to make progress. I have also tried to list the major concerns of various actors in these two areas of global governance. I also suggest that a UN CIRP like body should perhaps exclude CIR oversight from its purview. Accordingly, for internationalising CIR management a separate arrangement may be considered. Parminder CSTD Session on Enhanced Cooperation on Public Policy Issues Pertaining to the Internet May 22, Geneva Comments at the opening panel by Parminder Jeet Singh, Executive Director, IT for Change I must first of all thank the chair for a very balanced report on the special meeting on 'enhanced cooperation on public policy issues pertaining to the Internet' held on May 18th. I think that the meeting was an important and a positive step forward. We got a lot of good ideas which can serve as the basis for moving forward on this very important but long neglected mandate from the WSIS. What I heard from the meeting, and also note from the chair's report, is that many governments as well as other stakeholders have deep concerns both regarding the fact that there continues to be very substantial gaps in global public policy making, and in democratizing its processes, as well as the fact that an important and express mandate from the WSIS remains completely unaddressed. Others in the room were of the view that this may be an exaggerated view. However, at this stage, it is enough that many governments and other stakeholders do have deep concerns and they must be provided a formal space to express and discuss them. In this regard, the idea of a CSTD working group was proposed by many participants. I think it is a very good proposition. We heard in the last session how the CSTD working group on improvements to the IGF worked so well, and was able to produce such good results. There is no reason why a similar process should not be tried out for resolving the issue of 'enhanced cooperation'. At the same time as we agree to the next step for a formal space for dialogue on 'enhanced cooperation', we must also start discussing the most contested issues and area which have caused such deep political divisions. We should earnestly listen to and address the concerns of different parties. At the May 18th meeting, I heard views that could roughly be polarized into camps – those who were more or less satisfied with the status quo, and those who wanted a new mechanism to deal with public policy issues pertaining to the Internet. The latter view, perhaps, has been most concretely captured by India's proposal of a UN Committee on Internet-Related Policies (CIRP). I will very briefly try to – just in an illustrative way - touch upon what concerns and what fears inform these two somewhat opposing positions, and how we could perhaps address them, and move forward taking all such concerns and fears into account. Need for institutional developments on the technical governance side Before we start discussing the very complex area of global Internet governance, it is important to develop some overall sections and categories. Global Internet governance can be seen in two relatively distinct though related parts – technical governance and, what may be called as, larger public policy issues of a social, economic, cultural and political nature. These two areas of IG are rather different in the nature of the 'problem', the ecology of actors and, thus, the appropriate responses to the problem, including, very significantly, in the present context, the role of different stakeholders. However, one often sees that discussions about IG, especially when done in a politically surcharged atmosphere, often gets confused about what part of the global Internet governance system (or the absence of it) was being spoken about. Concerns coming from one side of this two-way division of IG space – technical and non-technical -– are answered by views and facts about the other side. India's CIRP proposal also got caught in this very unfortunate somewhat misguided cross-fire. While CIRP is mostly about larger public policy issues – the kind of work done by OECD's Committee for Information, Computer and Communication Policies (ICCP) – almost all the responses to it came from the side of, and concerning, Internet's technical governance. More about it later. Technical governance – or perhaps, 'technical management' is a better term here – of the Internet can be said to include the management of Internet's name and number resources, and the processes of development of technical standards, the kind of work which, respectively, ICANN and IETF does. Internet's technical governance is uniquely a very distributed system, which is relatively open and transparent, and also includes innovative bottom up processes. Such a distributed technical management of the Internet's core systems and standards has helped develop the Internet in a kind of creative tension with the nationally bound, hierarchical social order of the industrial age. This creative tension has an important role in the kind of social, economic, cultural and political impact that the Internet makes, the details of which I will not be able to go here. As one could would judge, I strongly support retention and strengthening of the current distributed model of technical governance in its general and essential characteristics. Although one must add here, that, it needs considerable improvements, which can be done in an evolutionary manner. It has not adapted itself enough with the Internet related developments of the past decade, and is often very prone to capture by big business. I also do not see opposition from too many quarters to this distributed system of technical governance, as such. In fact, Tunis Agenda too has some approving language about how this disturbed system has been managed. The real problem with technical governance of the Internet relates to its unilateral oversight by one government, the US, which is quite untenable and unacceptable to almost all non-US governments and many other stakeholders. It is this key problem on the technical governance side that we must address. In fact, those most interested in safeguarding the current distributed architecture of technical governance of the Internet must be most pro-active in addressing this 'oversight issue'. Only by making a satisfactory resolution of the key oversight issue can we protect this distributed architecture. Otherwise, those unhappy with the status quo – for very valid reasons – will seek the solution in a manner that shifts the very architecture of the technical governance of the Internet, towards a top-down, cumbersome bureaucratic processes based governance, which we know is just not suitable for the Internet. This is one of the most important point to understand and appreciate by defendants of the distributed model – including the technical community. ICANN just cannot remain a US Non-profit, subject to all kinds of US law, small and big, as any US based entity is. ICANN controls too important and critical a global infrastructure for such an arrangement to be acceptable to the global community. The best intentions of the US Department of Commerce, the oversight body for the ICANN, cannot shield ICANN from the application of the US law. Till now, it is simply good luck, and perhaps some careful management by the executive part of the US government, that nothing has happened to expose this very deep inconsistency between ICANN's role and its legal structure and obligations, but one can be sure that something will happen, perhaps sooner that later. It would of little use to be very surprised when such a thing happens, and then look for ways around it. ICANN instituted the .xxx domain space over the objections of many governments. Here, I am not commenting on the merits of that decision or the processes followed for it. However, what is interesting is that ICANN has been taken to the court (of course, US court) by some US companies on grounds of anti-competitive behavior in setting up .xxx domain space. The very fact that a US court has accepted this case makes it at least possible that the ICANN decision on .xxx will be struck down, in which case ICANN will have no option other than to withdraw this domain space. Such a step would of course make a mockery of the global governance body status of ICANN. Non US governments have very valid security and other public policy concerns vis a vis US oversight of the critical Internet resources (CIRs), and these must be addressed. These cannot be taken lightly, or dismissed as efforts for taking control of the Internet. US has asserted its security concerns vis a vis the root of the Internet, by ensuring that ICANN's security staff is selected only with US government's permission. In this light, how can the security concerns of other governments vis a vis the root of the Internet be misplaced! It is quite ironical that when US exercises oversight, it is considered not a significant issue at all, but when exactly the same oversight – with exactly the same role and powers – is sought to be put under an international body, the alarm of governmental control is raised! At the same, we must also address the concerns of those who are wary of internationalising the oversight of CIRs. They are most afraid of a very bureaucratic process exercising excessive and undue control over technical governance system, which many claim the US has refrained from doing till now. It may not be the right arrangement to have 50 or 100 governments use the typical UN processes to try to do oversight of CIRs. In this regard, India's CIRP proposal may therefore need to be re-worked by removing the CIR oversight function of the proposed CIRP. Other more innovative methods for internationalizing CIR oversight can be found. I will not be able to go into the details here, but if we earmark this as the key problem, and list the various concerns around it, I am sure a mutually satisfactory solution can be found. At the very least, ICANN has to become an international body, subject to international law, with a host country agreement (shielding it from local laws vis a vis its global role and operation) has to be put into place. Next, we need to agree to a very light international oversight body, which may consist of such members as best represent global public interest, and which has a very minimal, and circumscribed, role with a clearly laid of process and procedure for exercising it. The members may have to be county-based representatives, with some clear relationship with governments, but perhaps coming from technical-academic side, with a broader national process of their selection (just an idea!). (Membership of some global technical bodies may provide some good leads in this regard.)Again, I will leave out the details, and different sets of possibilities, but I am very positive that something can be worked out in this direction. Mechanism for enhanced cooperation on social and economic policy issues The other side of global governance is what may be called as the larger public policy issues concerning social, economic, cultural and political matters vis a vis the global Internet. These issues are in fact much much more important that those related to technical governance of the Internet, but get almost completely neglected in global discussions. There are three ways such social policy issues get decided today. First is the manner in which global Internet monopoly companies like Google and Facebook just decide important policy matters and the world gets subject to them. Second, and related, is the way these global monopolies incorporate the law and policy preferences of the country where they are registered – mostly the US – in their architecture and practices and once again the rest of world is the hapless consumer of such policies, without taking any part in making them. Thirdly, are the various plurilateral initiatives which are very active in making Internet policies that have default global application. One of the main sites of such policy making is the OECD's Committee on Computer, Information and Communication Policy (CCICP) referred to earlier, which is OECD's Internet policy making mechanism. Council of Europe (CoE) is also very active in this area. OECD recently came up with 'Principles for Internet Policy Making', which OECD now wants non OECD countries also to accept. One can see no reason why all countries should not be a part of developing such principles in the first place. This is a simple and straight-forward demand for democratic global governance of the Internet, and we are sure everyone will be better off for it. OECD has also developed guidelines for Internet intermediaries, and CoE has been working on guidelines for search engines and social network sites. It is somewhat surprising that many stakeholders of the very same countries that are involved with OECD's and CoE's cross-border Internet policy mechanisms are found raising the question; whether there are at all any significant global pubic policy issues pertaining to the Internet that needs to be addressed globally, and are not being so addressed at present. To anyone asking me this question, I simply re fer them to the very busy and full calender of events, and their agenda, of these plurilateral Internet policy making bodies. India's proposed UN CIRP should principally be doing this kind of policy work, and perhaps leave out the CIR oversight function to a different, more innovative, international body or mechanism. The above few points on the possible ways forward are only illustrative to show that there are real concerns as well as real fears of different stakeholders, and that these can indeed be addressed. Progress on shaping new institutions that are adequate to the task and mandate of 'enhanced cooperation on public policy issues pertaining the Internet' may not be as difficult as it may appear at first sight. Internet is now a central force shaping the social dynamics, architecture and structures of the emerging information society. If we have to ensure and maximize the democratic and egalitarian potential of the Internet, we must take charge of shaping the architecture and processes of the Internet in global public interest. In this regard, I refer to the press release issued by the UN Special Rapporteur on Cultural rights, Farida Shaheed, and Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Frank La Rue, which was issued in the context of the May 18 meeting on 'enhanced cooperation'. It observes that “it is crucial to address who and what shapes the Internet today” and goes on to highlight the “urgency to arrive at a global consensus on Internet governance and architecture”. That is the real task of 'enhanced cooperation'. Thanks you, Chairman. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Wed May 23 16:55:33 2012 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 13:55:33 -0700 Subject: [governance] Cerf: Internet Freedom under Attack In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD76@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD76@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4FBD4EC5.2020203@cavebear.com> On 05/23/2012 11:49 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/228561-father-of-the-internet-warns-web-freedom-is-under-attack Not to put too fine a point on it, but ICANN, from the day of its inception has been kow towing to the trademark, industrial, and governmental interests that are driving "law enforcement" into more and more corners of our lives and started to replace presumption of innocence with presumption of guilt in both civil and criminal contexts. Since its birth 15 years ago threats to privacy, to democratic principles, to freedom of innovation, to due process, and to freedom of expression have been quite growing, quite visibly - and without shame - within ICANN. And governments, particularly the US government, rejoiced at the notion that they could have a private arm to pursue goals that those government bodies could not, due to Constitutional limitations, do themselves. The most interesting aspect of the concern expressed in the article is its lateness - the same concern could have been expressed with equal import at any time during the last 15 years. I, personally, see the article as part of an anti-ITU campaign that has failed to ask an important threshold question - Are the ITU and ICANN really all that different? I'd suggest that the difference is more in weights - that on the balance of influences the ITU weighs government expressions higher than those of industrial interests, and in ICANN the scales are reversed - but in neither is there much concern for public values, due process, or public voices. From where I sit I see merely a turf war between the US/ICANN and the ITU/rest-of-the-world; I don't see any white knights riding up to vindicate personal rights. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed May 23 17:20:34 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 02:20:34 +0500 Subject: [governance] Cerf: Internet Freedom under Attack In-Reply-To: <4FBD4EC5.2020203@cavebear.com> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD76@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FBD4EC5.2020203@cavebear.com> Message-ID: Though Vint's concern is not an Attack but rather the notion that what the ITU intends to do. Right now its all more or less rhetoric and I can assure you one thing, what was said during the EC discussions in Geneva can actually be the ground for certain amount of consideration at the WCIT because the ITU chief was also present. ITU being multistakeholder will be a distant dream. The sustainability ecosystem of that organization cannot work and thats what I see with a lot of people going OMG with ITU and its attacks. The IGF goes broke every now and then, can a harmonized multilateral vehicle function on a ready to go broke model? I am not defending ITU but bringing eyes and ears to the other side of the debate, the Internet has always been under attack, we are only witnessing evolutions of governance. ICANN, lives on industry and people's money, basically has a financial sustainability model. IGF got together nearly half a million euros from voluntary contributions, ICANN just got together $350million dollars with more rolling under just the new gtld program and spends an approximately 2-4 million dollars on its public and open to all with only a few closed Public Meetings that rotate three times across the globe and then ITU that has multiple activities going on with its multisectoral partners (which it usually refers to as multistakeholders in its own view). The crisis here is what everyone asks in the development sector, how will you sustain yourself and that brings us back to Parminder's discussions from earlier years. My inclination whether IGF should stay there or should there be something like a CIRP or oversight body changes with every event that happens right in front of me in Pakistan and I am a key member of the stakeholdership that is under constant threat and poses us as dissidents that can be noticed at any moment in time, IGF, ITU and ICANN don't matter if we can't get a grip on things even after a decade of these discussions and debates. Thats whats happening in the US congress and thats what Vint Cerf seems to be worried about and thats what many geniuses consider today is the challenge, who gains or sustains control and who has both the resources and support to do so. I've seen other takeholders dropping stuff on their own feet, not just the CS in the IGF circle. Apart from ICANN there is no solution because no one has their doors open for everyone. ITU's definition of multistakeholderism stands at multisectoralism and the neo-liberalist views of a free and open internet and free market evolution ain't gonna work because somebody can just get up and pull the plug on twitter for a day and just as well plug it back in and say ah, what? Let's start getting real here and I like what you said Karl, anti-ITU-ism isn't going to work, it never will. The govts are going to meet in Dubai in December. Its a closed door meeting and its gonna be G8 style and trust me, if people plan to stage a to protest in Dubai, they have a different way of treating things. The dubai gov can have anyone from Pakistan extradited in seconds and i don't believe there are that many strong groups to back and actually be meaningful in a crisis. The discussion has to evolve beyond pseudo-intellectualism and OMG Activism into a more collaborative, combined, well-organized and REAL intervention. People have to go talk to ITU in their office in Geneva. People have to go and talk to the people that are going to be at Dubai. Governments in Europe have to sit down at the EURODIG and discuss this out and let the world know their stance on what they are doing at WCIT. The Arab IGF is on the way, what does it intend to do, what are the stances from other regional IGFs, what is the followup and what is the feedback, is IGC organized enough to take this on? I rest this discussion :o) Best Fouad On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:55 AM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > On 05/23/2012 11:49 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > >> >> http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/228561-father-of-the-internet-warns-web-freedom-is-under-attack > > > Not to put too fine a point on it, but ICANN, from the day of its inception > has been kow towing to the trademark, industrial, and governmental interests > that are driving "law enforcement" into more and more corners of our lives > and started to replace presumption of innocence with presumption of guilt in > both civil and criminal contexts. > > Since its birth 15 years ago threats to privacy, to democratic principles, > to freedom of innovation, to due process, and to freedom of expression have > been quite growing, quite visibly - and without shame - within ICANN. > > And governments, particularly the US government, rejoiced at the notion that > they could have a private arm to pursue goals that those government bodies > could not, due to Constitutional limitations, do themselves. > > The most interesting aspect of the concern expressed in the article is its > lateness - the same concern could have been expressed with equal import at > any time during the last 15 years. > > I, personally, see the article as part of an anti-ITU campaign that has > failed to ask an important threshold question - Are the ITU and ICANN really > all that different? > > I'd suggest that the difference is more in weights - that on the balance of > influences the ITU weighs government expressions higher than those of > industrial interests, and in ICANN the scales are reversed - but in neither > is there much concern for public values, due process, or public voices. > > From where I sit I see merely a turf war between the US/ICANN and the > ITU/rest-of-the-world; I don't see any white knights riding up to vindicate > personal rights. > >        --karl-- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 May 24 05:41:23 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 15:11:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] Chair's report on May 18th meeting on EC Message-ID: <4FBE0243.6070700@itforchange.net> enclosed as received... it says draft and may be treated as such.. parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draftreport 18.05 EC mtng (23.05.2012).docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 36703 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Thu May 24 08:32:49 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 08:32:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] Cerf: Internet Freedom under Attack In-Reply-To: <4FBD4EC5.2020203@cavebear.com> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD76@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FBD4EC5.2020203@cavebear.com> Message-ID: On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > http://thehill.com/blogs/**hillicon-valley/technology/** >> 228561-father-of-the-internet-**warns-web-freedom-is-under-**attack >> > > Not to put too fine a point on it, but ICANN, from the day of its > inception has been kow towing to the trademark, industrial, and > governmental interests that are driving "law enforcement" into more and > more corners of our lives and started to replace presumption of innocence > with presumption of guilt in both civil and criminal contexts. > > Since its birth 15 years ago threats to privacy, to democratic principles, > to freedom of innovation, to due process, and to freedom of expression have > been quite growing, quite visibly - and without shame - within ICANN. > > And governments, particularly the US government, rejoiced at the notion > that they could have a private arm to pursue goals that those government > bodies could not, due to Constitutional limitations, do themselves. > Yes, allowing the "private sector" to control the Internet gives even more freedom to repression because many constitutions, particularly the US constitution, will be held not to apply to the Internet. There is much law that is already heavily used regarding the internet - the laws of property, contract, intellectual property, and so forth. The areas of legal intervention on the Internet that are contested involve the degree to which governments act to EITHER protect freedom of expression on the internet (even from private interference), or act to censor or repress. The vast majority want the neutral protection of freedom of expression but don't want the censorship, but calls to "keep the government out of the Internet" operate to throw out both the good and the bad here. The other area of potential growth for the law of the Internet is the broad area of consumer protection, which helps to balance individual rights vis a vis large business powers. The calls to keep the government out of the internet in this area operate to preserve huge power imbalances in favor of large internet business interests. Paul Lehto, J.D. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri May 25 12:57:03 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 09:57:03 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] "Heavy-handed" TPP tactics from US Trade Rep Message-ID: <31F5DAB68E7D45D7B16D6EE47036C7B0@UserVAIO> -----Original Message----- From: a2k-bounces at lists.keionline.org [mailto:a2k-bounces at lists.keionline.org] On Behalf Of Peter Maybarduk Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 9:16 AM To: ip-health at lists.keionline.org Cc: a2k at lists.keionline.org Subject: [A2k] "Heavy-handed" TPP tactics from US Trade Rep http://www.citizenvox.org/2012/05/25/heavy-handed-tpp-tactics/ It seems "high-quality" is being sacrificed for high speed. Snip: Meanwhile, negotiators of chapters that are taking time for review and input are now getting a little punishment. For example, intellectual property negotiators who have been appropriately scrutinizing proposals that would transform their countries' laws regarding generic medicines, internet freedom and much more, have reportedly been dragged before the assembled Chiefs more than once to face pointed questions about what's taking so long. USTR is driving this new tactic, which even the US Chief Negotiator described as a more "heavy-handed approach." _______________________________________________ A2k mailing list A2k at lists.keionline.org http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com Sat May 26 03:54:59 2012 From: yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com (=?Windows-1252?B?WXJq9iBM5G5zaXB1cm8=?=) Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 10:54:59 +0300 Subject: [governance] FW: SAFETY ADVISORY: Fears of \'government clampdown\' on Azeri journalists after Eurovision Song Contest In-Reply-To: <201205251942.q4PJg7md016426@secex1.oscura.net> References: <201205251942.q4PJg7md016426@secex1.oscura.net> Message-ID: Dear all, It's good to keep an eye on what happens during and after the Eurovision Song Contest in Baku, in view of IGF 2012 Best, Yrjö Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 20:42:07 +0100 From: info at newssafety.org To: Subject: SAFETY ADVISORY: Fears of \'government clampdown\' on Azeri journalists after Eurovision Song Contest SAFETY ADVISORY: Fears of \'government clampdown\' on Azeri journalists after Eurovision Song Contest If you can't see this email properly please visit http://www.newssafety.org/newsletter/news.php?v=20 The safety of Azeri journalists could deteriorate after this weekend's Eurovision Song Contest in Baku, according to local media organisations and activists. The Institute for Reporters Freedom and Safety (IRFS), based in Baku, said that local journalists could be victims of a government crackdown after the international spotlight has left the oil-rich state."The main concern at this point is what will happen once the party is over,” said Celia Davies, of IRFS.“Local journalists and activists anticipate another government clampdown. An additional worry is the vulnerability of all those who have spoken out and shared their stories with the international press."The concerns were raised after reports that Anar Garayli, an Azeri journalist working for a local news website, was detained by police officers in Baku on May 22.According to reports, he was wearing a Sing for Democracy campaign t-shirt and carrying pamphlets about a local youth movement.The website www.gunxeber.com reported that he was detained for resisting the police and sentenced to 10 days in prison.His case is the latest in string of journalists allegedly targeted for being critical of government activities.In April, award-winning journalist Idrak Abbasov was attacked and hospitalised by security forces after filming the demolition of houses on the outskirts of Baku, according to reports.And in March, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty investigative reporter Khadija Ismailova was the victim of a vicious blackmail attempt after a video of her engaging in sexual activities with her partner appeared on a fake opposition party website.Ismailova, who has written stories accusing President Ilham Aliyev, his family and his inner circle of corruption, believes that the film, which was recorded by a covert camera planted in her apartment, was supposed to intimidate her.“There are still very physical attacks [in Azerbaijan]. There is the KGB method of hidden cameras, which has happened to people as well as Khadija [Ismailova],” said Davies.“There are random beatings in the streets, threats, being taken into the national security and police station and being ‘given a talking to’, that kind of thing. That’s the core of it, and threats are spreading online.”Azeri blogger Emin Milli was assaulted and severely beaten in downtown Baku in 2009 after criticising the government online. He was sentenced to two and a half years in prison on what many human rights organisations believe were fabricated charges of hooliganism.“Many activists, journalists and bloggers who are outspoken in this period will be targeted after Eurovision. Shockingly, it has even started now,” he said.“The situation for local journalists will worsen. Anyone who is an independent journalist in Azerbaijan understands what could happen to him or her. They are under constant psychological and physical pressure.”“After Eurovision there will be much less attention. Come again at the end of the year, and check on the people who gave you interviews. Are they in jail? Were their houses destroyed? Are they living on the street?”Azerbaijan is keen to project an image of a modern, prosperous society to visiting journalists and the international community, but critics say that corruption is rife in Aliyev’s government.In February, Human Rights Watch issued a damning report about forced evictions of home owners in Baku to make way for construction for the flashy singing competition.And in May, human rights groups and press freedom organisations called on the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), which is hosting Eurovision, to ensure greater media freedom in the country. The International News Safety Institute, in collaboration with the Institute for Reporters Freedom and Safety, issues the following safety advisory for local journalists working in Azerbaijan.Be alert to the possibility of secret cameras. There is some risk that your home, office or hotel room could be bugged. Journalists have been targeted in hotel rooms, etc. Secret cameras have taped intimate relationships which have been used for blackmail, or broadcast publicly.Be aware that mobile phones are not a secure means of communication. Be frugal with what you discuss on them.When you go out on assignment, ensure that at least one other person knows where you are going, and when you are expected to return. Have a backup plan if things go wrong.Avoid situations where your personal security may be at risk.Consider meeting government officials with a colleague if possible, to verify the story and the interview.Comply with standards of professional ethics.Consider backing up your material as frequently as possible, and keep the backups separate to your laptop. Consider carrying extra memory cards for copies and pass them on to your colleagues for safe keeping.Do not give away personal details and work details on social media sitesCall the IRFS HOTLINE (+99450 398 48 38, +99 470 398 48 38, +99405 2828797) with any security concerns. Online security Online security poses increasingly complex challenges – these basic precautions are based on Eric S. Johnson, ‘Online Security for Internet Media Serving Severely Censored Countries: A white paper for SIDA’s Oct 2010 “Exile Media” conference’ (updated May 2011)Make sure you have good anti-virus and anti-spam softwareProtect your log-in details for any online accounts (email, Facebook, etc)Do not lose physical possession of your computer while it is switched on (it only takes a few seconds for someone to install a rootkit or keylogger, and then your security is completely compromised)Back up your data as frequently as possible, and preferably in more than one placeEnsure your office and home wifi networks are secure, and avoid using public wifiUse “https everywhere” (free add-on)Set Facebook and Twitter to use https for all access; you need to do this manually via account settingsSet maximum security for all social media networking sitesDo not accept everyone as “friends” on Facebook. Think about whether you really want or need them as a friendUse Gmail rather than yahoo, hotmail, mail.ru etc; it automatically encrypts information INSI will continue to monitor the safety of Azeri journalists after the Eurovision song contest and asks anybody with information on any incidents involving journalists to contact Rodney Pinder + 44 7734 70 92 67 rodney.pinder at newssafety.org; or Hannah Storm +44 7766 814274 hannah.storm at newssafety.org To Unsubscribe from our list please reply to this email with 'Unsubscribe' in the subject line -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun May 27 22:56:31 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 10:56:31 +0800 Subject: [governance] US hearing on International Proposals to Regulate the Internet Message-ID: <4FC2E95F.9090005@ciroap.org> Speaking of inclusive and multi-stakeholder debates on Internet governance reform, this will not be happening on 31 May at the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce, when there will be a hearing on "International Proposals to Regulate the Internet" with the following (closed) list of witnesses: The Honorable Robert McDowell Commissioner Federal Communications Commission The Honorable David A. Gross Former U.S. Coordinator International Communications and Information Policy Ms. Sally Shipman Wentworth Senior Manager, Public Policy Internet Society http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=9543 The event will be streamed at http://energycommerce.house.gov/ and it may be worth at least following and tweeting about it (there is a tweet box on the front page of the site). As an aside, the Energy and Commerce Committee site is full of partisan slurs again "Obamacare", environmentalists, anti-nuclear activists and the like. We can expect the depth of intellectual debate at this hearing to rise to the level of "America invented the Internet, we don't want no UN bureaucrats from Iran or China meddling with 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2370 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From anriette at apc.org Mon May 28 03:21:53 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 09:21:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] US hearing on International Proposals to Regulate the Internet In-Reply-To: <4FC2E95F.9090005@ciroap.org> References: <4FC2E95F.9090005@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4FC32791.5080000@apc.org> Thanks for posting this, Jeremy. Not very promising. And I wonder which proposals they are going to discuss. Personally I don't think that any proposals to date, not CIRP or IBSA or IT for Change or others made on Sunday qualify as proposals for 'regulating the internet'. Perhaps the Saudi Arabia comments are closest to this direction. Countries who proposed UN oversight on the 18th, such as South Africa and Iran always qualified that they are arguing for intergovernmental oversight of internet public policy and that this role should not include technical management of the internet. It is in fact the 'public policy oversight' that I am concerned about, particularly as they are proposing to locate this in the ITU. The distorted FCC reaction to talk of the ITU taking over and 'regulating' the internet only sets serious discussion about international cooperation, and rooting internet policy in existing international agreements, back. It has also been clear from following this process that governments that were open to non-ITU options are increasingly going for a pro-ITU option because their concerns are not taken seriously in other spaces. Anriette On 28/05/2012 04:56, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Speaking of inclusive and multi-stakeholder debates on Internet > governance reform, this will not be happening on 31 May at the US House > Committee on Energy and Commerce, when there will be a hearing on > "International Proposals to Regulate the Internet" with the following > (closed) list of witnesses: > > The Honorable Robert McDowell > Commissioner > Federal Communications Commission > > The Honorable David A. Gross > Former U.S. Coordinator > International Communications and Information Policy > > Ms. Sally Shipman Wentworth > Senior Manager, Public Policy > Internet Society > > http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=9543 > > The event will be streamed at http://energycommerce.house.gov/ and it > may be worth at least following and tweeting about it (there is a tweet > box on the front page of the site). > > As an aside, the Energy and Commerce Committee site is full of partisan > slurs again "Obamacare", environmentalists, anti-nuclear activists and > the like. > > We can expect the depth of intellectual debate at this hearing to rise > to the level of "America invented the Internet, we don't want no UN > bureaucrats from Iran or China meddling with it!". > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Mon May 28 03:26:51 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 09:26:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] US hearing on International Proposals to Regulate the Internet In-Reply-To: <4FC2E95F.9090005@ciroap.org> References: <4FC2E95F.9090005@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4FC328BB.6050206@apc.org> hi jeremy i replied to this.. and then realised you had sent to the old address... want to repost? and then i will resend my reply cheers.. anriette PS - I really appreciated your comments last week in the 'economy' thread On 28/05/2012 04:56, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Speaking of inclusive and multi-stakeholder debates on Internet > governance reform, this will not be happening on 31 May at the US House > Committee on Energy and Commerce, when there will be a hearing on > "International Proposals to Regulate the Internet" with the following > (closed) list of witnesses: > > The Honorable Robert McDowell > Commissioner > Federal Communications Commission > > The Honorable David A. Gross > Former U.S. Coordinator > International Communications and Information Policy > > Ms. Sally Shipman Wentworth > Senior Manager, Public Policy > Internet Society > > http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=9543 > > The event will be streamed at http://energycommerce.house.gov/ and it > may be worth at least following and tweeting about it (there is a tweet > box on the front page of the site). > > As an aside, the Energy and Commerce Committee site is full of partisan > slurs again "Obamacare", environmentalists, anti-nuclear activists and > the like. > > We can expect the depth of intellectual debate at this hearing to rise > to the level of "America invented the Internet, we don't want no UN > bureaucrats from Iran or China meddling with it!". > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon May 28 04:35:37 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 10:35:37 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] US hearing on International Proposals to Regulate the Internet References: <4FC2E95F.9090005@ciroap.org> <4FC32791.5080000@apc.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD94@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hello my understanding is that the US Hearing is aimed less on ICANN and CIR oversight und more on ITU, WCIT and ITR. David Gross, who was the head of the US governmental delegation during WSIS II and in Tunis, raised this issue, by ringing the alarm bells, a couple of months ago. http://www.whoswholegal.com/news/features/article/29378/the-2012-world-conference-international-telecommunications-brewing-storm-potential-un-regulation-internet/ I participated in the WCIT consultations during the recent WSIS Forum in Room 16 in the ILO Building where ITU´s Alexander Ntoko tried to water down the growing political debate about the renewal of the ITRs from 1988 which is the subject of the "World Conference on International Telecommunication" (WCIT), scheduled for Dubai, December 2012. The debate was partly bizarr. We discussed documents which the majority of the people in the room (around 150) didn´t know. The governmental representative from Iran said that "Internet Governance is not on the agenda of the Dubai conference". But in the next statement he said that IPv6 is part of the agenda and that today "the Internet is everyhwere". An even more irritating position was taken by the rep from the UAE, the host of the WCIT. I felt that we are back in 2002, during PrepCom1, when CS (together with the PS) was moved out of the room. The UAE rep argued that the governments represent their people and there is no need to give access to documents to non-member states of the ITU. As a private company you can join ITU as a sector member, have to pay a high entrance fee and get access to the documents. If a CS organisations wants to have the documents they should contact their governments, was the recommendnation. As you know, all WCIT conference documents are not accessible. You have to have a TIED account to open the documents and this is reserved to member states only. The problem with ITR is that the old treaty was drafted by the WATTC in Melbourne 1988 when the Internet was not an issue. It is understandable that such a treaty needs a renewal,. The question is HOW? The ITR are seen as an umbrella treaty for all kinds of transborder telecommunication. It needs ratification and is legally binding. The WCIT Prep Committee had several meetings, the final one will be in June 2012 just at the eve of the ICANN meeting in Prague. It is "behind closed doors". A key problem is that the short text of the ITR regulations include a lot of "definitions". By extending the scope of the "defined categories" for international telecommunication the risk is high that you extend ITRs to the Internet. With other words, if you do not like the existing Internet mechanisms, there is no need to attack them directly, it is much easier to undermine them by introducing an addtional regulatiry layer (in a legally binding form). With the ITR you give governments a legal incentive to "re-nationalize" the Internet and you open the door for a split into a "governmental led part of the Internet" (under the ITU) and a "multistakeholder led part of the Internet" (under ICANN). The ITU-ICANN relationship is still unsettled and full of mistrust, The ITU (and ICANN) didn´t do anything to implement the ITU resolution from 2010 (Guadalajara) which called for new forms of collaboration. Did the ITU made any serious statement in the UNCSTD consultatitons on "enhanced cooperation"? In Geneva last week it was announced that the ITU will come to the ICANN meeting in Prague. So lets wait an see what they have to say. Here is a para. from my intervention in Geneva:: "EU Commissioner Nelly Kroes, in a speech recently in Berlin, called the protest of tens of thousands of people against ACTA a "wake up call for Brussels". The EU obviously starts to realize that in a multistakeholder Internet environment one can no longer negotiate issues of general interests, which affect two billions of Internet users, by governments only behind closed doors. Madame Kroes declared in Berlin that ACTA in its present form can not survive. The ITU should learn from this. If you negotiate the ITRs behind closed doors, we will probably see in 2013 another wave of public protest around the world. Two years ago, nobody knew what ACTA means. Today it is a symbol for a wrong approach to manage global issues related to the Internet. Today nobody knows what ITR means. Tomorrow it could become a symbol for a wrong approach to regulate the Internet. Again: If you want to have a sustainable renewal of the ITRs, open the doors to the ITR negotiations. Otherwise the year 2013 could see a "wake up call for Geneva". Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Anriette Esterhuysen Gesendet: Mo 28.05.2012 09:21 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] US hearing on International Proposals to Regulate the Internet Thanks for posting this, Jeremy. Not very promising. And I wonder which proposals they are going to discuss. Personally I don't think that any proposals to date, not CIRP or IBSA or IT for Change or others made on Sunday qualify as proposals for 'regulating the internet'. Perhaps the Saudi Arabia comments are closest to this direction. Countries who proposed UN oversight on the 18th, such as South Africa and Iran always qualified that they are arguing for intergovernmental oversight of internet public policy and that this role should not include technical management of the internet. It is in fact the 'public policy oversight' that I am concerned about, particularly as they are proposing to locate this in the ITU. The distorted FCC reaction to talk of the ITU taking over and 'regulating' the internet only sets serious discussion about international cooperation, and rooting internet policy in existing international agreements, back. It has also been clear from following this process that governments that were open to non-ITU options are increasingly going for a pro-ITU option because their concerns are not taken seriously in other spaces. Anriette On 28/05/2012 04:56, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Speaking of inclusive and multi-stakeholder debates on Internet > governance reform, this will not be happening on 31 May at the US House > Committee on Energy and Commerce, when there will be a hearing on > "International Proposals to Regulate the Internet" with the following > (closed) list of witnesses: > > The Honorable Robert McDowell > Commissioner > Federal Communications Commission > > The Honorable David A. Gross > Former U.S. Coordinator > International Communications and Information Policy > > Ms. Sally Shipman Wentworth > Senior Manager, Public Policy > Internet Society > > http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=9543 > > The event will be streamed at http://energycommerce.house.gov/ and it > may be worth at least following and tweeting about it (there is a tweet > box on the front page of the site). > > As an aside, the Energy and Commerce Committee site is full of partisan > slurs again "Obamacare", environmentalists, anti-nuclear activists and > the like. > > We can expect the depth of intellectual debate at this hearing to rise > to the level of "America invented the Internet, we don't want no UN > bureaucrats from Iran or China meddling with it!". > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 May 28 05:09:35 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 10:09:35 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] US hearing on International Proposals to Regulate the Internet In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD94@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4FC2E95F.9090005@ciroap.org> <4FC32791.5080000@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD94@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <9M42BDEPD0wPFAQp@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD94 at server1.medienkomm. uni-halle.de>, at 10:35:37 on Mon, 28 May 2012, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" writes > The governmental representative from Iran said that "Internet Governance is not on the agenda of the Dubai conference". But in the next >statement he said that IPv6 is part of the agenda and that today "the Internet is everyhwere". If IPv6 is a "day to day technical and operation matter" (Tunis #69), then perhaps our Iranian friend has a point. But no-one can deny IPv6 will "be on the agenda" - all this previous work isn't just conveniently going to fade away: >As a private company you can join ITU as a sector member, have to pay a high entrance fee and get access to the documents. If a CS >organisations wants to have the documents they should contact their governments, was the recommendnation. As you know, all WCIT conference >documents are not accessible. You have to have a TIED account to open the documents and this is reserved to member states only. It's a TIES account (Telecommunication Information Exchange Service) and they are given to Sector Members too. A few Council documents are restricted to member states only, but most of the TIES site is available to Sector members, and I never failed to source a document I needed, even when not a member. If you feel you are part of the constituency of any of the Sector members (which include RIRs and ISOC), perhaps you could ask their staff to brief you, to the extent they feel ITU protocol allows? And it's times like this relationships built up with various member state representatives over the years come to the fore. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Mon May 28 05:20:35 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 11:20:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] US hearing on International Proposals to Regulate the Internet In-Reply-To: <4FC32791.5080000@apc.org> References: <4FC2E95F.9090005@ciroap.org> <4FC32791.5080000@apc.org> Message-ID: <64A862BD-09B1-4B34-8934-D34BCFA2341B@uzh.ch> Hi On May 28, 2012, at 9:21 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > The distorted FCC reaction to talk of the ITU taking over and > 'regulating' the internet only sets serious discussion about > international cooperation, and rooting internet policy in existing > international agreements, back. To be clear: the US House is under Republican control, so the selection of speakers is part of a larger effort to portray things as "the Obama administration is asleep at the wheel while the UN is moving to take over the Internet." Robert McDowell is one of two Republican commissions on an FCC of five, and he is looking to make a name for himself via Wall St. Journal etc. pumping up UN black helicopter paranoias among the political "base". When he's off the commission he'll get a good job somewhere and nice speaking fees. But I wouldn't take his views as "the FCC reaction." Dems on the commission may also have concerns about some of the WCIT proposals, and for good reason, but I've not seen them hyperventilating in the same manner. David A. Gross is there because he was Bush's Ambassador at State. Nice smile, but also pretty far to the right, and no formal role in US policy discussions. Apparently the subcom chair saw no reason to hear from the person who's actually ambassador now and could relate what's happening both in the administration's planning process and in discussions with ITU members. Sally Shipman Wentworth will be able to reflect on all the work ISOC's been doing deep diving into the proposed ITR revisions. Her presentation will be the one serious one to watch. 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.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Mon May 28 05:38:34 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 05:38:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] US hearing on International Proposals to Regulate the Internet In-Reply-To: <64A862BD-09B1-4B34-8934-D34BCFA2341B@uzh.ch> References: <4FC2E95F.9090005@ciroap.org> <4FC32791.5080000@apc.org> <64A862BD-09B1-4B34-8934-D34BCFA2341B@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <8CF0ACCC83913F2-C40-26DEE@webmail-d059.sysops.aol.com> Bill -- To be complete, it should be noted that David Gross headed the US Delegation at WSIS II in Tunism where he played a major role in reaching the compromise to create IGF as a forum for discussion of the issues on which no consensus could be reached in Tunis. Sally Shipman was also in Tunis and was then on the staff of Amb. Gross. Both have been sympathetic to civil society concerns and were involved in overcoming the efforts by other governmental delegations to exclude CS during the WSIS prepcom process. (There are many rooms in the house of the Lord.) Bests, Rony Koven -----Original Message----- From: William Drake To: governance ; Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Mon, May 28, 2012 11:21 am Subject: Re: [governance] US hearing on International Proposals to Regulate the Internet Hi On May 28, 2012, at 9:21 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: The distorted FCC reaction to talk of the ITU taking over and 'regulating' the internet only sets serious discussion about international cooperation, and rooting internet policy in existing international agreements, back. To be clear: the US House is under Republican control, so the selection of speakers is part of a larger effort to portray things as "the Obama administration is asleep at the wheel while the UN is moving to take over the Internet." Robert McDowell is one of two Republican commissions on an FCC of five, and he is looking to make a name for himself via Wall St. Journal etc. pumping up UN black helicopter paranoias among the political "base". When he's off the commission he'll get a good job somewhere and nice speaking fees. But I wouldn't take his views as "the FCC reaction." Dems on the commission may also have concerns about some of the WCIT proposals, and for good reason, but I've not seen them hyperventilating in the same manner. David A. Gross is there because he was Bush's Ambassador at State. Nice smile, but also pretty far to the right, and no formal role in US policy discussions. Apparently the subcom chair saw no reason to hear from the person who's actually ambassador now and could relate what's happening both in the administration's planning process and in discussions with ITU members. Sally Shipman Wentworth will be able to reflect on all the work ISOC's been doing deep diving into the proposed ITR revisions. Her presentation will be the one serious one to watch. Best, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon May 28 05:54:31 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 18:54:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] which list: cpsr or igcaucus Message-ID: We seem to have the same threads running on two lists governance at lists.cpsr.org and governance at lists.igcaucus.org and just to be helpful, they have the same subject line tag [governance]. Could we agree on one list? Confused :-) Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 May 28 06:18:05 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 12:18:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] US hearing on International Proposals to Regulate the Internet In-Reply-To: <8CF0ACCC83913F2-C40-26DEE@webmail-d059.sysops.aol.com> References: <4FC2E95F.9090005@ciroap.org> <4FC32791.5080000@apc.org> <64A862BD-09B1-4B34-8934-D34BCFA2341B@uzh.ch> <8CF0ACCC83913F2-C40-26DEE@webmail-d059.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <99E706D5-4061-4733-9F79-6E27AB4CD5F6@uzh.ch> Hi Rony On May 28, 2012, at 11:38 AM, Koven Ronald wrote: > Bill -- > > To be complete, it should be noted that David Gross headed the US Delegation at WSIS II in Tunism where he played a major role in reaching the compromise to create IGF as a forum for discussion of the issues on which no consensus could be reached in Tunis. Yes, after initially expressing skepticism about IGF, the prospect of a summit failure helped turn State around (like ISOC and ICC). And I did note the smile. > > Sally Shipman was also in Tunis and was then on the staff of Amb. Gross. Yes > > Both have been sympathetic to civil society concerns and were involved in overcoming the efforts by other governmental delegations to exclude CS during the WSIS prepcom process. Yes…well, at least with respect to being able to attend meetings, and FoE. David and the Bush team were rather less responsive to many of other other ideas, e.g. on internationalizing authority over the root, having the US publicly commit not to use its leverage to try taking governments it's in conflict with off the net, scaling back the IRP wars, having an IGF that did more than hold annual conferences, actually meeting with civil society reps during prepcoms, summits, etc….and on and on. But my main point was that hearing from the current ambassador about what the current administration is doing with respect to current coordination with other governments on a pending negotiation would be more useful than getting an outsider perspective "from one of ours." But that's that's the way the Republican House rolls... > > (There are many rooms in the house of the Lord.) And even more in the houses of atheists..:-) Cheers Bill > > Bests, Rony Koven > > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake > To: governance ; Anriette Esterhuysen > Sent: Mon, May 28, 2012 11:21 am > Subject: Re: [governance] US hearing on International Proposals to Regulate the Internet > > Hi > > On May 28, 2012, at 9:21 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> The distorted FCC reaction to talk of the ITU taking over and >> 'regulating' the internet only sets serious discussion about >> international cooperation, and rooting internet policy in existing >> international agreements, back. > > To be clear: the US House is under Republican control, so the selection of speakers is part of a larger effort to portray things as "the Obama administration is asleep at the wheel while the UN is moving to take over the Internet." Robert McDowell is one of two Republican commissions on an FCC of five, and he is looking to make a name for himself via Wall St. Journal etc. pumping up UN black helicopter paranoias among the political "base". When he's off the commission he'll get a good job somewhere and nice speaking fees. But I wouldn't take his views as "the FCC reaction." Dems on the commission may also have concerns about some of the WCIT proposals, and for good reason, but I've not seen them hyperventilating in the same manner. > > David A. Gross is there because he was Bush's Ambassador at State. Nice smile, but also pretty far to the right, and no formal role in US policy discussions. Apparently the subcom chair saw no reason to hear from the person who's actually ambassador now and could relate what's happening both in the administration's planning process and in discussions with ITU members. > > Sally Shipman Wentworth will be able to reflect on all the work ISOC's been doing deep diving into the proposed ITR revisions. Her presentation will be the one serious one to watch. > > Best, > > Bill > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon May 28 07:08:43 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 13:08:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] China & Twitter References: <4FC2E95F.9090005@ciroap.org> <4FC32791.5080000@apc.org> <64A862BD-09B1-4B34-8934-D34BCFA2341B@uzh.ch> <8CF0ACCC83913F2-C40-26DEE@webmail-d059.sysops.aol.com> <99E706D5-4061-4733-9F79-6E27AB4CD5F6@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDA1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://thenextweb.com/asia/2012/05/09/sina-weibo-to-introduce-user-contract-on-may-28-as-chinas-microblog-crackdown-continues/ wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon May 28 07:47:04 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 19:47:04 +0800 Subject: [governance] which list: cpsr or igcaucus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200AF330-EFF2-49AC-BC18-178C98F12FA2@ciroap.org> On 28/05/2012, at 5:54 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > We seem to have the same threads running on two lists > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > and > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > and just to be helpful, they have the same subject line tag [governance]. > > Could we agree on one list? I'm not sure how lists.cpsr.org because active again, because one of my last acts when establishing the new list was to change it into moderated mode, so that no posts could get through without approval. Unless Sala or Izumi have deliberately reverted that change, I'll put it back in that mode. -- 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.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon May 28 07:51:37 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 19:51:37 +0800 Subject: [governance] which list: cpsr or igcaucus In-Reply-To: <200AF330-EFF2-49AC-BC18-178C98F12FA2@ciroap.org> References: <200AF330-EFF2-49AC-BC18-178C98F12FA2@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On 28/05/2012, at 7:47 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I'm not sure how lists.cpsr.org because active again, because one of my last acts when establishing the new list was to change it into moderated mode, so that no posts could get through without approval. Unless Sala or Izumi have deliberately reverted that change, I'll put it back in that mode. Uh no I won't, because I no longer seem to have access to do so. Someone called "Al Whaley", who presumably opened up the old list again, is now its owner. In any case, nobody should be using that list anymore, everyone should be using governance at lists.igcaucus.org. -- 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.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 May 31 17:23:54 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 22:23:54 +0100 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: In message , at 07:55:35 on Fri, 1 Jun 2012, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro writes >6.You will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user. They don't seem very successful at enforcing this, as several subscribers have apparently been harassed sufficiently to commit suicide. >7.You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or >pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or >gratuitous violence Without a definition of "nudity", this is pretty meaningless. Janet Jackson had a problem exposing just one nipple, and in the UK more recently an artist called Beatrix Von BourBon became notorious for not quite exposing either of her nipples. But outside of show business, people are often depicted in innocent and non-sexual, but partially clothed, contexts. This tends to remind me of when a website talking about the possibility of seeing numerous Parus Major [to use the Latin name] in a country park was censored by an over-active local librarian. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Thu May 31 17:28:53 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 18:28:53 -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> <4FC6FE88.3030809@apcwomen.org> <4FC721EE.5020209@uni-graz.at> Message-ID: Although I have a legal background, I allow myself to question law and to argue beyond law, based on social and political implications they entail. Quoting a bad law does not make it good. I will not follow laws uncritically, especially if this “law” we are talking about is actually a contract that I cannot negotiate with the other party. Moreover, the validity of contracts and their adjustment to the social reality should always be assessed under public values. Consumer’s rights laws have a well established understanding about contracts that one side cannot modify (we call them “contratos de adesão” in Portuguese, I don’t know how to name them in English). They entail a juridical asymmetry: there is one part that controls the terms and there is another party that does not have any say about the terms. They bring about abuses by their own nature because they hamper the ability to negotiate or to raise issues of interpretation. For instance, I would like to argue with Facebook what they mean when they ban nudity. Can I post pictures from Rio de Janeiro carnival? Can I post a cartoon with a nude character? (the list would go on) But Facebook does not allow me to do that. I need to give them a blank check: nude is whatever FB decides nudity is. 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”. I certainly know that FB is one channel among others to fight for (yes, I think we need to *fight*) respect for women, for sexual and reproductive rights and to curb violence. I have been involved with gender issues for many years. But FB is an increasingly important channel with an impact on the off-line world. For example: when slut walk took place during the weekend, no one argued about the images of it being displayed anywhere (newspapers, TV). Now, thanks to FB censuring them and banning profiles, the conservative forces in my country that are against woman’s liberties (including religious movements) have found the space they wanted to start a hypocritical crusade against these images. If we ban the slut walk from the media, we certainly will have to ban carnival. But no one ever complained about carnival. Interesting. Women’s bodies can be depicted when the are objects of lust, not when they are subjects… So, if progressive forces do not act quickly, this can lead to a setback, especially because we are in a crucial moment of our regulatory path. 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. Best, Marília On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> Matthias, very interesting message, I very much agree. Thanks for the >> reference of the article. >> >> Norbert:im my mind there is no question that whatever freedom of >> expression issues there may be with nudity restrictions on Facebook, the >> issue of webmaster liability is a freedom of expression problem of a >> much more serious kind. >> >> MM: Norbert, I agree with you on the importance of liability. Clear and >> reduced liability of intermediaries is something we are trying to push with >> the Brazilian Civil Rights Framework, to avoid the chilling effect. The >> battle will take place in Congress soon. But, on the other hand, I think we >> cannot minimize the importance of the parameters of "good behavior" set by >> these global platforms, such as FB. I have a younger sister, and it amazes >> me how the Internet for younger generations is restricted to platforms like >> FB and apps. They carry content to these platforms in a way that they are >> the ones to intermediate digital reality for them. I think that rules >> established on ToRs are able to influence and modulate, very subtly, >> cultural ideas, such as the idea of morality. And the importance of this >> cannot be underestimated and it justifies the discussion of this topic, as >> much as the topic of intermediaries. >> >> > >> 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. >> > > Sala: I raised this question to highlight that Facebook exist in an > ecosystem where their actions are affected by third party influences or > regulatory influences. Some would argue that there are diverse influences > that drive political agenda whether civil society driven, or commercially > driven. It is generally accepted in most democratic countries that laws > merely reflect the pulse of the people. The exception of course is > countries that have illegitimate governments such as those that have been > usurped through Coup D' Etats and tyranny. > > >> Two points. First, I do not think that is up to FB to give concreteness >> to a notion of nudity or obscenity. >> > > Sala: I think we need to re-visit the Terms of Service [ see: > http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms]. When people sign up, they sign up > knowing what is permitted and not permitted and have the "Free will" to > disengage. > I have copied a section from their Terms of Service,see below: > > *3. Safety* > > We do our best to keep Facebook safe, but we cannot guarantee it. We need > your help to do that, which includes the following commitments: > > 1. You will not send or otherwise post unauthorized commercial > communications (such as spam) on Facebook. > 2. You will not collect users' content or information, or otherwise > access Facebook, using automated means (such as harvesting bots, robots, > spiders, or scrapers) without our permission. > 3. You will not engage in unlawful multi-level marketing, such as a > pyramid scheme, on Facebook. > 4. You will not upload viruses or other malicious code. > 5. You will not solicit login information or access an account > belonging to someone else. > 6. You will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user. > 7. You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or > pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous > violence. > 8. You will not develop or operate a third-party application > containing alcohol-related or other mature content (including > advertisements) without appropriate age-based restrictions. > 9. You will follow our Promotions Guidelines and > all applicable laws if you publicize or offer any contest, giveaway, or > sweepstakes (“promotion”) on Facebook. > 10. You will not use Facebook to do anything unlawful, misleading, > malicious, or discriminatory. > 11. You will not do anything that could disable, overburden, or impair > the proper working of Facebook, such as a denial of service attack. > 12. You will not facilitate or encourage any violations of this > Statement. > > > >> 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. >> > Sala: The point is to see if there is any logic. If we moved away from the > online world and consider organizations and clubs who impose rules on their > members, is it reasonable to expect a certain type of rule or code imposed > on those who willingly choose to subscribe. How different should it be for > an ordinary entity in the ecosystem. There are many other social networks > aside from Facebook that one can go to if one does not like the rules. On > the other hand, we see how European Privacy Regulators have effectively > intervened where Facebook has violated some of these rights. > > > >> Second, I personally do not care to which country law they are complying >> with. >> > > Sala: I understand but when an assertion is made that just because > Facebook is a private company it exists to derive a profit at the expense > of public interest, is on one view misleading if one does not show the > holistic picture of what may be causing them to behave in a certain > fashion. > >> 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. >> > Sala: I suppose this is how inventions, innovations are birthed. When one > is dissatisfied with the status quo or with what currently exists and > dreams of a better way. This is where you can start an alternative social > network and create your own rules. As someone who is also an advocate > against violence against women and children, I do not see any correlation > to the advocacy work. There are more "concrete" ways to lodge the battle > against violence from a National Framework perspective such as > strengthening and making consistent sources of statistics, improving access > to justice delivery systems having robust community intake centers, > ensuring that governments prioritize and allocate finances etc. I was very > impressed with how the District Superior Courts in Washington D.C after > analysing statistics and noting that the incidence of violence seemed to be > coming from the SE Quadrant came up with the idea to establish a Community > Intake Center and Satellite technology where victims could access a Judge > for emergency protection orders. [See:United Medical Center > 1328 Southern Avenue, SE, Suite 311,Washington, DC]. If we examine what > occurred in Toronto that sparked the entire "March", it was the comments of > a Police Officer which imputes a certain level of "insensitivity". Police > Insensitivity is a global phenomenon and even New York had its share and > sadly recently in Colorado, Jessica Gonzalez lost her children because the > Police did not effect a restraining order. She took State to Court and it > reached the Supreme Court and although they ruled against her, she won her > matter when they took it to the Inter American Commission on Human Rights > where the Commission said that the United States had a responsibility to > Jessica. > > 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. >> > Sala: I respect your perspective even if I disagree. > > >> It just reinforces the conservative forces we are trying to fight. >> > > Sala: Why fight, when we can live in harmony? Everything has a place. The > quiet stream in the middle of the rainforest and the loud volcano erupting > are all part of one big ecosystem. > >> So, FB juridical compliance with some country's law is translating into a >> political setback here. >> >> Sala: I respectfully disagree. > > 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. >> > > Sala: No one ever said that we should only see the ankles of women on FB. > What we should be discussing is how to tackle the abuse of the exception > under Article 19 of the ICCPR. > > >> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 > > > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu May 31 18:17:18 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 10:17:18 +1200 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: On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Although I have a legal background, I allow myself to question law and to > argue beyond law, based on social and political implications they entail. > Quoting a bad law does not make it good. > Do you mean to say that Article 19 of the ICCPR is bad law? or do you mean to say that the abuse of the exceptions whereby bad/oppressive laws created to stifle freedom of expression? I agree that the abuse of the exception has to be addressed but it cannot be done in a day. It requires deliberate and strategic advocacy and outreach. If you count the number of States that are churning out laws that on one view abuse the "exceptions", there has to be a way to educate without alienating. My personal take on it is that people need to go back to the preamble of the ICCPR in interpreting whether a law has abused to see if that law contributes to "freedom, justice and peace in the world". If one looks at the Laws churned out in Turkey, Thailand etc, they are borne out of the premise of "fear, power and control". Even what one considers to be democratic societies today had to journey into empowering its people. Argentina is a classic example. It is accepted by Argentine society that anyone can speak freely without fear of being attacked, kidnapped or assasinated but as a society, even they had to evolve. > I will not follow laws uncritically, especially if this “law” we are > talking about is actually a contract that I cannot negotiate with the other > party. > Unfortunately unilateral contracts are a reality eg. Mortgage or Security Documents from Banks and ToS such as the one from Facebook, Paypal and Amazon. This is why there is an assumption that the Security Regulators or whoever is regulating that space will ensure that there is "fair play", this is one of the reasons why Regulators and regulations exist. > Moreover, the validity of contracts and their adjustment to the social > reality should always be assessed under public values. > > > > Consumer’s rights laws have a well established understanding about > contracts that one side cannot modify (we call them “contratos de adesão” > in Portuguese, I don’t know how to name them in English). They entail a > juridical asymmetry: there is one part that controls the terms and there is > another party that does not have any say about the terms. They bring about > abuses by their own nature because they hamper the ability to negotiate or > to raise issues of interpretation. > In these instance, the contract entails the provision of services and where there are arbitrary provisions against the individual consumer or consumers there is alot of consumer protection law around to enable the party to seek redress. Again, I am limiting the discussion to "FoX" because that is the initial thread. The consumer in this instance does have the right to freely express himself but within the "boundaries". Since Facebook is registered and incorporated in California, a Petition by alot of protesters directed to the regulator may get you some traction. On the other hand for those who detest having the US rule for them on matters such as the Internet ecosystem, the European regulators have proven time and time again that they can enforce their laws on the likes of Facebook or Google for that matter. > For instance, I would like to argue with Facebook what they mean when they > ban nudity. Can I post pictures from Rio de Janeiro carnival? Can I post a > cartoon with a nude character? (the list would go on) But Facebook does not > allow me to do that. I need to give them a blank check: nude is whatever FB > decides nudity is. > > > I think you will enjoy the debates which have been around for more than 50 years on what is obscene or not and take the US for example (I am only using US because Facebook is incorporated in California), the Department of Justice's Prosecution Arm for Obscene Publications uses the Tests from the Supreme Court to define what is "obscene". Since I have posted details of this already, I will not repeat it here. > 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. > Alternatives include Bebo, Tagged, Wayne, Google Plus etc etc. I will wait to see studies that show that Facebook holds the monopoly on Social Networks over the Internet? > > > 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”. > Mathias points out that it can be argued and the converse is true. The minute you use that argument you open a gateway for all kinds of "actions" and countries must first agree to accept these standards. I don't see countries readily agreeing to this as the alternative argument, is that the standard already exists in the form of the ICCPR specifically Article 19. > > > I certainly know that FB is one channel among others to fight for (yes, I > think we need to *fight*) respect for women, for sexual and reproductive > rights and to curb violence. I have been involved with gender issues for > many years. But FB is an increasingly important channel with an impact on > the off-line world. For example: when slut walk took place during the > weekend, no one argued about the images of it being displayed anywhere > (newspapers, TV). Now, thanks to FB censuring them and banning profiles, > the conservative forces in my country that are against woman’s liberties > (including religious movements) have found the space they wanted to start a > hypocritical crusade against these images. If we ban the slut walk from the > media, we certainly will have to ban carnival. But no one ever complained > about carnival. Interesting. Women’s bodies can be depicted when the are > objects of lust, not when they are subjects… So, if progressive forces > do not act quickly, this can lead to a setback, especially because we are > in a crucial moment of our regulatory path. > I did not say anything about banning the "march" or "carnival", I was merely confining my analysis and views to "facebook" and its actions in this instance and trying to understand why it may have acted the way it did. > > > 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. > It already exists under the auspices of the UN Human Rights Council and Freedom of Expression made the Agenda this year thanks to the Government of Sweden and the after swell of the Arab Spring etc... What was disappointing for me was that there was not much time spent on discussing the abuse of the exception of Article 19 of the ICCPR. > > > Best, > > Marília > > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >>> Matthias, very interesting message, I very much agree. Thanks for the >>> reference of the article. >>> >>> Norbert:im my mind there is no question that whatever freedom of >>> expression issues there may be with nudity restrictions on Facebook, >>> the issue of webmaster liability is a freedom of expression problem of >>> a much more serious kind. >>> >>> MM: Norbert, I agree with you on the importance of liability. Clear and >>> reduced liability of intermediaries is something we are trying to push with >>> the Brazilian Civil Rights Framework, to avoid the chilling effect. The >>> battle will take place in Congress soon. But, on the other hand, I think we >>> cannot minimize the importance of the parameters of "good behavior" set by >>> these global platforms, such as FB. I have a younger sister, and it amazes >>> me how the Internet for younger generations is restricted to platforms like >>> FB and apps. They carry content to these platforms in a way that they are >>> the ones to intermediate digital reality for them. I think that rules >>> established on ToRs are able to influence and modulate, very subtly, >>> cultural ideas, such as the idea of morality. And the importance of this >>> cannot be underestimated and it justifies the discussion of this topic, as >>> much as the topic of intermediaries. >>> >>> >> >>> 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. >>> >> >> Sala: I raised this question to highlight that Facebook exist in an >> ecosystem where their actions are affected by third party influences or >> regulatory influences. Some would argue that there are diverse influences >> that drive political agenda whether civil society driven, or commercially >> driven. It is generally accepted in most democratic countries that laws >> merely reflect the pulse of the people. The exception of course is >> countries that have illegitimate governments such as those that have been >> usurped through Coup D' Etats and tyranny. >> >> >>> Two points. First, I do not think that is up to FB to give concreteness >>> to a notion of nudity or obscenity. >>> >> >> Sala: I think we need to re-visit the Terms of Service [ see: >> http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms]. When people sign up, they sign up >> knowing what is permitted and not permitted and have the "Free will" to >> disengage. >> I have copied a section from their Terms of Service,see below: >> >> *3. Safety* >> >> We do our best to keep Facebook safe, but we cannot guarantee it. We need >> your help to do that, which includes the following commitments: >> >> 1. You will not send or otherwise post unauthorized commercial >> communications (such as spam) on Facebook. >> 2. You will not collect users' content or information, or otherwise >> access Facebook, using automated means (such as harvesting bots, robots, >> spiders, or scrapers) without our permission. >> 3. You will not engage in unlawful multi-level marketing, such as a >> pyramid scheme, on Facebook. >> 4. You will not upload viruses or other malicious code. >> 5. You will not solicit login information or access an account >> belonging to someone else. >> 6. You will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user. >> 7. You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or >> pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous >> violence. >> 8. You will not develop or operate a third-party application >> containing alcohol-related or other mature content (including >> advertisements) without appropriate age-based restrictions. >> 9. You will follow our Promotions Guidelines and >> all applicable laws if you publicize or offer any contest, giveaway, or >> sweepstakes (“promotion”) on Facebook. >> 10. You will not use Facebook to do anything unlawful, misleading, >> malicious, or discriminatory. >> 11. You will not do anything that could disable, overburden, or >> impair the proper working of Facebook, such as a denial of service attack. >> 12. You will not facilitate or encourage any violations of this >> Statement. >> >> >> >>> 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. >>> >> Sala: The point is to see if there is any logic. If we moved away from >> the online world and consider organizations and clubs who impose rules on >> their members, is it reasonable to expect a certain type of rule or code >> imposed on those who willingly choose to subscribe. How different should it >> be for an ordinary entity in the ecosystem. There are many other social >> networks aside from Facebook that one can go to if one does not like the >> rules. On the other hand, we see how European Privacy Regulators have >> effectively intervened where Facebook has violated some of these rights. >> >> >> >>> Second, I personally do not care to which country law they are complying >>> with. >>> >> >> Sala: I understand but when an assertion is made that just because >> Facebook is a private company it exists to derive a profit at the expense >> of public interest, is on one view misleading if one does not show the >> holistic picture of what may be causing them to behave in a certain >> fashion. >> >>> 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. >>> >> Sala: I suppose this is how inventions, innovations are birthed. When one >> is dissatisfied with the status quo or with what currently exists and >> dreams of a better way. This is where you can start an alternative social >> network and create your own rules. As someone who is also an advocate >> against violence against women and children, I do not see any correlation >> to the advocacy work. There are more "concrete" ways to lodge the battle >> against violence from a National Framework perspective such as >> strengthening and making consistent sources of statistics, improving access >> to justice delivery systems having robust community intake centers, >> ensuring that governments prioritize and allocate finances etc. I was very >> impressed with how the District Superior Courts in Washington D.C after >> analysing statistics and noting that the incidence of violence seemed to be >> coming from the SE Quadrant came up with the idea to establish a Community >> Intake Center and Satellite technology where victims could access a Judge >> for emergency protection orders. [See:United Medical Center >> 1328 Southern Avenue, SE, Suite 311,Washington, DC]. If we examine what >> occurred in Toronto that sparked the entire "March", it was the comments of >> a Police Officer which imputes a certain level of "insensitivity". Police >> Insensitivity is a global phenomenon and even New York had its share and >> sadly recently in Colorado, Jessica Gonzalez lost her children because the >> Police did not effect a restraining order. She took State to Court and it >> reached the Supreme Court and although they ruled against her, she won her >> matter when they took it to the Inter American Commission on Human Rights >> where the Commission said that the United States had a responsibility to >> Jessica. >> >> 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. >>> >> Sala: I respect your perspective even if I disagree. >> >> >>> It just reinforces the conservative forces we are trying to fight. >>> >> >> Sala: Why fight, when we can live in harmony? Everything has a place. The >> quiet stream in the middle of the rainforest and the loud volcano erupting >> are all part of one big ecosystem. >> >>> So, FB juridical compliance with some country's law is translating into >>> a political setback here. >>> >>> Sala: I respectfully disagree. >> >> 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. >>> >> >> Sala: No one ever said that we should only see the ankles of women on FB. >> What we should be discussing is how to tackle the abuse of the exception >> under Article 19 of the ICCPR. >> >> >>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu May 31 18:25:24 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 00:25:24 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: (salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com) References: <21B81E06-CC98-493D-A594-4E64F4F4F46C@privaterra.org> <4FC65B85.7040307@cafonso.ca> <4FC6FE88.3030809@apcwomen.org> <4FC721EE.5020209@uni-graz.at> Message-ID: <20120531222524.45A641F5A@quill.bollow.ch> Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > 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. > > Sala: The point is to see if there is any logic. If we moved away from the > online world and consider organizations and clubs who impose rules on their > members, is it reasonable to expect a certain type of rule or code imposed > on those who willingly choose to subscribe. How different should it be for > an ordinary entity in the ecosystem. There are many other social networks > aside from Facebook that one can go to if one does not like the rules. If the people with whom I wish to communicate use Facebook, the existence of any number of other social network sites is irrelevant. 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. So I would definitely assert that Facebook Inc has a dangerously massive amount of power, which is not effectively mitigated by the fact that people choose to subscribe or not - and even registered users of Facebook have the choice to actively use it or not. (I have a facebook account and some "facebook friends" just for the purpose of making it more difficult for anyone else to register in my name and impersonate me; for reasons unrelated to the present discussion I do not actively use facebook otherwise.) However, as long as Facebook Inc is only restricting the kinds of pictures that users may *post* on facebook, but not what pictures may be posted on other sites that facebook users may then link to, then it doesn't seem to me that Facebook Inc's massive amount of power is actually being (ab)used here. In fact I suspect that this spat might quite by itself, without any kind of explicit Internet governance action, have a positive educational effect in educating people that the Internet is bigger than facebook. > > What is the solution? It can't be one size fits all, otherwise we will only > > see ankles of women in FB. > > Sala: No one ever said that we should only see the ankles of women on FB. > What we should be discussing is how to tackle the abuse of the exception > under Article 19 of the ICCPR. What avenues of potential action regarding this are available to us currently? What further avenues of action to address such an issue could potentially in addition become available through a good implementation of Enhanced Cooperation? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu May 31 22:25:23 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 22:25:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns Message-ID: 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Thu May 31 22:56:12 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 23:56:12 -0300 Subject: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Regardless of the clear problems that underlay ITU process, it is always amazing how this issue always comes down to good govs X bad govs, with the US government playing the benevolent hero and the protector of liberties. Their own regulatory initiatives, ACTA, SOPA, PIPA say otherwise... Moreover, if dialogue is to be established, it is important to recognize the obvious: a) there is no way to justify US privilege position with ICANN. That needs to be changed; b) there are global issues being discussed by small groups of actors. That needs to be changed. By admitting that we would be clearing the ground for a possible dialogue. How can we improve governance without disturbing the functioning of the Internet and how we can include actors that need to be included, governments and other stakeholders? Marília On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 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 > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Thu May 31 23:06:10 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 00:06:10 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <20120530152644.04F911F5A@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> Message-ID: Hi Norbert, 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. It would be great if we could refine this proposal and define a concrete way forward. Marília On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > parminder wrote: > > > I think there are two key sides of the EC issue - (1) on tech gov side, > > the current unilateral oversight of CIRs is the main issue, and some > > concerns about capture of tech standards bodies an additional issue (2) > > on the side of social, eco, cultural policies pertaining to the > > Internet, with global significance, the kind of work OECD's Committee on > > ICCP does is the main focus, along with other instances of uni- and > > pluri-lateralism, and also increasing dominance of private regulation.... > > I agree that it is important to keep these two aspects in mind, and to > be careful to avoid misunderstandings where some of the participants > in a conversation are thinking about only one of these aspects and other > participants are thinking only about the other of these aspects. > > But I don't think that it is a good idea to structure any discussion of > Enhanced Cooperation into first addressing one of these aspects and > then addressing the other aspect. > > > If anyone want to suggest some other schema, sure, it is most welcome. > > How about the following? > > 1. Building a shared understanding of the set of problems for which > Enhanced Cooperation should provide better solutions > > (a) What is unacceptable / intolerable in the status quo of > existing Internet governance institutions and processes? > > (b) What are the problems for which the existing Internet > governance institutions and processes have failed to > deliver adequate solutions? > > (c) What are the areas in which copperation of countries on > a smaller than global level (e.g. regional coopration or > cooperation of countries facing similar economic challenges) > might be productive? > > 2. Building a shared understanding of what makes these problems > difficult > > (a) What has prevented adequate solutions for these problems > from emerging before now? > > (b) Documentation of the solution attempts that have been > undertaken so far. > > 3. Proposals of principles, institutional mechanisms and processes > for Enhanced Cooperation > > (a) What are the proposals? > > (b) In what ways will these propasals, if implemented, improve > the situation? > > > But we must first develop a basic level of agreement on categories and > > key issue areas for discussion before we try to seek substantive > > convergences on the way forward, solutions, appropriate institutional > > models etc. > > There is a lot of truth in this, yes, but on the other hand there > isn't going to be a lot of motivation for working towards agreement > on categories and key issue areas for discussion before there is a > vision, a living hope that it will indeed be possible to achieve > something worthwhile under the theme of "Enhanced Cooperation". > > I have this hope now, while before I had this, I didn't have much > interest in participating in a debate on the fundamentals for this. > > 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 > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pwilson at apnic.net Thu May 31 23:14:42 2012 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 13:14:42 +1000 Subject: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On a related matter, here are c-span archives of the recent US Congressional hearing on UN and Internet Regulation, and a related session held at the National Press Club: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/InternationalInte http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/NationsInt FYI Paul. On 01/06/2012, at 12:25 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 ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 1906 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 aizu at anr.org Tue May 1 02:03:55 2012 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 15:03:55 +0900 Subject: [governance] May 14 meeting in Geneva? In-Reply-To: <4F9F0911.2010700@nupef.org.br> References: <4C024C87-2999-42E7-943C-C3D201133A45@ella.com> <4F9EE7C5.5030702@eff.org> <4F9F0911.2010700@nupef.org.br> Message-ID: Sorry to miss you, Graciela, but this is only one meeting out of many there. izumi 2012/5/1 Graciela Selaimen : > Dear all, > > Unfortunately, due to previously scheduled commitments, I won't be able to > be in Geneve for the MAG meeting. > > best regards, > Graciela Selaimen > Instituto Nupef > > Em 4/30/12 4:28 PM, Katitza Rodriguez escreveu: > >> I'll there from Saturday 12 until Friday 18. >> >> On 4/30/12 3:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>> i will be there and all things equal will attend the meeting. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> On 26 Apr 2012, at 20:30, Izumi AIZU wrote: >>> >>>> I wonder how many from us are coming to Geneva for WSIS week and also >>>> IGF >>>> MAG open consultation and also the Enhanced Cooperation workshop >>>> on May 18. >>>> >>>> I like to propose a meeting in the afternoon on May 14, to prepare >>>> for the MAG meeting >>>> >>>> Could you please indicate here if you are coming to Geneva that time, >>>> when to arrive and also if able to attend this prep meeting on May 14, >>>> Monday. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> izumi >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> > > -- > Graciela Selaimen > Instituto Nupef > www.nupef.org.br > www.politics.org.br > www.rets.org.br > www.tiwa.org.br > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 aizu at anr.org Tue May 1 02:07:53 2012 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 15:07:53 +0900 Subject: [governance] May 14 meeting in Geneva? In-Reply-To: <00a401cd26d7$0f83ea60$2e8bbf20$@diplomacy.edu> References: <4F9A9152.4000900@eff.org> <005001cd251c$87fe89d0$97fb9d70$@planet.tn> <00a401cd26d7$0f83ea60$2e8bbf20$@diplomacy.edu> Message-ID: Dear Vlada and all, As suggested by Qusai and Vlada, may I propose to shift our meeting time to 1800-1930 ish? As WSIS Forum is scheduled to end on 1800, this is still a challenge, but we don't want to run late either especially for the late comers thus it is a kind of compromise. And thanks Diplo for being so flexible. izumi Unless there is strong objection, we will do so. 2012/4/30 Vladimir Radunovic : > Izumi, > > > > latter time suggested by Qusai would also suit me since I should arrive to > Geneva by 7pm only. If you start 6pm or latter I could join you (at least > for a part of the meeting and dinner). > > > > Best! > > > >                 Vlada > > > > > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Qusai AlShatti > Sent: 28 April 2012 12:31 > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Izumi AIZU > Subject: Re: [governance] May 14 meeting in Geneva? > > > > Dear Izumi & all: > > I will be there too. Thank you for the effort to arrange this meeting. I > would kindly request to shift the meeting time from 16:00-18:00 to > 18:00-20:00. I am requesting this because there is a session about > Partnership on measuring ICT for development which will take place between > 14:45 - 18:00 and I am planning to attend it. > > > > Beside if we end the meeting on 20:00, it will be more suitable time for > dinner. If the place is an issue, I will be staying at the Epsom manotel and > we can meet there. It is close to rue Lausanne. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Qusai AlShatti > > > > > On Saturday, April 28, 2012, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > Dear all, > Jovan Kurbalija of DiploFoundation kindly agreed to our request for > the meeting room. > So we will have a preparatory meeting followed by an optional dinner > at the nearby > restaurant. > > Time/Date: 16:00 - 18:00      Monday, May 14, > Venue: DiploFoundation > 56, Rue de Lausanne. Geneva > Phone:+41 22 741 0420 > > Please send your ideas about the topics we like to discuss there. > > izumi > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > --                         >> 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue May 1 04:58:05 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 09:58:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: <4F9EB51C.2050609@eff.org> References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <4F9EB51C.2050609@eff.org> Message-ID: In message <4F9EB51C.2050609 at eff.org>, at 11:51:56 on Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Katitza Rodriguez writes >Another unknown rule for me was the one that was applied to ONI when >they run their workshop in Egypt releasing the finding of their report >about Internet Censorship. Suddenly, an unknown rule was applied to >them without many of us not knowing that this rule exist. Was that the fracas arising from what UN officials allegedly saw as a "commercial" book launch, with commerce being banned from such meetings (although that's a better known rule for people with space in the "Village" than people holding what was reported at the time as a "reception" rather than a "workshop"). -- 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 Tue May 1 05:03:46 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 10:03:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN Wraps Up Prague Meeting on Thursday In-Reply-To: <9601A350-5E1A-429D-9ECF-B39E12417917@istaff.org> References: <9601A350-5E1A-429D-9ECF-B39E12417917@istaff.org> Message-ID: <$aQWEplyb6nPFAIb@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <9601A350-5E1A-429D-9ECF-B39E12417917 at istaff.org>, at 15:52:23 on Mon, 30 Apr 2012, John Curran writes >> The Friday morning program, which in the past has comprised AC/SO >>committee reports, Board committee reports, and the public Board >>meeting, has been removed. Was there any discussion in Costa Rica about moving the first day of the meeting to Sunday (currently it's been ever more creeping into Saturday)? Even if that meant having a Sunday-Friday meeting with the Welcome Ceremony remaining on Monday? -- 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 Tue May 1 05:54:36 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 17:54:36 +0800 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <4F9EB51C.2050609@eff.org> Message-ID: <99B43E30-E7F4-4F57-9CB7-E001BD36B34A@ciroap.org> On 01/05/2012, at 4:58 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4F9EB51C.2050609 at eff.org>, at 11:51:56 on Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Katitza Rodriguez writes >> Another unknown rule for me was the one that was applied to ONI when they run their workshop in Egypt releasing the finding of their report about Internet Censorship. Suddenly, an unknown rule was applied to them without many of us not knowing that this rule exist. > > Was that the fracas arising from what UN officials allegedly saw as a "commercial" book launch, with commerce being banned from such meetings (although that's a better known rule for people with space in the "Village" than people holding what was reported at the time as a "reception" rather than a "workshop"). Actually a few ex post facto justifications were proffered to justify the clamp-down on the launch, but the one the Secretariat ran with was that there is a "no posters" rule at the UN. Then the following day, at another book launch, I took a photo of erstwhile IGF Executive Coordinator Markus Kummer happily sipping champagne under a very similar poster. Similar except for the fact that it wasn't about China: http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/markus-kummers-hypocrisy. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy and Project 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue May 1 07:03:04 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 12:03:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: <99B43E30-E7F4-4F57-9CB7-E001BD36B34A@ciroap.org> References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <4F9EB51C.2050609@eff.org> <99B43E30-E7F4-4F57-9CB7-E001BD36B34A@ciroap.org> Message-ID: In message <99B43E30-E7F4-4F57-9CB7-E001BD36B34A at ciroap.org>, at 17:54:36 on Tue, 1 May 2012, Jeremy Malcolm writes > >Was that the fracas arising from what UN officials allegedly saw as a >"commercial" book launch, with commerce being banned from such meetings >(although that's a better known rule for people with space in the >"Village" than people holding what was reported at the time as a >"reception" rather than a "workshop"). > >Actually a few ex post facto justifications were proffered to justify >the clamp-down on the launch, but the one the Secretariat ran with was >that there is a "no posters" rule at the UN.  Then the following day, >at another book launch, I took a photo of erstwhile IGF Executive >Coordinator Markus Kummer happily sipping champagne under a very >similar poster.  Similar except for the fact that it wasn't about >China: http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/markus-kummers-hypocrisy. Is GISWatch2009 a commercial venture, and displaying a poster outside it's allocated room? I'm trying hard not to take sides here, but to the extent that I think the stated problem was [unapproved] *commercial* banners, and outside the room, what happened in both cases could be consistent with that rule. [Although on site at the time, I missed the excitement at first hand] Do you at least agree it wasn't a "workshop"? I know it sounds pedantic, but attention to details like this can be very important. I recall a discussion which went on for days, and was vitally important to several stakeholders, about whether a particular ITU resolution should mention "members" or "Members" [of the ITU], such is the playing field we work on. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Tue May 1 07:28:46 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 07:28:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN Wraps Up Prague Meeting on Thursday In-Reply-To: <$aQWEplyb6nPFAIb@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <9601A350-5E1A-429D-9ECF-B39E12417917@istaff.org> <$aQWEplyb6nPFAIb@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: On May 1, 2012, at 5:03 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <9601A350-5E1A-429D-9ECF-B39E12417917 at istaff.org>, at 15:52:23 on Mon, 30 Apr 2012, John Curran writes > >>> The Friday morning program, which in the past has comprised AC/SO >>> committee reports, Board committee reports, and the public Board >>> meeting, has been removed. > > Was there any discussion in Costa Rica about moving the first day of the meeting to Sunday (currently it's been ever more creeping into Saturday)? Even if that meant having a Sunday-Friday meeting with the Welcome Ceremony remaining on Monday? Roland - I have no idea what options were considered, but there was significant talk in the hallways (and also during the open Board/committee report sessions) that revising the format was under discussion. FYI, /John -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue May 1 09:56:19 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 14:56:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN Wraps Up Prague Meeting on Thursday In-Reply-To: References: <9601A350-5E1A-429D-9ECF-B39E12417917@istaff.org> <$aQWEplyb6nPFAIb@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: In message , at 07:28:46 on Tue, 1 May 2012, John Curran writes >>>> The Friday morning program, which in the past has comprised AC/SO >>>> committee reports, Board committee reports, and the public Board >>>> meeting, has been removed. >> >> Was there any discussion in Costa Rica about moving the first day of the meeting to Sunday (currently it's been ever more creeping into >>Saturday)? Even if that meant having a Sunday-Friday meeting with the Welcome Ceremony remaining on Monday? > >Roland - > > I have no idea what options were considered, No doubt there are some minutes from relevant meetings somewhere on the website. I support change which makes the meeting better, but would have appreciated the opportunity to comment. In this case, reducing the meeting back down to six days is a good thing, it's just "which six days"! As a remote participant to the Costa Rica meeting I was unaware of any of this. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue May 1 10:08:32 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 10:08:32 -0400 Subject: Now called: Compiling guideline points Re: [governance] May consultation: IGC input RP and access In-Reply-To: <4F9E9E29.3050206@diplomacy.edu> References: <4F9E9E29.3050206@diplomacy.edu> Message-ID: Speaking particularly to Jovan's mention of 'hubs' - one of the recurring themes in the IGC space is that the IGF is not and should not be considered as a meeting held once a year to discuss internet governance issues. Rather it is a continuing process of dialogue. That being the case, it would be desirable that the hubs should exist within the same context - that is they should be active all the time to extend the internet governance discussion into the global community/communities. The IGF has spread outwards into regional and local IGFs; now perhaps micro-local, geographic community level IG discussion needs to be encouraged, together with the wider ranging community of interest groupings that can be facilitated by the technology. The problems come with how to foster and encourage continuing discussion and how to aggregate and synthesise the resulting ideas so that they can be shared continually and considered by the widest possible community. I seem to have an aptitude for dreaming impossible dreams :-( But it should be possible to make a start by considering the hubs as 'permanent' creations which attempt to keep the discussion active throughout the year with the 'reward' of the camaraderie which can be occasioned by remote participation at the big annual meeting. Ideally the hubs are up and running now and ready to participate. Deirdre On 30 April 2012 10:14, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > Following up on Adam's invitation to discuss, here are a few comments on > IGF RP.... > > It is good that we are moving out of Parento's formula of having 20% of > investment (people, training) contributing 80% to the success of remote > participation. The CSTD paper is a good blend of summarising experience > over the last 6 years and paving the way for the future development. The RP > process proves the importance of organic and bottom-up policy making. > > Here are a few more concrete comments: > > - One can see cross-fertilisation among different policy spaces. ICANN, > which introduced transcription into the IG policy space, has effective RP. > The WSIS Forum has introduced also highly functional RP. Last week, INET > had both RP and remote hubs. Each policy space has its own specificities, > but there is a lot of possibilities for learning from each other. At the > next WSIS Forum there will be a session on e-participation. Ginger will > maintain the tradition of RP-workshop at the IGF Baku, as well. Diplo has > been trying to promote e-participation in other policy spaces in the > context of the project "20 years of e-diplomacy". The first discussions are > highly encouraging. > > - Since the "venue" problems are identified and will be fixed, the main > challenge will be to have effective local hubs. The key contribution of > e-participation will be in linking global/regional IG debates to the local > policy context. The benefits will flow both ways from global to local > (understanding the wider policy context) and from local to global (having > reality check about policy discussions). Local hubs should be part of the > local policy processes as well. I am sure that Ginger, Marilia, Bernard, > Vlada and other conveyers of local hubs can develop the recommendations for > the sub-section on local hubs. > > - E-facilitation and local hubs are one the ways to engage "silent > majority". The more IGF moves beyond traditional IGF circles, the more > relevant it will be to the world at large. Typically, the e-IGF attracts > the most active people on social media. But, e-facilitators - especially in > local hubs - should engage people beyond the "usual circles". In the > build-up for the IGF, local hubs should facilitate discussion on the most > pressing local issues. > > - We should develop some sort of incentives for local hubs facilitators. > It could be participation in the next IGF for the most successful hubs and > publishing of reports from the local hubs. Last year we ran a pilot course > on e-facilitation. The results were good, and successful participants > received a certificate, which some of them used for e-facilitation in other > policy spaces. This could be also another encouragement. > > I reiterate Ginger's offer of Diplo support if we can help in any way. I > look forward to the continued discussion. > > Regards, Jovan > > > On 4/30/12 3:53 PM, Keisha Taylor wrote: > > Hi All, > > I like the ideas listed below. I think that the inclusion of social media > should be more formally introduced as part of remote participation so that > even if the sessions sometimes do not reach people (for > technical/timezone/bandwidth etc issues), the conversations surrounding the > sessions can reach a much bigger audience even if the actual sessions were > missed. > > I also think that it may be useful to use the IGF to gage opinions or > insight on various issues from not only IGF attendees but from those who > cannot attend. This be through surveys or other lightweight but effective > initiatives. The results of this I think can provide some very interesting > insight. > > Best > > Keisha > > On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Hello everyone, and thanks for taking this important discussion >> seriously. >> >> Adam Peake suggested we start a formal set of guidelines or input to the >> IGF Remote Participation and Access issues for Baku. >> There have been great suggestions already, which I have compiled below. >> If anything is missing, please let us/me know. I add any additional >> comments, and will put this in a more coherent format before the end of the >> week. >> >> Ginger: Support the DCAD on access issues as RP and access are closely >> linked Deidre says: Avoid conflating the issues >> Have a liason between RP working group or others who are working on RP >> with Bernard or the IGF secretariat, to facilitate coordination of >> volunteer efforts. >> Ask that experienced and new interested MAG members organize to support >> these issues (Katitza? Vlada? others?) >> Add the guidelines and principles from previous IGF workshops. >> >> Anriette Esterhuysen: refer to the report of the CSTD working >> group on IGF improvements: >> >> 2. Enhance measures for broader participation >> >> 42. Remote participation is an integral part of the IGF. While remote >> participation has improved, in particular through remote moderators and >> hubs, there is still room for improvement in the following areas: >> >> (a) The Secretariat should continue to ensure the availability of >> adequate technical and human resources, including remote moderators; >> (b) Chairs and moderators should give remote and on-site participants >> equal recognition and the opportunity to participate; >> >> (c) Low-bandwidth connections to remote participation tools should be >> accommodated; >> >> (d) Linguistic diversity in remote participation should be fostered by >> ensuring that online meeting platforms interface with on-site >> interpretation; >> >> (e) Mechanisms that facilitate remote participation, such as live >> transcripts, should be kept as an integral part of the IGF. Such >> mechanisms are invaluable not only to remote participants, but also to >> non-English-speakers and to people with disabilities, whether they are >> on site or not. >> >> 43. It is important to ensure the accessibility of the IGF’s facilities >> to persons with disabilities. >> >> 44. To improve participation in the IGF of diverse linguistic and >> cultural groups, it is important to expand linguistic diversity >> functions in the work of the IGF. For example, this could be achieved by >> (resources permitting): >> >> (a) Increasing the translation of key documents into United Nations >> official languages; >> >> (b) Exploring the use of simultaneous machine translations based on >> realtime English transcripts; >> >> (c) Encouraging the use of any of the United Nations official languages, >> not only English, as the working language in some workshops. >> >> 3. Improve the online visibility and accessibility of the IGF >> >> 45. A first step in this direction should be to enhance the IGF’s >> website by providing interactive functionalities and making it more >> attractive and inclusive. It should also maintain its conformance with >> open standards and further improve accessibility to persons with >> disabilities. >> >> http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a67d65_en.pdf >> Deirdre William: identify and train moderators, consider some kind of >> recognition for volunteers >> Nnenna: Avoid last minute changes in programming, and consider how they >> affect in situ and RP when necessary >> Janna Anderson: Good lighting in the room helps RP images - Roland >> Perry: have to manage ppt/presentations in lighting as well. >> Tim Davies: Add social aggregator tool >> >> >> On 30 April 2012 08:18, Roland Perry wrote: >> >>> In message >> xfWm80Q at mail.gmail.com>, at 08:24:44 on Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Deirdre >>> Williams writes >>> >>>> I also think that we should look at RP the other way round too. >>>> Currently it isn't possible to make not being physically present the same >>>> as being physically present. Therefore we at least should be clear about >>>> what are MUST HAVES and what may come later. >>>> >>>> Also I think it is vital NOT TO conflate RP with access for people with >>>> disabilities. They are both separate and important issues, and both of them >>>> deserve individual attention >>>> >>> >>> My point is that the same solution is equally useful to either >>> community. I wasn't making a judgement about which community >>> "deserved" the solution more than the other. >>> -- >>> 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 >> >> > **** > -- “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 Tue May 1 12:31:17 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 17:31:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN Wraps Up Prague Meeting on Thursday In-Reply-To: <01f701cd27a5$41db4a70$c591df50$@palage.com> References: <9601A350-5E1A-429D-9ECF-B39E12417917@istaff.org> <$aQWEplyb6nPFAIb@internetpolicyagency.com> <01f701cd27a5$41db4a70$c591df50$@palage.com> Message-ID: <0amUkUPV$AoPFAQh@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <01f701cd27a5$41db4a70$c591df50$@palage.com>, at 10:18:17 on Tue, 1 May 2012, Michael D. Palage writes >I am also for increased efficiency , but the concern is about a growing lack >of transparency. Do you know how many ICANN Board meetings took place in >Costa Rica. You may be surprised to learn four. Two on March 14th >(http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-2-14mar12-en.htm >) and >(http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-14mar12-en.htm) >, one on March 15th >(http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-15mar12-en.htm) >and the ten minute joke of a meeting on March 16th >(http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-16mar12-en.htm) > >How many people on this list would have liked to have had some insight on >the Board discussion regarding conflicts of interest and the selection of >new gTLD providers? > >If the ICANN Board wants to meet in private fine, however, in such >circumstances transcripts for all Board meetings should be made available >within 72 hours that should allow ICANN's army of attorneys to redact any >sensitive information from the transcript. > >Thoughts comments? It seems to me to be more transparent to publish a series of closely consecutive board meetings than to indulge in what appeared to me, when I first started attending ICANN meetings, a convenient fiction that the Friday session was the first time that week the board had got together to discuss the issues. When you need to publish the minutes is a separate issue from the one of "when/where are the real meetings". -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From judyokite at gmail.com Tue May 1 12:34:08 2012 From: judyokite at gmail.com (Judy Okite) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 19:34:08 +0300 Subject: [governance] May 14 meeting in Geneva? In-Reply-To: References: <4F9A9152.4000900@eff.org> <005001cd251c$87fe89d0$97fb9d70$@planet.tn> <00a401cd26d7$0f83ea60$2e8bbf20$@diplomacy.edu> Message-ID: Please accept my apologies, I will be in Geneva, but my flight arrives after 18:00hrs on the 14th. Kind Regards, *“Don't undertake a project unless it is manifestly important and nearly impossible” Edwin Land* On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear Vlada and all, > > As suggested by Qusai and Vlada, may I propose to shift our meeting > time to 1800-1930 ish? > rs. > > As WSIS Forum is scheduled to end on 1800, this is still a challenge, > but we don't want to run late either especially for the late comers > thus it is a kind of compromise. > > And thanks Diplo for being so flexible. > > izumi > > > > Unless there is strong objection, we will do so. > > > > > 2012/4/30 Vladimir Radunovic : > > Izumi, > > > > > > > > latter time suggested by Qusai would also suit me since I should arrive > to > > Geneva by 7pm only. If you start 6pm or latter I could join you (at least > > for a part of the meeting and dinner). > > > > > > > > Best! > > > > > > > > Vlada > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Qusai > AlShatti > > Sent: 28 April 2012 12:31 > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Izumi AIZU > > Subject: Re: [governance] May 14 meeting in Geneva? > > > > > > > > Dear Izumi & all: > > > > I will be there too. Thank you for the effort to arrange this meeting. I > > would kindly request to shift the meeting time from 16:00-18:00 to > > 18:00-20:00. I am requesting this because there is a session about > > Partnership on measuring ICT for development which will take place > between > > 14:45 - 18:00 and I am planning to attend it. > > > > > > > > Beside if we end the meeting on 20:00, it will be more suitable time for > > dinner. If the place is an issue, I will be staying at the Epsom manotel > and > > we can meet there. It is close to rue Lausanne. > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > > > > Qusai AlShatti > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, April 28, 2012, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > Jovan Kurbalija of DiploFoundation kindly agreed to our request for > > the meeting room. > > So we will have a preparatory meeting followed by an optional dinner > > at the nearby > > restaurant. > > > > Time/Date: 16:00 - 18:00 Monday, May 14, > > Venue: DiploFoundation > > 56, Rue de Lausanne. Geneva > > Phone:+41 22 741 0420 > > > > Please send your ideas about the topics we like to discuss there. > > > > izumi > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Tue May 1 13:34:03 2012 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 12:34:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN Wraps Up Prague Meeting on Thursday In-Reply-To: <0amUkUPV$AoPFAQh@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <9601A350-5E1A-429D-9ECF-B39E12417917@istaff.org> <$aQWEplyb6nPFAIb@internetpolicyagency.com> <01f701cd27a5$41db4a70$c591df50$@palage.com>,<0amUkUPV$AoPFAQh@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174EB@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Here's my response to the announcement on an ICANN list: - Carlton Samuels ==================================================== I'm sure I may be in the minority to bemoan the passing of the usual 'public' Friday morning ICANN Board meeting. Let us be clear I'm not just hopped off the truck here. I'm familiar enough with these matters to recognize it for what it is principally intended; theatre. But in the ICANN context, even crafted theatre has its role. First, I truly believe that for a claimed multistakeholder organisation and while the 'public' board meeting may not have been all it could be, it was an important indicator or attribute of the MSM, especially having regard the global public interest. Secondly, even if the votes are already taken, there existed an outside chance that one may witness truly revealing 'body language' of participants. Maybe its because for most of my life I have always straddled several socio-political realities. But I am socialized to be ever mindful that one may 'feel the hand of Esau even as you hear the voice of Jacob'. I can still hear Susan Crawford's cathartic farewell speech in 2008. It was remarkable, the response in body language of several board members told a story. I will concede it may not mean much, then and there. Aferall, the deed is done and the die is cast. But when the 'fire next time' comes, it is instructive. - Carlton Samuels ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 12:31 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN Wraps Up Prague Meeting on Thursday In message <01f701cd27a5$41db4a70$c591df50$@palage.com>, at 10:18:17 on Tue, 1 May 2012, Michael D. Palage writes >I am also for increased efficiency , but the concern is about a growing lack >of transparency. Do you know how many ICANN Board meetings took place in >Costa Rica. You may be surprised to learn four. Two on March 14th >(http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-2-14mar12-en.htm >) and >(http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-14mar12-en.htm) >, one on March 15th >(http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-15mar12-en.htm) >and the ten minute joke of a meeting on March 16th >(http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-16mar12-en.htm) > >How many people on this list would have liked to have had some insight on >the Board discussion regarding conflicts of interest and the selection of >new gTLD providers? > >If the ICANN Board wants to meet in private fine, however, in such >circumstances transcripts for all Board meetings should be made available >within 72 hours that should allow ICANN's army of attorneys to redact any >sensitive information from the transcript. > >Thoughts comments? It seems to me to be more transparent to publish a series of closely consecutive board meetings than to indulge in what appeared to me, when I first started attending ICANN meetings, a convenient fiction that the Friday session was the first time that week the board had got together to discuss the issues. When you need to publish the minutes is a separate issue from the one of "when/where are the real meetings". -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue May 1 14:02:38 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 15:02:38 -0300 Subject: [governance] May consultation: IGC input In-Reply-To: References: <00c501cd26d8$5e5f7cc0$1b1e7640$@diplomacy.edu> Message-ID: Hi Adam and all, Regarding Remote participation, I believe it is important to raise three main topics that need to be organized early: a) technical resources on the ground (infrastructure, human resources); b) training for moderators and for remote speakers (workshop organizers need call the attention of the Secretariat if they plan to have remote speakers); c) call for hub registration and support to hub organizers. Bernard Sadaka from the Remote Participation Working Group has been assisting the secretariat with the technical aspects and he will be in Geneva for the OC and the MAG, I suggest that we contact him. Vladimir also has lot of experience with RP in EuroDIG and it will be excellent if he could help mainstream it in MAG. Of course, the main points can be put on a concise input, but I also think we should always refer to the CSTD report on improvements. That recognizes the importance of the document and many of the points to be improved in RP are encompassed there. Marília On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > On the issue of Remote Participation, please note that the IGC had widely > consulted and collaborated on a Statement which is available via the IGC > website. > See: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/47 > > > Please feel free to draw from this statement as consensus was reached on > the matter etc as notably there are some aspects of our statement that is > not included in the CSTD Report which should be raised in the discussions. > > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Vladimir Radunovic wrote: > >> Adam, thanks for raising the issue. I have just shared these few >> proposals for the OC and MAG agenda with MAG list: Remote participation and >> accessibility for PWD as first.**** >> >> We will keep you all updated.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> As for reporting to the CS, let's start with what we have already: I will >> be tweeting via @vradunovic whenever applicable. Others from MAG may also >> share their twitter accounts or blogs if they blog regularly, and this can >> be a good start (without formal reports).**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Best,**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Vlada**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: >> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Judy Okite >> *Sent:* 30 April 2012 15:23 >> *To:* Adam Peake >> *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] May consultation: IGC input**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Thank you, Adam....will do. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> >> **** >> *“Don't undertake a project unless it is manifestly important and nearly >> impossible” Edwin Land***** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Adam Peake wrote:**** >> >> Judy, hi. >> >> Perhaps you could suggest on the MAG mailing list that there's a slot >> on the agenda of both the open consultation and the MAG meeting for >> discussion of accessibility. Could be part of the host country >> discussion of the venue. >> >> And could you or one of the other MAG members also suggest remote >> access also be discussed during both meetings. >> >> We don't need to develop proposals at the moment, just ask that the >> topics are on the agenda. >> >> Best, >> >> Adam**** >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 5:04 AM, Judy Okite wrote: >> > Hello Adam, Deidre, All, >> > >> > thank you, very much, just to let you know, we are taking notes and >> indeed, >> > the issues that you are raising are quite important. >> > >> > 1. on the PWD's and accessibility, DCAD forwarded recommendations to the >> > Secretariat, bearing in mind, the possibility of holding the forum in >> > three different venues. >> > >> > I strongly encourage these discussions. >> > >> > >> > Kind Regards, >> > >> > >> > >> > “Don't undertake a project unless it is manifestly important and nearly >> > impossible” Edwin Land >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Deirdre Williams >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 29 April 2012 05:47, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear Adam and everyone, >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> But for now I suggest we ask that remote access and accessibility of >> >>> the Baku venue be put on the agendas of both the open consultation and >> >>> the MAG meeting. >> >> >> >> >> >> Accessibility in Baku for everyone is extremely important, not just as >> a >> >> practical consideration but symbolically for the IGF itself. >> >> >> >> Last year in Nairobi the electricity supply (or lack of it) seemed to >> be >> >> one of the main technical factors affecting remote access - something >> >> important to remember for this year. >> >> >> >> On the human side the remote moderators are an essential link in the >> >> chain. The moderators in the workshops I 'attended' (from Saint Lucia) >> were >> >> a great help. >> >> However - moderators do need some training in their function and >> therefore >> >> the earlier they can be recruited the better AND moderation needs to be >> >> extended as much and as quickly as possible into languages other than >> >> English. >> >> >> >> Deirdre >> >> >> >>> >> >> -- >> >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >> William >> >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mail at christopherwilkinson.eu Tue May 1 15:56:55 2012 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 21:56:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN Wraps Up Prague Meeting on Thursday In-Reply-To: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174EB@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> References: <9601A350-5E1A-429D-9ECF-B39E12417917@istaff.org> <$aQWEplyb6nPFAIb@internetpolicyagency.com> <01f701cd27a5$41db4a70$c591df50$@palage.com>,<0amUkUPV$AoPFAQh@internetpolicyagency.com> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174EB@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Message-ID: + 1 CW I shall not be there. On 01 May 2012, at 19:34, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > Here's my response to the announcement on an ICANN list: > - Carlton Samuels > ==================================================== > > I'm sure I may be in the minority to bemoan the passing of the usual > 'public' Friday morning ICANN Board meeting. > > Let us be clear I'm not just hopped off the truck here. I'm familiar > enough with these matters to recognize it for what it is principally > intended; theatre. But in the ICANN context, even crafted theatre > has its role. > > First, I truly believe that for a claimed multistakeholder > organisation and while the 'public' board meeting may not have been > all it could be, it was an important indicator or attribute of the > MSM, especially having regard the global public interest. > > Secondly, even if the votes are already taken, there existed an > outside chance that one may witness truly revealing 'body language' > of participants. Maybe its because for most of my life I have > always straddled several socio-political realities. But I am > socialized to be ever mindful that one may 'feel the hand of Esau > even as you hear the voice of Jacob'. > > I can still hear Susan Crawford's cathartic farewell speech in > 2008. It was remarkable, the response in body language of several > board members told a story. I will concede it may not mean much, > then and there. Aferall, the deed is done and the die is cast. But > when the 'fire next time' comes, it is instructive. > > - Carlton Samuels > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > ] On Behalf Of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 12:31 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN Wraps Up Prague Meeting on Thursday > > In message <01f701cd27a5$41db4a70$c591df50$@palage.com>, at 10:18:17 > on > Tue, 1 May 2012, Michael D. Palage writes >> I am also for increased efficiency , but the concern is about a >> growing lack >> of transparency. Do you know how many ICANN Board meetings took >> place in >> Costa Rica. You may be surprised to learn four. Two on March 14th >> (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-2-14mar12-en.htm >> ) and >> (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-14mar12-en.htm >> ) >> , one on March 15th >> (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-15mar12-en.htm >> ) >> and the ten minute joke of a meeting on March 16th >> (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-16mar12-en.htm >> ) >> >> How many people on this list would have liked to have had some >> insight on >> the Board discussion regarding conflicts of interest and the >> selection of >> new gTLD providers? >> >> If the ICANN Board wants to meet in private fine, however, in such >> circumstances transcripts for all Board meetings should be made >> available >> within 72 hours that should allow ICANN's army of attorneys to >> redact any >> sensitive information from the transcript. >> >> Thoughts comments? > > It seems to me to be more transparent to publish a series of closely > consecutive board meetings than to indulge in what appeared to me, > when > I first started attending ICANN meetings, a convenient fiction that > the > Friday session was the first time that week the board had got together > to discuss the issues. > > When you need to publish the minutes is a separate issue from the > one of > "when/where are the real meetings". > -- > Roland Perry > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 1 18:03:02 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 22:03:02 +0000 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <4F9EB51C.2050609@eff.org> <99B43E30-E7F4-4F57-9CB7-E001BD36B34A@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD214F43D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > Is GISWatch2009 a commercial venture, and displaying a poster outside > it's allocated room? [Milton L Mueller] Roland, There is no serious doubt about the fact that China objected to Deibert's book launch because Deibert's work has really put Chinese censorship (and its cyber-espionage) into the spotlight. For example, there was no targeting of or objecting to my book launch, in Vilnius, even though it also contains material critical of China, simply because my stuff hasn't gotten the massive publicity that Deibert's exposure of Ghost net did. To call Deibert's book a "commercial venture" is pretty ridiculous given that it's an academic press and is about dissemination of ideas rather than profit. Of course, you have to pay for books because they cost money, but that does not a commercial venture make, any more than APC's fundraising oriented reception-release of its GIS program is commercial. IGF staff at various levels have all but admitted to me that as an intergovernmental entity the UN is constrained in this way. > I'm trying hard not to take sides here, but to the extent that I think > the stated problem was [unapproved] *commercial* banners, and outside > the room, what happened in both cases could be consistent with that > rule. [Milton L Mueller] See above. APC's reception was not in a room, it was in an area that was not enclosed, and thus the banner could be seen by any passerby. ONI simply put their banner outside the room so that people looking for it, or interested in it, would know where it was. This had happened before, it was not until China made an issue of it that a rule was suddenly invented and enforced. (Isn't it ridiculous to be debating this?) > Do you at least agree it wasn't a "workshop"? I know it sounds pedantic, [Milton L Mueller] It was a reception with food. And your point is...? > but attention to details like this can be very important. I recall a > discussion which went on for days, and was vitally important to several > stakeholders, about whether a particular ITU resolution should mention > "members" or "Members" [of the ITU], such is the playing field we work > on. [Milton L Mueller] It may be, but it is both unnecessary to make excuses or to invent post-hoc justifications for actions that are clearly intended to suppress the disseminations of critical ideas. Look, Roland, the IGF is supposed to be about fostering exchanges of ideas and networking among stakeholders. It is indisputable that the policies and practices you are retroactively inventing justifications for do neither. They are fundamentally at cross-purposes with the mission of the IGF. And if your response is that the UN system must act this way, then let's find a better space for these interactions. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jovank at diplomacy.edu Wed May 2 02:51:58 2012 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 08:51:58 +0200 Subject: Now called: Compiling guideline points Re: [governance] May consultation: IGC input RP and access In-Reply-To: References: <4F9E9E29.3050206@diplomacy.edu> Message-ID: <4FA0D98E.9000101@diplomacy.edu> Exactly, Deirdre, local hubs should be part of a sustained, ongoing process, as permanent as possible. But I do not think that one can/should impose any arrangement, especially in a bottom-up and volunteer process. People should be nudged into action, by showing that there is a possibility to link their local discussions and concerns to global policy making. Here a few possible reasons why hubs should be strengthened (in cooperation with other existing networks/frameworks): - to connect with people addressing similar issues worldwide (policy cross-fertilisation can be very useful; we feel better if we realise that our local problems are not unique, as we tend to believe). - to connect with global (IGF) and regional processes so participants see that their local efforts have some resonance in larger policy shaping environments. - to move beyond immediate social circles (communities - especially online - tend to look inwards and to gather people who think the same way); hubs should encourage diversity. Local hubs and similar forms of e-participation may also help in bridging the increasingly wide gap between local communities and regional/global policy processes. Regards, Jovan On 5/1/12 4:08 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Speaking particularly to Jovan's mention of 'hubs' - > > one of the recurring themes in the IGC space is that the IGF is not > and should not be considered as a meeting held once a year to discuss > internet governance issues. Rather it is a continuing process of dialogue. > > That being the case, it would be desirable that the hubs should exist > within the same context - that is they should be active all the time > to extend the internet governance discussion into the global > community/communities. The IGF has spread outwards into regional > and local IGFs; now perhaps micro-local, geographic community level > IG discussion needs to be encouraged, together with the wider ranging > community of interest groupings that can be facilitated by the technology. > > The problems come with how to foster and encourage continuing > discussion and how to aggregate and synthesise the resulting ideas so > that they can be shared continually and considered by the widest > possible community. > > I seem to have an aptitude for dreaming impossible dreams :-( > > But it should be possible to make a start by considering the hubs as > 'permanent' creations which attempt to keep the discussion active > throughout the year with the 'reward' of the camaraderie which can be > occasioned by remote participation at the big annual meeting. > > Ideally the hubs are up and running now and ready to participate. > > Deirdre > > On 30 April 2012 10:14, Jovan Kurbalija > wrote: > > Following up on Adam's invitation to discuss, here are a few > comments on IGF RP.... > > It is good that we are moving out of Parento's formula of having > 20% of investment (people, training) contributing 80% to the > success of remote participation. The CSTD paper is a good blend of > summarising experience over the last 6 years and paving the way > for the future development. The RP process proves the importance > of organic and bottom-up policy making. > > Here are a few more concrete comments: > > - One can see cross-fertilisation among different policy spaces. > ICANN, which introduced transcription into the IG policy space, > has effective RP. The WSIS Forum has introduced also highly > functional RP. Last week, INET had both RP and remote hubs. Each > policy space has its own specificities, but there is a lot of > possibilities for learning from each other. At the next WSIS Forum > there will be a session on e-participation. Ginger will maintain > the tradition of RP-workshop at the IGF Baku, as well. Diplo has > been trying to promote e-participation in other policy spaces in > the context of the project "20 years of e-diplomacy". The first > discussions are highly encouraging. > > - Since the "venue" problems are identified and will be fixed, the > main challenge will be to have effective local hubs. The key > contribution of e-participation will be in linking global/regional > IG debates to the local policy context. The benefits will flow > both ways from global to local (understanding the wider policy > context) and from local to global (having reality check about > policy discussions). Local hubs should be part of the local policy > processes as well. I am sure that Ginger, Marilia, Bernard, Vlada > and other conveyers of local hubs can develop the recommendations > for the sub-section on local hubs. > > - E-facilitation and local hubs are one the ways to engage "silent > majority". The more IGF moves beyond traditional IGF circles, the > more relevant it will be to the world at large. Typically, the > e-IGF attracts the most active people on social media. But, > e-facilitators - especially in local hubs - should engage people > beyond the "usual circles". In the build-up for the IGF, local > hubs should facilitate discussion on the most pressing local issues. > > - We should develop some sort of incentives for local hubs > facilitators. It could be participation in the next IGF for the > most successful hubs and publishing of reports from the local > hubs. Last year we ran a pilot course on e-facilitation. The > results were good, and successful participants received a > certificate, which some of them used for e-facilitation in other > policy spaces. This could be also another encouragement. > > I reiterate Ginger's offer of Diplo support if we can help in any > way. I look forward to the continued discussion. > > Regards, Jovan > > > On 4/30/12 3:53 PM, Keisha Taylor wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I like the ideas listed below. I think that the inclusion of >> social media should be more formally introduced as part of remote >> participation so that even if the sessions sometimes do not reach >> people (for technical/timezone/bandwidth etc issues), the >> conversations surrounding the sessions can reach a much bigger >> audience even if the actual sessions were missed. >> >> I also think that it may be useful to use the IGF to gage >> opinions or insight on various issues from not only IGF >> attendees but from those who cannot attend. This be through >> surveys or other lightweight but effective initiatives. The >> results of this I think can provide some very interesting insight. >> >> Best >> >> Keisha >> >> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Ginger Paque > > wrote: >> >> Hello everyone, and thanks for taking this important >> discussion seriously. >> >> Adam Peake suggested we start a formal set of guidelines or >> input to the IGF Remote Participation and Access issues for >> Baku. >> There have been great suggestions already, which I have >> compiled below. If anything is missing, please let us/me >> know. I add any additional comments, and will put this in a >> more coherent format before the end of the week. >> >> Ginger: Support the DCAD on access issues as RP and access >> are closely linked Deidre says: Avoid conflating the issues >> Have a liason between RP working group or others who are >> working on RP with Bernard or the IGF secretariat, to >> facilitate coordination of volunteer efforts. >> Ask that experienced and new interested MAG members organize >> to support these issues (Katitza? Vlada? others?) >> Add the guidelines and principles from previous IGF workshops. >> >> Anriette Esterhuysen: refer to the report of the CSTD working >> group on IGF improvements: >> >> 2. Enhance measures for broader participation >> >> 42. Remote participation is an integral part of the IGF. >> While remote >> participation has improved, in particular through remote >> moderators and >> hubs, there is still room for improvement in the following areas: >> >> (a) The Secretariat should continue to ensure the availability of >> adequate technical and human resources, including remote >> moderators; >> (b) Chairs and moderators should give remote and on-site >> participants >> equal recognition and the opportunity to participate; >> >> (c) Low-bandwidth connections to remote participation tools >> should be >> accommodated; >> >> (d) Linguistic diversity in remote participation should be >> fostered by >> ensuring that online meeting platforms interface with on-site >> interpretation; >> >> (e) Mechanisms that facilitate remote participation, such as live >> transcripts, should be kept as an integral part of the IGF. Such >> mechanisms are invaluable not only to remote participants, >> but also to >> non-English-speakers and to people with disabilities, whether >> they are >> on site or not. >> >> 43. It is important to ensure the accessibility of the IGF’s >> facilities >> to persons with disabilities. >> >> 44. To improve participation in the IGF of diverse linguistic and >> cultural groups, it is important to expand linguistic diversity >> functions in the work of the IGF. For example, this could be >> achieved by >> (resources permitting): >> >> (a) Increasing the translation of key documents into United >> Nations >> official languages; >> >> (b) Exploring the use of simultaneous machine translations >> based on >> realtime English transcripts; >> >> (c) Encouraging the use of any of the United Nations official >> languages, >> not only English, as the working language in some workshops. >> >> 3. Improve the online visibility and accessibility of the IGF >> >> 45. A first step in this direction should be to enhance the IGF’s >> website by providing interactive functionalities and making >> it more >> attractive and inclusive. It should also maintain its >> conformance with >> open standards and further improve accessibility to persons with >> disabilities. >> >> http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a67d65_en.pdf >> Deirdre William: identify and train moderators, consider some >> kind of recognition for volunteers >> Nnenna: Avoid last minute changes in programming, and >> consider how they affect in situ and RP when necessary >> Janna Anderson: Good lighting in the room helps RP images - >> Roland Perry: have to manage ppt/presentations in lighting as >> well. >> Tim Davies: Add social aggregator tool >> >> >> On 30 April 2012 08:18, Roland Perry >> > > wrote: >> >> In message >> > >, at 08:24:44 on Mon, 30 >> Apr 2012, Deirdre Williams > > writes >> >> I also think that we should look at RP the other way >> round too. Currently it isn't possible to make not >> being physically present the same as being physically >> present. Therefore we at least should be clear about >> what are MUST HAVES and what may come later. >> >> Also I think it is vital NOT TO conflate RP with >> access for people with disabilities. They are both >> separate and important issues, and both of them >> deserve individual attention >> >> >> My point is that the same solution is equally useful to >> either community. I wasn't making a judgement about which >> community >> "deserved" the solution more than the other. >> -- >> 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 >> >> > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir > William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -- *Jovan Kurbalija, PhD* Director, DiploFoundation Rue de Lausanne 56 *| *1202 Geneva*|***Switzerland *Tel.*+41 (0) 22 7410435 *| **Mobile.*+41 (0) 797884226 *Email: *jovank at diplomacy.edu *| **Twitter:*@jovankurbalija *The latest from Diplo:*From the fundamentals of diplomacy to the most prominent new trends: check our three online courses starting in May 2012: *Bilateral Diplomacy, Diplomacy of Small States, and E-diplomacy*. Apply now to reserve your place: http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ceo at bnnrc.net Wed May 2 03:09:40 2012 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 13:09:40 +0600 Subject: [governance] Bangladesh Consultation on 7th IGF, WSIS+10 & Broadband Targets for 2015 of Broadband Commission on Tuesday 8 May, 2012 at Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC), IEB Bhaban, Ramna, Dhaka 1000 Message-ID: *Bangladesh Consultation on 7th IGF, WSIS+10 & Broadband Targets for 2015 of Broadband Commission on Tuesday 8 May, 2012 * *at Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory **Commission (BTRC), IEB Bhaban, Ramna, Dhaka 1000* * * * * *Dear Madam/Sir,* Greetings from Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum (BIGF) Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum [Headed by Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee for Ministry of Post and Telecommunication] is an emerging OPEN multi-stakeholder inclusive effort to illuminate issues and cultivate constructive discussion about the internet in conjunction with the UN Internet Governance Forum (UN IGF). It provides a domestic independent forum in the Bangladesh to engage civil society, organization, government, corporate sector, technical, media and academia for fostering partnerships, coalitions and dialogues that would reveal the best practices and inform at policy level both at Local, National, Regional and Global level. It is our pleasure to invite you to the Bangladesh Consultation at the eve of the 7th Annual Meeting of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF), UN WSIS+10 [United Nations World Summit on the Information Society Forum 2012] and UN Broadband Commission for Digital Development *Tuesday 8 May, 2012 at 10:45 AM Meeting Room* *Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC)* *IEB Bhaban, Ramna, Dhaka 1000* Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum(BIGF) is organising Bangladesh Consultation in collaboration with Monthly Computer Jagat and Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication [NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council] Every day Internet is penetrating our life, bringing some more new ideas and making our lives easier and more comfortable. There are a lot of topics and ideas that the Internet brings to the agenda nationally and all those new trends should be duly discussed and agreed before widely stepping in and impacting the future. In this regard, we cordially invite all the participants to discuss with us the national implications of the ICT in Bangladesh and the trends of its future development. *Page-1* *Page-2* * * *Mr. Hasanul Haq Inu*, Hon’ble MP & Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee for Ministry of Post and Telecommunication has kindly consented to be present as Chief Guest. *Major General Zia Ahmed, psc (Retd.)*Chairman, Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission has kindly consented to be present as Special Guest in the consultation. *Dr. Akram H. Chowdhury, *Hon’ble* *MP and Chairperson, Centre for e-Parliament Research will moderate the Consultation. *Dr. Md. Mahfuz Ashraf*, Department of Management Information Systems, University of Dhaka, *Mr. Tarique M Barkatullah* of Bangladesh Computer Council, *Lieutenant Colonel Rakibul Hassan* of Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC), and *Mr. Reza Salim,*Director, Amader Gram- ICT for Development Project will present papers based on Bangladesh context on Internet Governance, WSIS+10 & Action Plan of Broadband Commission. The overall theme of the Bangladesh Consultation will be Internet Governance for Sustainable Human, Economic and Social Development, Overall Review of the Implementation of the WSIS Outcomes (WSIS+10) and Broadband Targets for 2015 . Bangladesh outcomes of Bangladesh Consultation will be shared to 7th Meeting of the UN Internet Governance Forum 6 to 9 November 2012, Baku, Azerbaijan, UN WSIS Forum 14 to 18 May 2012 in Geneva, Switzerland, UN Broadband Commission for Digital Development related next meeting and UN Commission for Science and Technology for Development (UN CSTD) 21 May 2012 - 25 May 2012 in Geneva, Switzerland. We are eagerly looking forward to your active participation and valued contribution towards Bangladesh Consultation. We look forward to welcoming you at the Bangladesh Consultation Process. With best Regards, Bazlu _______________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR Chief Executive Officer Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) [NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council] & Head, Community Radio Academy House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 Bangladesh Phone: +88-02-9130750, +88-02-9138501, Cell: +88 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105, E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net, bnnr cbd at gmail.com www.bnnrc.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 2 03:13:20 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 08:13:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD214F43D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <4F9EB51C.2050609@eff.org> <99B43E30-E7F4-4F57-9CB7-E001BD36B34A@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD214F43D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD214F43D at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, at 22:03:02 on Tue, 1 May 2012, Milton L Mueller writes >> Do you at least agree it wasn't a "workshop"? I know it sounds pedantic, > >[Milton L Mueller] It was a reception with food. And your point is...? A workshop is part of the official programme, and both interruptions and poorly briefed organisers would be more serious. >> but attention to details like this can be very important. I recall a >> discussion which went on for days, and was vitally important to several >> stakeholders, about whether a particular ITU resolution should mention >> "members" or "Members" [of the ITU], such is the playing field we work >> on. > >[Milton L Mueller] It may be, but it is both unnecessary to make excuses or to invent post-hoc justifications for actions that are clearly >intended to suppress the disseminations of critical ideas. > >Look, Roland, the IGF is supposed to be about fostering exchanges of ideas and networking among stakeholders. It is indisputable that the >policies and practices you are retroactively inventing justifications for do neither. They are fundamentally at cross-purposes with the mission >of the IGF. And if your response is that the UN system must act this way, then let's find a better space for these interactions. "When in Rome..." If you want to meet somewhere else, feel free. -- 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 tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Wed May 2 06:06:32 2012 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn) Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 11:06:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] May 14 meeting in Geneva? In-Reply-To: References: <4F9A9152.4000900@eff.org> <005001cd251c$87fe89d0$97fb9d70$@planet.tn> <00a401cd26d7$0f83ea60$2e8bbf20$@diplomacy.edu> Message-ID: <003301cd284b$403dc2a0$c0b947e0$@planet.tn> It's better for me too. ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 : izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] De la part de Izumi AIZU Envoyé : mardi 1 mai 2012 07:08 À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Vladimir Radunovic Objet : Re: [governance] May 14 meeting in Geneva? Dear Vlada and all, As suggested by Qusai and Vlada, may I propose to shift our meeting time to 1800-1930 ish? As WSIS Forum is scheduled to end on 1800, this is still a challenge, but we don't want to run late either especially for the late comers thus it is a kind of compromise. And thanks Diplo for being so flexible. izumi Unless there is strong objection, we will do so. 2012/4/30 Vladimir Radunovic : > Izumi, > > > > latter time suggested by Qusai would also suit me since I should > arrive to Geneva by 7pm only. If you start 6pm or latter I could join > you (at least for a part of the meeting and dinner). > > > > Best! > > > >                 Vlada > > > > > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Qusai > AlShatti > Sent: 28 April 2012 12:31 > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Izumi AIZU > Subject: Re: [governance] May 14 meeting in Geneva? > > > > Dear Izumi & all: > > I will be there too. Thank you for the effort to arrange this meeting. > I would kindly request to shift the meeting time from 16:00-18:00 to > 18:00-20:00. I am requesting this because there is a session about > Partnership on measuring ICT for development which will take place > between > 14:45 - 18:00 and I am planning to attend it. > > > > Beside if we end the meeting on 20:00, it will be more suitable time > for dinner. If the place is an issue, I will be staying at the Epsom > manotel and we can meet there. It is close to rue Lausanne. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Qusai AlShatti > > > > > On Saturday, April 28, 2012, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > Dear all, > Jovan Kurbalija of DiploFoundation kindly agreed to our request for > the meeting room. > So we will have a preparatory meeting followed by an optional dinner > at the nearby restaurant. > > Time/Date: 16:00 - 18:00      Monday, May 14, > Venue: DiploFoundation > 56, Rue de Lausanne. Geneva > Phone:+41 22 741 0420 > > Please send your ideas about the topics we like to discuss there. > > izumi > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ----- 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 rguerra at privaterra.org Wed May 2 09:15:54 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 09:15:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <4F9EB51C.2050609@eff.org> <99B43E30-E7F4-4F57-9CB7-E001BD36B34A@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD214F43D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 2012-05-02, at 3:13 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD214F43D at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, at 22:03:02 on Tue, 1 May 2012, Milton L Mueller writes >>> Do you at least agree it wasn't a "workshop"? I know it sounds pedantic, >> >> [Milton L Mueller] It was a reception with food. And your point is...? First, let me preface my comments saying that I am associated with the CitizenLab, one of the founders and members of the Open Net Initiative. That being said.... Roland, I disagree with how you characterize the event that took place in Sharm. Censorship is censorship , plain and simple. > > A workshop is part of the official programme, and both interruptions and poorly briefed organisers would be more serious. The incident in Sharm was not the only one where the IGF secretariat has stepped in and stopped a critical conversation related to rights. Last year's workshop session in Nairobi on - The Internet in the Post-Revolution Phase — Challenges of Political Engagement and the Safety of Citizens" was cancelled for reasons unknown at the very last minute. However, the people stayed in the room and a very lively and engaging conversation took place. In fact, the session - according to Keith Drazek from Verisign proved to be one of the successes of the whole event. IGF Nairobi - Success of the Multi-stakeholder Model http://www.circleid.com/posts/igf_nairobi_success_of_the_multi_stakeholder_model/ The Secretariat tried to remove the video archive of the session from the official record. But luckily, it was saved - let's see for how long. regards Robert -- Robert Guerra Senior Advisor, Citizen Lab Munk Centre for Global Affairs, University of Toronto Phone: +1 416-893-0377 Cell: +1 202 905 2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: robert at citizenlab.org Web: http://citizenlab.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed May 2 09:40:00 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 09:40:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <4F9EB51C.2050609@eff.org> <99B43E30-E7F4-4F57-9CB7-E001BD36B34A@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD214F43D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: > > > Roland, I disagree with how you characterize the event that took place in > Sharm. Censorship is censorship , plain and simple. > > > What do people think about developing a Statement on Censorship for the purposes of developing an IGC position on the matter? Or has this already been done. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Wed May 2 10:24:29 2012 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 10:24:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <4F9EB51C.2050609@eff.org> <99B43E30-E7F4-4F57-9CB7-E001BD36B34A@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD214F43D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FA1439D.1070806@eff.org> Hola Robert, comments below: On 5/2/12 9:15 AM, Robert Guerra wrote: > On 2012-05-02, at 3:13 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > >> In message<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD214F43D at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, at 22:03:02 on Tue, 1 May 2012, Milton L Mueller writes >>>> Do you at least agree it wasn't a "workshop"? I know it sounds pedantic, >>> [Milton L Mueller] It was a reception with food. And your point is...? > A workshop is part of the official programme, and both interruptions > and poorly briefed organisers would be more serious. > The incident in Sharm was not the only one where the IGF secretariat has stepped in and stopped a critical conversation related to rights. > > Last year's workshop session in Nairobi on - The Internet in the Post-Revolution Phase — Challenges of Political Engagement and the Safety of Citizens" was cancelled for reasons unknown at the very last minute. However, the people stayed in the room and a very lively and engaging conversation took place. In fact, the session - according to Keith Drazek from Verisign proved to be one of the successes of the whole event. > > IGF Nairobi - Success of the Multi-stakeholder Model > http://www.circleid.com/posts/igf_nairobi_success_of_the_multi_stakeholder_model/ > > The Secretariat tried to remove the video archive of the session from the official record. But luckily, it was saved - let's see for how long. I did not hear about this. I'm astonished. Do you know if they are editing the reports to at their own whim? Is there more cases like this documented? -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Wed May 2 10:43:24 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 10:43:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: <4FA1439D.1070806@eff.org> References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <4F9EB51C.2050609@eff.org> <99B43E30-E7F4-4F57-9CB7-E001BD36B34A@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD214F43D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FA1439D.1070806@eff.org> Message-ID: <92CA8FE1-3AC7-44DC-A033-26AB8604BC4D@privaterra.org> Given past experiences, my recommendation would be that - as a minimum workshop proposals that touch on Free expression and/or rights issues need to not only be supported - but also carefully monitored to make sure there isn't undue interference from the Azeri hosts and/or UN regards Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2012-05-02, at 10:24 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > Hola Robert, > > comments below: > > On 5/2/12 9:15 AM, Robert Guerra wrote: >> On 2012-05-02, at 3:13 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >> >>> In message<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD214F43D at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, at 22:03:02 on Tue, 1 May 2012, Milton L Mueller writes >>>>> Do you at least agree it wasn't a "workshop"? I know it sounds pedantic, >>>> [Milton L Mueller] It was a reception with food. And your point is...? >> A workshop is part of the official programme, and both interruptions and poorly briefed organisers would be more serious. >> The incident in Sharm was not the only one where the IGF secretariat has stepped in and stopped a critical conversation related to rights. >> >> Last year's workshop session in Nairobi on - The Internet in the Post-Revolution Phase — Challenges of Political Engagement and the Safety of Citizens" was cancelled for reasons unknown at the very last minute. However, the people stayed in the room and a very lively and engaging conversation took place. In fact, the session - according to Keith Drazek from Verisign proved to be one of the successes of the whole event. >> >> IGF Nairobi - Success of the Multi-stakeholder Model >> http://www.circleid.com/posts/igf_nairobi_success_of_the_multi_stakeholder_model/ >> >> The Secretariat tried to remove the video archive of the session from the official record. But luckily, it was saved - let's see for how long. > > I did not hear about this. I'm astonished. Do you know if they are editing the reports to at their own whim? Is there more cases like this documented? > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed May 2 10:50:28 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 10:50:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: <92CA8FE1-3AC7-44DC-A033-26AB8604BC4D@privaterra.org> References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <4F9EB51C.2050609@eff.org> <99B43E30-E7F4-4F57-9CB7-E001BD36B34A@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD214F43D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FA1439D.1070806@eff.org> <92CA8FE1-3AC7-44DC-A033-26AB8604BC4D@privaterra.org> Message-ID: On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Given past experiences, my recommendation would be that - as a minimum > workshop proposals that touch on Free expression and/or rights issues need > to not only be supported - but also carefully monitored to make sure there > isn't undue interference from the Azeri hosts and/or UN > Another way to do it is to get them involved in a Panel and create a "safe place" for dialogue on "abuse of the exceptions" in Article 19 of the ICCPR. If we through advocacy not by alienating them engage them in dialogue on what the mature response is, we could win both sides. The key is outreach and strategic advocacy. We must lead and guide them to understand why it is important. At the same time, we need to be very clear and express our position on the matter in some form. If even after this level of engagement, we are still ignored then we can recoup and strategize on how we wish to address it. Any approach should have a long term strategy because other countries can also learn. Kind Regards, > > > regards > > Robert > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > On 2012-05-02, at 10:24 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > > Hola Robert, > > comments below: > > On 5/2/12 9:15 AM, Robert Guerra wrote: > > On 2012-05-02, at 3:13 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > > > In message< > 855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD214F43D at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, at > 22:03:02 on Tue, 1 May 2012, Milton L Mueller writes > > Do you at least agree it wasn't a "workshop"? I know it sounds pedantic, > > [Milton L Mueller] It was a reception with food. And your point is...? > > A workshop is part of the official programme, and both interruptions and > poorly briefed organisers would be more serious. > > The incident in Sharm was not the only one where the IGF secretariat has > stepped in and stopped a critical conversation related to rights. > > > Last year's workshop session in Nairobi on - The Internet in the > Post-Revolution Phase — Challenges of Political Engagement and the Safety > of Citizens" was cancelled for reasons unknown at the very last minute. > However, the people stayed in the room and a very lively and engaging > conversation took place. In fact, the session - according to Keith Drazek > from Verisign proved to be one of the successes of the whole event. > > > IGF Nairobi - Success of the Multi-stakeholder Model > > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/igf_nairobi_success_of_the_multi_stakeholder_model/ > > > The Secretariat tried to remove the video archive of the session from the > official record. But luckily, it was saved - let's see for how long. > > > I did not hear about this. I'm astonished. Do you know if they are editing > the reports to at their own whim? Is there more cases like this documented? > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and 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 katycarvt at gmail.com Wed May 2 10:56:10 2012 From: katycarvt at gmail.com (Katy P) Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 10:56:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <4F9EB51C.2050609@eff.org> <99B43E30-E7F4-4F57-9CB7-E001BD36B34A@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD214F43D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FA1439D.1070806@eff.org> <92CA8FE1-3AC7-44DC-A033-26AB8604BC4D@privaterra.org> Message-ID: While a panel can be a safe place, what happens when we all leave and the government knows they a particular individual attended such a panel? On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Robert Guerra wrote: > >> Given past experiences, my recommendation would be that - as a minimum >> workshop proposals that touch on Free expression and/or rights issues need >> to not only be supported - but also carefully monitored to make sure there >> isn't undue interference from the Azeri hosts and/or UN >> > > Another way to do it is to get them involved in a Panel and create a "safe > place" for dialogue on "abuse of the exceptions" in Article 19 of the > ICCPR. If we through advocacy not by alienating them engage them in > dialogue on what the mature response is, we could win both sides. The key > is outreach and strategic advocacy. We must lead and guide them to > understand why it is important. > > At the same time, we need to be very clear and express our position on the > matter in some form. If even after this level of engagement, we are still > ignored then we can recoup and strategize on how we wish to address it. Any > approach should have a long term strategy because other countries can also > learn. > > Kind Regards, > >> >> >> regards >> >> Robert >> -- >> R. Guerra >> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >> >> On 2012-05-02, at 10:24 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >> >> Hola Robert, >> >> comments below: >> >> On 5/2/12 9:15 AM, Robert Guerra wrote: >> >> On 2012-05-02, at 3:13 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >> >> >> In message< >> 855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD214F43D at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, at >> 22:03:02 on Tue, 1 May 2012, Milton L Mueller writes >> >> Do you at least agree it wasn't a "workshop"? I know it sounds >> pedantic, >> >> [Milton L Mueller] It was a reception with food. And your point is...? >> >> A workshop is part of the official programme, and both interruptions and >> poorly briefed organisers would be more serious. >> >> The incident in Sharm was not the only one where the IGF secretariat has >> stepped in and stopped a critical conversation related to rights. >> >> >> Last year's workshop session in Nairobi on - The Internet in the >> Post-Revolution Phase — Challenges of Political Engagement and the Safety >> of Citizens" was cancelled for reasons unknown at the very last minute. >> However, the people stayed in the room and a very lively and engaging >> conversation took place. In fact, the session - according to Keith Drazek >> from Verisign proved to be one of the successes of the whole event. >> >> >> IGF Nairobi - Success of the Multi-stakeholder Model >> >> >> http://www.circleid.com/posts/igf_nairobi_success_of_the_multi_stakeholder_model/ >> >> >> The Secretariat tried to remove the video archive of the session from the >> official record. But luckily, it was saved - let's see for how long. >> >> >> I did not hear about this. I'm astonished. Do you know if they are >> editing the reports to at their own whim? Is there more cases like this >> documented? >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed May 2 11:07:23 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 11:07:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <4F9EB51C.2050609@eff.org> <99B43E30-E7F4-4F57-9CB7-E001BD36B34A@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD214F43D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FA1439D.1070806@eff.org> <92CA8FE1-3AC7-44DC-A033-26AB8604BC4D@privaterra.org> Message-ID: On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Katy P wrote: > While a panel can be a safe place, what happens when we all leave and the > government knows they a particular individual attended such a panel? > > There are no easy answers but whilst we are there we could use the opportunity to meet with local civil society organizations etc and maybe assist them with general strategies. In fact, activism can be strategic - for instance, we can get governments with good records to help communicate to governments who struggle with issues such as "Freedom of Expression" - like a sort of peer thing. Simultaneously, civil society can organize multistakeholder workshops to address this but at the same time regional organizations and local organizations have to figure out and develop a strategy for advocacy, one which is long term, medium and short term. In Fiji, we are under military rule since our Coup D' Etat in 2006 and we have anti sedition laws that make it illegal to criticize the state or any of its agencies. Sedition in Fiji is any criticism of government or its functions/practices/policies. So my reflections are based on what I see on the ground. I find that these laws are crafted out of "fear". The key thing would be addressing the fear. There are no easy answers but as the IGC we should really talk about the Human Rights Issues concerning jailing of bloggers in Azerbaijan. Kind Regards, Sala > > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Robert Guerra wrote: >> >>> Given past experiences, my recommendation would be that - as a >>> minimum workshop proposals that touch on Free expression and/or rights >>> issues need to not only be supported - but also carefully monitored to make >>> sure there isn't undue interference from the Azeri hosts and/or UN >>> >> >> Another way to do it is to get them involved in a Panel and create a >> "safe place" for dialogue on "abuse of the exceptions" in Article 19 of the >> ICCPR. If we through advocacy not by alienating them engage them in >> dialogue on what the mature response is, we could win both sides. The key >> is outreach and strategic advocacy. We must lead and guide them to >> understand why it is important. >> >> At the same time, we need to be very clear and express our position on >> the matter in some form. If even after this level of engagement, we are >> still ignored then we can recoup and strategize on how we wish to address >> it. Any approach should have a long term strategy because other countries >> can also learn. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >>> >>> >>> regards >>> >>> Robert >>> -- >>> R. Guerra >>> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >>> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >>> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >>> >>> On 2012-05-02, at 10:24 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >>> >>> Hola Robert, >>> >>> comments below: >>> >>> On 5/2/12 9:15 AM, Robert Guerra wrote: >>> >>> On 2012-05-02, at 3:13 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >>> >>> >>> In message< >>> 855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD214F43D at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, at >>> 22:03:02 on Tue, 1 May 2012, Milton L Mueller writes >>> >>> Do you at least agree it wasn't a "workshop"? I know it sounds >>> pedantic, >>> >>> [Milton L Mueller] It was a reception with food. And your point is...? >>> >>> A workshop is part of the official programme, and both interruptions and >>> poorly briefed organisers would be more serious. >>> >>> The incident in Sharm was not the only one where the IGF secretariat has >>> stepped in and stopped a critical conversation related to rights. >>> >>> >>> Last year's workshop session in Nairobi on - The Internet in the >>> Post-Revolution Phase — Challenges of Political Engagement and the Safety >>> of Citizens" was cancelled for reasons unknown at the very last minute. >>> However, the people stayed in the room and a very lively and engaging >>> conversation took place. In fact, the session - according to Keith Drazek >>> from Verisign proved to be one of the successes of the whole event. >>> >>> >>> IGF Nairobi - Success of the Multi-stakeholder Model >>> >>> >>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/igf_nairobi_success_of_the_multi_stakeholder_model/ >>> >>> >>> The Secretariat tried to remove the video archive of the session from >>> the official record. But luckily, it was saved - let's see for how long. >>> >>> >>> I did not hear about this. I'm astonished. Do you know if they are >>> editing the reports to at their own whim? Is there more cases like this >>> documented? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katycarvt at gmail.com Wed May 2 11:09:11 2012 From: katycarvt at gmail.com (Katy P) Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 11:09:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <4F9EB51C.2050609@eff.org> <99B43E30-E7F4-4F57-9CB7-E001BD36B34A@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD214F43D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FA1439D.1070806@eff.org> <92CA8FE1-3AC7-44DC-A033-26AB8604BC4D@privaterra.org> Message-ID: While the jailing of bloggers is a concern, the overall atmosphere of demonizing the Internet in Azerbaijan should be a concern as well. Azerbaijan (wisely?) maintains an outward face of promoting technology, but it does a thorough job of discouraging it. This is much harder to combat both internally and externally. On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Katy P wrote: > >> While a panel can be a safe place, what happens when we all leave and the >> government knows they a particular individual attended such a panel? >> >> There are no easy answers but whilst we are there we could use the > opportunity to meet with local civil society organizations etc and maybe > assist them with general strategies. In fact, activism can be strategic - > for instance, we can get governments with good records to help communicate > to governments who struggle with issues such as "Freedom of Expression" - > like a sort of peer thing. Simultaneously, civil society can organize > multistakeholder workshops to address this but at the same time regional > organizations and local organizations have to figure out and develop a > strategy for advocacy, one which is long term, medium and short term. > > In Fiji, we are under military rule since our Coup D' Etat in 2006 and we > have anti sedition laws that make it illegal to criticize the state or any > of its agencies. Sedition in Fiji is any criticism of government or its > functions/practices/policies. > > So my reflections are based on what I see on the ground. I find that these > laws are crafted out of "fear". The key thing would be addressing the fear. > There are no easy answers but as the IGC we should really talk about the > Human Rights Issues concerning jailing of bloggers in Azerbaijan. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > >> >> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Robert Guerra wrote: >>> >>>> Given past experiences, my recommendation would be that - as a >>>> minimum workshop proposals that touch on Free expression and/or rights >>>> issues need to not only be supported - but also carefully monitored to make >>>> sure there isn't undue interference from the Azeri hosts and/or UN >>>> >>> >>> Another way to do it is to get them involved in a Panel and create a >>> "safe place" for dialogue on "abuse of the exceptions" in Article 19 of the >>> ICCPR. If we through advocacy not by alienating them engage them in >>> dialogue on what the mature response is, we could win both sides. The key >>> is outreach and strategic advocacy. We must lead and guide them to >>> understand why it is important. >>> >>> At the same time, we need to be very clear and express our position on >>> the matter in some form. If even after this level of engagement, we are >>> still ignored then we can recoup and strategize on how we wish to address >>> it. Any approach should have a long term strategy because other countries >>> can also learn. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> regards >>>> >>>> Robert >>>> -- >>>> R. Guerra >>>> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >>>> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >>>> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >>>> >>>> On 2012-05-02, at 10:24 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >>>> >>>> Hola Robert, >>>> >>>> comments below: >>>> >>>> On 5/2/12 9:15 AM, Robert Guerra wrote: >>>> >>>> On 2012-05-02, at 3:13 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> In message< >>>> 855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD214F43D at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, at >>>> 22:03:02 on Tue, 1 May 2012, Milton L Mueller writes >>>> >>>> Do you at least agree it wasn't a "workshop"? I know it sounds >>>> pedantic, >>>> >>>> [Milton L Mueller] It was a reception with food. And your point is...? >>>> >>>> A workshop is part of the official programme, and both interruptions >>>> and poorly briefed organisers would be more serious. >>>> >>>> The incident in Sharm was not the only one where the IGF secretariat >>>> has stepped in and stopped a critical conversation related to rights. >>>> >>>> >>>> Last year's workshop session in Nairobi on - The Internet in the >>>> Post-Revolution Phase — Challenges of Political Engagement and the Safety >>>> of Citizens" was cancelled for reasons unknown at the very last minute. >>>> However, the people stayed in the room and a very lively and engaging >>>> conversation took place. In fact, the session - according to Keith Drazek >>>> from Verisign proved to be one of the successes of the whole event. >>>> >>>> >>>> IGF Nairobi - Success of the Multi-stakeholder Model >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/igf_nairobi_success_of_the_multi_stakeholder_model/ >>>> >>>> >>>> The Secretariat tried to remove the video archive of the session from >>>> the official record. But luckily, it was saved - let's see for how long. >>>> >>>> >>>> I did not hear about this. I'm astonished. Do you know if they are >>>> editing the reports to at their own whim? Is there more cases like this >>>> documented? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed May 2 11:10:58 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 16:10:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <4F9EB51C.2050609@eff.org> <99B43E30-E7F4-4F57-9CB7-E001BD36B34A@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD214F43D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message , at 09:15:54 on Wed, 2 May 2012, Robert Guerra writes >Roland, I disagree with how you characterize the event that took > place in Sharm. Censorship is censorship , plain and simple. There are many examples of censorship in the world, it's impossible to deny. I believe that threats to kill the President are likely to be censored in the USA (and several other countries vis-a-vis remarks about their Head of State). There are many forms of words which are widely regarded as racist. So there cannot ever, as far as I can see, be "no censorship". So all that remains to discuss is to what extent one is entitled to break taboos (which is a more constructive description than attracting censorship) when a guest in a country, or at an organisation's meeting. Doesn't operating in an International community require us to make allowances from time to time? -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed May 2 11:15:31 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 11:15:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <4F9EB51C.2050609@eff.org> <99B43E30-E7F4-4F57-9CB7-E001BD36B34A@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD214F43D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FA1439D.1070806@eff.org> <92CA8FE1-3AC7-44DC-A033-26AB8604BC4D@privaterra.org> Message-ID: On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Katy P wrote: > While the jailing of bloggers is a concern, the overall atmosphere of > demonizing the Internet in Azerbaijan should be a concern as well. > > Azerbaijan (wisely?) maintains an outward face of promoting technology, > but it does a thorough job of discouraging it. This is much harder to > combat both internally and externally. > > This is why we should have discussions on things like:- Why should the Internet remain open and free? [The way in which the workshops are organized should not be just information dissemination because anyone can do that. It should be done with a desire to provoke discussions around the heart of the matter. ] > > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Katy P wrote: >> >>> While a panel can be a safe place, what happens when we all leave and >>> the government knows they a particular individual attended such a panel? >>> >>> There are no easy answers but whilst we are there we could use the >> opportunity to meet with local civil society organizations etc and maybe >> assist them with general strategies. In fact, activism can be strategic - >> for instance, we can get governments with good records to help communicate >> to governments who struggle with issues such as "Freedom of Expression" - >> like a sort of peer thing. Simultaneously, civil society can organize >> multistakeholder workshops to address this but at the same time regional >> organizations and local organizations have to figure out and develop a >> strategy for advocacy, one which is long term, medium and short term. >> >> In Fiji, we are under military rule since our Coup D' Etat in 2006 and we >> have anti sedition laws that make it illegal to criticize the state or any >> of its agencies. Sedition in Fiji is any criticism of government or its >> functions/practices/policies. >> >> So my reflections are based on what I see on the ground. I find that >> these laws are crafted out of "fear". The key thing would be addressing the >> fear. There are no easy answers but as the IGC we should really talk about >> the Human Rights Issues concerning jailing of bloggers in Azerbaijan. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >>> >>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Robert Guerra >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Given past experiences, my recommendation would be that - as a >>>>> minimum workshop proposals that touch on Free expression and/or rights >>>>> issues need to not only be supported - but also carefully monitored to make >>>>> sure there isn't undue interference from the Azeri hosts and/or UN >>>>> >>>> >>>> Another way to do it is to get them involved in a Panel and create a >>>> "safe place" for dialogue on "abuse of the exceptions" in Article 19 of the >>>> ICCPR. If we through advocacy not by alienating them engage them in >>>> dialogue on what the mature response is, we could win both sides. The key >>>> is outreach and strategic advocacy. We must lead and guide them to >>>> understand why it is important. >>>> >>>> At the same time, we need to be very clear and express our position on >>>> the matter in some form. If even after this level of engagement, we are >>>> still ignored then we can recoup and strategize on how we wish to address >>>> it. Any approach should have a long term strategy because other countries >>>> can also learn. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> regards >>>>> >>>>> Robert >>>>> -- >>>>> R. Guerra >>>>> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >>>>> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >>>>> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >>>>> >>>>> On 2012-05-02, at 10:24 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hola Robert, >>>>> >>>>> comments below: >>>>> >>>>> On 5/2/12 9:15 AM, Robert Guerra wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 2012-05-02, at 3:13 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In message< >>>>> 855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD214F43D at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, at >>>>> 22:03:02 on Tue, 1 May 2012, Milton L Mueller writes >>>>> >>>>> Do you at least agree it wasn't a "workshop"? I know it sounds >>>>> pedantic, >>>>> >>>>> [Milton L Mueller] It was a reception with food. And your point >>>>> is...? >>>>> >>>>> A workshop is part of the official programme, and both interruptions >>>>> and poorly briefed organisers would be more serious. >>>>> >>>>> The incident in Sharm was not the only one where the IGF secretariat >>>>> has stepped in and stopped a critical conversation related to rights. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Last year's workshop session in Nairobi on - The Internet in the >>>>> Post-Revolution Phase — Challenges of Political Engagement and the Safety >>>>> of Citizens" was cancelled for reasons unknown at the very last minute. >>>>> However, the people stayed in the room and a very lively and engaging >>>>> conversation took place. In fact, the session - according to Keith Drazek >>>>> from Verisign proved to be one of the successes of the whole event. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> IGF Nairobi - Success of the Multi-stakeholder Model >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/igf_nairobi_success_of_the_multi_stakeholder_model/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The Secretariat tried to remove the video archive of the session from >>>>> the official record. But luckily, it was saved - let's see for how long. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I did not hear about this. I'm astonished. Do you know if they are >>>>> editing the reports to at their own whim? Is there more cases like this >>>>> documented? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> >>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed May 2 11:54:14 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 00:54:14 +0900 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: <92CA8FE1-3AC7-44DC-A033-26AB8604BC4D@privaterra.org> References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <4F9EB51C.2050609@eff.org> <99B43E30-E7F4-4F57-9CB7-E001BD36B34A@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD214F43D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FA1439D.1070806@eff.org> <92CA8FE1-3AC7-44DC-A033-26AB8604BC4D@privaterra.org> Message-ID: Hi, I worked for the IGF secretariat in Nairobi and at the time didn't hear anything about this event (or non-event event). On checking, have found that the workshop organizers were the ones who cancelled. They did so by email at short notice. The reason given for cancelation being that three of the key speakers had been unable to travel to Nairobi. The IGF secretariat uploaded video of the event to YouTube, but felt they couldn't use the original title as that workshop had not been held. Instead they chose "The Internet and Post Revolution" as being a close-ish alternative. If you search the IGF YouTube channel with the word "revolution" you find it. (I am not working for the IGF secretariat at the moment, have no contract.) Thanks, Adam On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Given past experiences, my recommendation would be that -  as a minimum > workshop proposals that touch on Free expression and/or rights issues need > to not only be supported - but also carefully monitored to make sure there > isn't undue interference from the Azeri hosts and/or UN > > > regards > > Robert > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > On 2012-05-02, at 10:24 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > > Hola Robert, > > comments below: > > On 5/2/12 9:15 AM, Robert Guerra wrote: > > On 2012-05-02, at 3:13 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > > > In message<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD214F43D at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, > at 22:03:02 on Tue, 1 May 2012, Milton L Mueller  writes > > Do you at least agree it wasn't a "workshop"? I know it sounds pedantic, > > [Milton L Mueller] It was a reception with food. And your point is...? > > A workshop is part of the official programme, and both interruptions and > poorly briefed organisers would be more serious. > > The incident in Sharm was not the only one where the IGF secretariat has > stepped in and stopped a critical conversation related to rights. > > > Last year's workshop session in Nairobi on - The Internet in the > Post-Revolution Phase — Challenges of Political Engagement and the Safety of > Citizens" was cancelled for reasons unknown at the very last minute. > However, the people stayed in the room and a very lively and engaging > conversation took place. In fact, the session - according to Keith Drazek > from Verisign proved to be one of the successes of the whole event. > > > IGF Nairobi - Success of the Multi-stakeholder Model > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/igf_nairobi_success_of_the_multi_stakeholder_model/ > > > The Secretariat tried to remove the video archive of the session from the > official record. But luckily, it was saved - let's see for how long. > > > I did not hear about this. I'm astonished. Do you know if they are editing > the reports to at their own whim? Is there more cases like this documented? > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Wed May 2 18:23:45 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 18:23:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <4F9EB51C.2050609@eff.org> <99B43E30-E7F4-4F57-9CB7-E001BD36B34A@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD214F43D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FA1439D.1070806@eff.org> <92CA8FE1-3AC7-44DC-A033-26AB8604BC4D@privaterra.org> Message-ID: <02C2894D-660C-4693-901D-31585D8A910F@privaterra.org> Adam, On 2012-05-02, at 11:54 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > I worked for the IGF secretariat in Nairobi and at the time didn't hear anything about this event (or non-event event). > > On checking, have found that the workshop organizers were the ones who cancelled. They did so by email at short notice. The reason given for > cancelation being that three of the key speakers had been unable to travel to Nairobi. > That wasn't communicated at all, to those of us who showed up expecting to hear what looked like a great workshop. > The IGF secretariat uploaded video of the event to YouTube, but felt > they couldn't use the original title as that workshop had not been > held. Instead they chose "The Internet and Post Revolution" as being a > close-ish alternative. If you search the IGF YouTube channel > with the word "revolution" > you find it. I disagree. At first there was an exchange that suggested that the transcript and session would be deleted as what took place "was an unofficial event". A number of exchanges with several members of the secretariat luckily convinced them to keep the content up. This message and the earlier conversation about the Open Net incident in Sharm makes it clear to me that Civil Society's passion to organize and get its message across can at times clash with UN protocol. When a member state complains and invokes procedure - the secretariat's hands become tied . If we don't agree with the action, then we should direct our criticisms to the govt who may have complained and not our allies in the secretariat. As such, let me make a suggestion - that experts with an expert understanding of diplomatic and UN protocol strategically advise Civil Society groups who are keen to address and report on the rights issues in Azerbaijan at the upcoming IGF in Baku. Let's not run afoul of the rules, instead let's use them in our favour. 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 aizu at anr.org Wed May 2 21:35:08 2012 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 10:35:08 +0900 Subject: [governance] ICANN Wraps Up Prague Meeting on Thursday In-Reply-To: References: <9601A350-5E1A-429D-9ECF-B39E12417917@istaff.org> <$aQWEplyb6nPFAIb@internetpolicyagency.com> <01f701cd27a5$41db4a70$c591df50$@palage.com> <0amUkUPV$AoPFAQh@internetpolicyagency.com> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174EB@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Message-ID: + 2 In the very beginning of ICANN meeting, the Board meeting was all closed, and with lots of criticisms, including US Congress/Government pressure, after it was reported that ICANN would introduce "$1 Domain Tax", the Board reluctantly decided to open up the meeting to the public. Unfortunately, that also made the Board making many discussions and decisions during the week behind the scenes to certain extent, yet, as Carlton points out, sometimes we could see different board members made different statements (such as for .xxx case). Having informal and interactive discussions between Board and other members are welcome, but making no publicly viewable Board remains questionable. If it is a congress, all meetings are usually open to public, right? izumi 2012/5/2 CW Mail : > + 1 > > CW > > I shall not be there. > > > > On 01 May 2012, at 19:34, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > >> Here's my response to the announcement on an ICANN list: >> - Carlton Samuels >> ==================================================== >> >> I'm sure I may be in the minority to bemoan the passing of the usual >> 'public' Friday morning ICANN Board meeting. >> >> Let us be clear I'm not just hopped off the truck here. I'm familiar >> enough with these matters to recognize it for what it is principally >> intended; theatre.  But in the ICANN context, even crafted theatre has its >> role. >> >> First, I truly believe that for a claimed multistakeholder organisation >> and while the 'public' board meeting may not have been all it could be, it >> was an important indicator or attribute of the MSM, especially having regard >> the global public interest. >> >> Secondly, even if the votes are already taken, there existed an outside >> chance that one may witness truly revealing 'body language' of participants. >>  Maybe its because for most of my life I have always straddled several >> socio-political realities. But I am socialized to be ever mindful that one >> may 'feel the hand of Esau even as you hear the voice of Jacob'. >> >> I can still hear Susan Crawford's cathartic farewell speech in 2008.  It >> was remarkable, the response in body language of several board members told >> a story.  I will concede it may not mean much, then and there.  Aferall, the >> deed is done and the die is cast. But when the 'fire next time' comes, it is >> instructive. >> >> - Carlton Samuels >> _________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kovenronald at aol.com Thu May 3 15:52:11 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 15:52:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> Message-ID: <8CEF77D5D51CA35-2334-4C4C@webmail-m142.sysops.aol.com> Homepage Latest News Search Languages Contact Us About Us Thursday, May 03, 2012 19:48 GMT Sex and Censorship in Azerbaijan Bari Bates BRUSSELS, May 2 (IPS) - Khadija Ismayilova sat calmly, her face, voice and movements doing nothing to break the composed demeanour with which she recounted the Azeri government’s attempt to completely discredit her as a journalist. In early March, Ismayilova received a package containing six photos of herself having sex, taken from hidden cameras planted inside her home by unknown persons. The package contained more than just intimate pictures of the journalist responsible for uncovering cases of corruption within the government - there was a clear message of intimidation, filled with coarse language and insults, meant to deter not only Ismayilova, but anyone else from further investigating the government’s actions. But Ismayilova has a message of her own. Despite the intimacy of the smear campaign, she went public with her story, in the hopes of embarrassing the government by exposing the illegal means they employ tointimidate journalists and rights activists within the country. Then a video of the journalist, in the same explicit situation, appeared on a fake mirror website of Azerbaijan’s main opposition party, according to Amnesty International, though party leaders have stoutly denied connections between their party and the website in question. In a conservative country like Azerbaijan, Ismayilova believes the government hoped to use the video and photographs to discredit her work. Deadly censorship She is not the first victim of this crude tactic. Other journalists before her have been subject to public humiliation by sexually explicit images of themselves being aired on television but she is the first to speak out openly about it. And Ismayilova’s story is only the latest in a string of crackdowns on journalists within the country. President Ilham Aliyev, who abolished presidential term limits in 2009, has a web of family members in positions of power throughout the country, which has piqued the interest of Azeri journalists working to investigate corruption and probe the reaches of government control. According to Ismayilova, the president’s cousin runs a television channel that aired images of an opposition journalist masturbating. For others, investigative journalism has been undertaken not only at the cost of civil rights and liberties, but also their lives. As of March 2012, Ismayilova said seven journalists had been kidnapped, and two more were being held without access to lawyers or contact with family members. Elmar Huseynov, an Azerbaijani journalist who reported on politics and corruption, was shot to death in the stairway of his apartment building on Mar. 2, 2005. His family reported that the journalist had received threats prior to his death, and feared for his safety. Seven years later, the investigation is at a standstill, and no one has been brought to justice for the loss of his life. Head of the Central Asia and Europe desk for Reporters Without Borders, Johann Bihr, called the case "a threat that constantly hangs over (journalists, members of the opposition party and human rights defenders)" in an article in ‘Running Scared: Azerbaijan’s Silenced Voices’, a publication from the International Partnership Group for Azerbaijan (IPGA). "In virtually no case of violence against a journalist since Huseynov’s murder has there been a serious investigation or prosecution for an attack. The result is a climate of fear in which journalists know that, should they decide to criticise the authorities, they are vulnerable to attacks that are either organised or endorsed by officials," Bihr said. With concerns over freedom of expression in the country, 10 members of the European Parliament issued a letter to Commissioner Štefan Füle, asking that the government of Azerbaijan and President Ilham Aliyev be "taken to task" to ensure the safety of Khadija Ismayilova and to create an environment that allows journalists and human rights activists to "work free from intimidation, blackmail and violence." Freedom of expression Opposition journalists are not the lone targets of government efforts to muzzle free speech. Citizens have been forbidden from protesting in Baku since 2005 and state forces used harsh measures against activists who took to the streets in March and April 2011, inspired by the Arab Spring. Ismayilova explained the only freedom of assembly allowed in Azerbaijan is outside the Baku city limits, a half-hour walk from the nearest bus station. The location is a dismal spot for vibrant political assembly. Ismayilova said, "No one can hear you...You can’t even reach the place." Social media is being monitored as well, with several youth activists jailed for promoting the Arab Spring protests on Facebook and Twitter. Parvana Persiyani, a blogger with the 'OL!' Youth Movement in Azerbaijan, said organisers of protests against current government policies have been jailed without access to attorneys or notice to their families. Habbar Savalanli used Facebook to promote public protests surrounding the Arab Spring, and was given a jail sentence of two and a half years on bogus drug charges, according to Human Rights Watch (HRW). He was released in December 2011. According to HRW, Azerbaijan has refused entry to a Council of Europe representative to look into the condition of political prisoners. Azerbaijan was ranked 143rd out of 183 countries surveyed in the 2011 Corruption Perceptions Index, compiled by Transparency International. Eurovision 2012 The influx of oil revenues in Azerbaijan has left the country flush with possibility, plans for vast expansion and the modernisation of a city gearing up to host the Eurovision Song Contest this summer, which draws more than 100 million viewers. But such expansion has paved the way for human rights violations, with HRW reporting that the government of Azerbaijan has forced people from their homes in claims of "urban renewal." According to HRW, the government of Azerbaijan hasn’t provided fair compensation or alternative housing options to those displaced by the construction projects. Rasul Jafarov, coordinator of the Sing for Democracy campaign, said apartment buildings have rapidly been demolished, with or without the consent of those living there. Tenants who refused to cooperate faced forcible eviction after being detained for several hours, during which time their homes were destroyed. While Azerbaijan has committed to granting Eurovision participants freedom of speech, HRW noted that the country systematically denies its own citizens these same freedoms. But Ulrike Lunacek, a European Parliament member, said that simply boycotting the song contest was not enough – rather, efforts should focus on ensuring information on the state of the country is freely available. "People in Azerbaijan don’t have access to the truth," Ismayilova stressed. "And that is the core of the problems in the county." (END/2012) Contact Us | About Us | Subscription | News in RSS | Email News | Mobile | Text Only Copyright © 2012 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved. -----Original Message----- From: Robert Guerra To: governance Sent: Mon, Apr 30, 2012 5:07 pm Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? Dear colleagues, With all the focus on IGF MAG renewal and remote participation, let's not forget that the Governance Caucus should not lose track of the violations of human rights that are being reported in Azerbaijan. We need to make sure the UN and Azeri hosts make commitments that allow for respect & protection of Freedom of expression and association not only for participants of the IGF but also those in the country. As i've mentioned to many of you privately, we face a Tunis 2005 type scenario - that being, dealing with a well known and documented repressor of online activists and human rights. We can not be complicit in their repression nor be used as pawns in their PR campaign as to how great the country is. To not challenge the country to do better - before, during and after the IGF in Nov - is to not be faithful to the hard fought inclusion of Human Rights in the IGF 2005 summit documents. Look forward to everyone's comments. regards Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Thu May 3 21:32:19 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 21:32:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: <8CEF77D5D51CA35-2334-4C4C@webmail-m142.sysops.aol.com> References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <8CEF77D5D51CA35-2334-4C4C@webmail-m142.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <3ACDEB40-4A3B-4E36-B4C3-52015FF1C57F@privaterra.org> Thanks for this - I knew about the case, however hadn't posted the details to the list. On 2012-05-03, at 3:52 PM, Koven Ronald wrote: > > > > > Homepage > > Latest News > > Search > > Languages > > Contact Us > > About Us > > Thursday, May 03, 2012 19:48 GMT > > Sex and Censorship in Azerbaijan > > Bari Bates > BRUSSELS, May 2 (IPS) - Khadija Ismayilova sat calmly, her face, voice and movements doing nothing to break the composed demeanour with which she recounted the Azeri government’s attempt to completely discredit her as a journalist. > In early March, Ismayilova received a package containing six photos of herself having sex, taken from hidden cameras planted inside her home by unknown persons. > > The package contained more than just intimate pictures of the journalist responsible for uncovering cases of corruption within the government - there was a clear message of intimidation, filled with coarse language and insults, meant to deter not only Ismayilova, but anyone else from further investigating the government’s actions. > > But Ismayilova has a message of her own. Despite the intimacy of the smear campaign, she went public with her story, in the hopes of embarrassing the government by exposing the illegal means they employ tointimidate journalists and rights activists within the country. > > Then a video of the journalist, in the same explicit situation, appeared on a fake mirror website of Azerbaijan’s main opposition party, according to Amnesty International, though party leaders have stoutly denied connections between their party and the website in question. > > In a conservative country like Azerbaijan, Ismayilova believes the government hoped to use the video and photographs to discredit her work. > > Deadly censorship > > She is not the first victim of this crude tactic. Other journalists before her have been subject to public humiliation by sexually explicit images of themselves being aired on television but she is the first to speak out openly about it. > > And Ismayilova’s story is only the latest in a string of crackdowns on journalists within the country. > > President Ilham Aliyev, who abolished presidential term limits in 2009, has a web of family members in positions of power throughout the country, which has piqued the interest of Azeri journalists working to investigate corruption and probe the reaches of government control. > > According to Ismayilova, the president’s cousin runs a television channel that aired images of an opposition journalist masturbating. > > For others, investigative journalism has been undertaken not only at the cost of civil rights and liberties, but also their lives. As of March 2012, Ismayilova said seven journalists had been kidnapped, and two more were being held without access to lawyers or contact with family members. > > Elmar Huseynov, an Azerbaijani journalist who reported on politics and corruption, was shot to death in the stairway of his apartment building on Mar. 2, 2005. His family reported that the journalist had received threats prior to his death, and feared for his safety. > > Seven years later, the investigation is at a standstill, and no one has been brought to justice for the loss of his life. Head of the Central Asia and Europe desk for Reporters Without Borders, Johann Bihr, called the case "a threat that constantly hangs over (journalists, members of the opposition party and human rights defenders)" in an article in ‘Running Scared: Azerbaijan’s Silenced Voices’, a publication from the International Partnership Group for Azerbaijan (IPGA). > > "In virtually no case of violence against a journalist since Huseynov’s murder has there been a serious investigation or prosecution for an attack. The result is a climate of fear in which journalists know that, should they decide to criticise the authorities, they are vulnerable to attacks that are either organised or endorsed by officials," Bihr said. > > With concerns over freedom of expression in the country, 10 members of the European Parliament issued a letter to Commissioner Štefan Füle, asking that the government of Azerbaijan and President Ilham Aliyev be "taken to task" to ensure the safety of Khadija Ismayilova and to create an environment that allows journalists and human rights activists to "work free from intimidation, blackmail and violence." > > Freedom of expression > > Opposition journalists are not the lone targets of government efforts to muzzle free speech. Citizens have been forbidden from protesting in Baku since 2005 and state forces used harsh measures against activists who took to the streets in March and April 2011, inspired by the Arab Spring. > > Ismayilova explained the only freedom of assembly allowed in Azerbaijan is outside the Baku city limits, a half-hour walk from the nearest bus station. > > The location is a dismal spot for vibrant political assembly. Ismayilova said, "No one can hear you...You can’t even reach the place." > > Social media is being monitored as well, with several youth activists jailed for promoting the Arab Spring protests on Facebook and Twitter. Parvana Persiyani, a blogger with the 'OL!' Youth Movement in Azerbaijan, said organisers of protests against current government policies have been jailed without access to attorneys or notice to their families. > > Habbar Savalanli used Facebook to promote public protests surrounding the Arab Spring, and was given a jail sentence of two and a half years on bogus drug charges, according to Human Rights Watch (HRW). He was released in December 2011. > > According to HRW, Azerbaijan has refused entry to a Council of Europe representative to look into the condition of political prisoners. > > Azerbaijan was ranked 143rd out of 183 countries surveyed in the 2011 Corruption Perceptions Index, compiled by Transparency International. > > Eurovision 2012 > > The influx of oil revenues in Azerbaijan has left the country flush with possibility, plans for vast expansion and the modernisation of a city gearing up to host the Eurovision Song Contest this summer, which draws more than 100 million viewers. But such expansion has paved the way for human rights violations, with HRW reporting that the government of Azerbaijan has forced people from their homes in claims of "urban renewal." > > According to HRW, the government of Azerbaijan hasn’t provided fair compensation or alternative housing options to those displaced by the construction projects. > > Rasul Jafarov, coordinator of the Sing for Democracy campaign, said apartment buildings have rapidly been demolished, with or without the consent of those living there. Tenants who refused to cooperate faced forcible eviction after being detained for several hours, during which time their homes were destroyed. > > While Azerbaijan has committed to granting Eurovision participants freedom of speech, HRW noted that the country systematically denies its own citizens these same freedoms. > > But Ulrike Lunacek, a European Parliament member, said that simply boycotting the song contest was not enough – rather, efforts should focus on ensuring information on the state of the country is freely available. > > "People in Azerbaijan don’t have access to the truth," Ismayilova stressed. "And that is the core of the problems in the county." > > (END/2012) > > Contact Us | About Us | Subscription | News in RSS | Email News | Mobile | Text Only > Copyright © 2012 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Guerra > To: governance > Sent: Mon, Apr 30, 2012 5:07 pm > Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? > > Dear colleagues, > > With all the focus on IGF MAG renewal and remote participation, let's not forget that the Governance Caucus should not lose track of the violations of human rights that are being reported in Azerbaijan. > > We need to make sure the UN and Azeri hosts make commitments that allow for respect & protection of Freedom of expression and association not only for participants of the IGF but also those in the country. > > As i've mentioned to many of you privately, we face a Tunis 2005 type scenario - that being, dealing with a well known and documented repressor of online activists and human rights. We can not be complicit in their repression nor be used as pawns in their PR campaign as to how great the country is. > > To not challenge the country to do better - before, during and after the IGF in Nov - is to not be faithful to the hard fought inclusion of Human Rights in the IGF 2005 summit documents. > > Look forward to everyone's comments. > > regards > > Robert > > > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katycarvt at gmail.com Thu May 3 21:37:21 2012 From: katycarvt at gmail.com (Katy P) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 21:37:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: <8CEF77D5D51CA35-2334-4C4C@webmail-m142.sysops.aol.com> References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <8CEF77D5D51CA35-2334-4C4C@webmail-m142.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Is it standard for this list to post entire news stories? On May 3, 2012 12:53 PM, "Koven Ronald" wrote: > > Homepage > Latest News > Search > Languages > Contact Us > About Us > Thursday, May 03, 2012 19:48 GMT > * > Sex and Censorship in Azerbaijan > > Bari Bates* > *BRUSSELS, May 2 (IPS) - Khadija Ismayilova sat calmly, her face, voice > and movements doing nothing to break the composed demeanour with which she > recounted the Azeri government’s attempt to completely discredit her as a > journalist.* > In early March, Ismayilova received a package containing six photos of > herself having sex, taken from hidden cameras planted inside her home by > unknown persons. > > The package contained more than just intimate pictures of the journalist > responsible for uncovering cases of corruption within the government - > there was a clear message of intimidation, filled with coarse language and > insults, meant to deter not only Ismayilova, but anyone else from further > investigating the government’s actions. > > But Ismayilova has a message of her own. Despite the intimacy of the smear > campaign, she went public with her story, in the hopes of embarrassing the > government by exposing the illegal means they employ tointimidate > journalists and > rights activists within the country. > > Then a video of the journalist, in the same explicit situation, appeared > on a fake mirror website of Azerbaijan’s main opposition party, according > to Amnesty International, though party leaders have stoutly denied > connections between their party and the website in question. > > In a conservative country like Azerbaijan, Ismayilova believes the > government hoped to use the video and photographs to discredit her work. > > *Deadly censorship* > > She is not the first victim of this crude tactic. Other journalists before > her have been subject to public humiliation by sexually explicit images of > themselves being aired on television but she is the first to speak out > openly about it. > > And Ismayilova’s story is only the latest in a string of crackdowns on > journalists within the country. > > President Ilham Aliyev, who abolished presidential term limits in 2009, > has a web of family members in positions of power throughout > the country, which has piqued the interest of Azeri journalists working to > investigate corruption and probe the reaches of government control. > > According to Ismayilova, the president’s cousin runs a television channel > that aired images of an opposition journalist masturbating. > > For others, investigative journalism has been undertaken not only at the > cost of civil rights and liberties, but also their lives. As of March 2012, > Ismayilova said seven journalists had been kidnapped, and two more were > being held without access to lawyers or contact with family members. > > Elmar Huseynov, an Azerbaijani journalist who reported on politics and > corruption, was shot to death in the stairway of his apartment building on > Mar. 2, 2005. His family reported that the journalist had received threats > prior to his death, and feared for his safety. > > Seven years later, the investigation is at a standstill, and no one has > been brought to justice for the loss of his life. Head of the Central Asia > and Europe desk for Reporters Without Borders, Johann Bihr, called the case > "a threat that constantly hangs over (journalists, members of the > opposition party and human rights defenders)" in an article in ‘Running > Scared: Azerbaijan’s Silenced Voices’, > a publication from the International Partnership Group for Azerbaijan > (IPGA). > > "In virtually no case of violence against a journalist since Huseynov’s > murder has there been a serious investigation or prosecution for an attack. > The result is a climate of fear in which journalists know that, should they > decide to criticise the authorities, they are vulnerable to attacks that > are either organised or endorsed by officials," Bihr said. > > With concerns over freedom of expression in the country, 10 members of the > European Parliament issued a letter to Commissioner Štefan Füle, asking > that the government of Azerbaijan and President Ilham Aliyev be "taken to > task" to ensure the safety of Khadija Ismayilova and to create an > environment that allows journalists and human rights activists to "work > free from intimidation, blackmail and violence." > > *Freedom of expression* > > Opposition journalists are not the lone targets of government efforts to > muzzle free speech. Citizens have been forbidden from protesting in Baku > since 2005 and state forces used harsh measures against activists who took > to the streets in March and April 2011, inspired by the Arab Spring. > > Ismayilova explained the only freedom of assembly allowed in Azerbaijan is > outside the Baku city limits, a half-hour walk from the nearest bus > station. > > The location is a dismal spot for vibrant political assembly. Ismayilova > said, "No one can hear you...You can’t even reach the place." > > Social media is being monitored as well, with several youth activists > jailed for promoting the Arab Spring protests on Facebook and Twitter. > Parvana Persiyani, a blogger with the 'OL!' Youth Movement in Azerbaijan, > said organisers of protests against current government policies have been > jailed without access to attorneys or notice to their families. > > Habbar Savalanli used Facebook to promote public protests surrounding the > Arab Spring, and was given a jail sentence of two and a half years on bogus > drug charges, according to Human Rights Watch (HRW). He was released in > December 2011. > > According to HRW, Azerbaijan has refused entry to a Council of Europe > representative to look into the condition of political prisoners. > > Azerbaijan was ranked 143rd out of 183 countries surveyed in the 2011 > Corruption Perceptions Index, > compiled by Transparency International. > > *Eurovision 2012* > > The influx of oil revenues in Azerbaijan has left the country flush with > possibility, plans for vast expansion and the modernisation of a city > gearing up to host the Eurovision Song Contest this > summer, which draws more than 100 million viewers. But such expansion has > paved the way for human rights violations, with HRW reporting that the > government of Azerbaijan has forced people from their homes in claims of > "urban renewal." > > According to HRW, the government of Azerbaijan hasn’t provided fair > compensation or alternative housing options to those displaced by the > construction projects. > > Rasul Jafarov, coordinator of the Sing for Democracy campaign, said > apartment buildings have rapidly been demolished, with or without the > consent of those living there. Tenants who refused to cooperate faced > forcible eviction after being detained for several hours, during which time > their homes were destroyed. > > While Azerbaijan has committed to granting Eurovision participants freedom > of speech, HRW noted that the country systematically denies its own > citizens these same freedoms. > > But Ulrike Lunacek, a European Parliament member, said that simply > boycotting the song contest was not enough – rather, efforts should focus > on ensuring information on the state of the country is freely available. > > "People in Azerbaijan don’t have access to the truth," Ismayilova > stressed. "And that is the core of the problems in the county." > > (END/2012) > Contact Us | About Us > | Subscription | News in RSS > | Email News | Mobile > | Text Only > Copyright © 2012 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Guerra > To: governance > Sent: Mon, Apr 30, 2012 5:07 pm > Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? > > Dear colleagues, > > With all the focus on IGF MAG renewal and remote participation, let's > not forget that the Governance Caucus should not lose track of the > violations of human rights that are being reported in Azerbaijan. > > We need to make sure the UN and Azeri hosts make commitments that allow > for respect & protection of Freedom of expression and association not only > for participants of the IGF but also those in the country. > > As i've mentioned to many of you privately, we face a Tunis 2005 type > scenario - that being, dealing with a well known and documented repressor > of online activists and human rights. We can not be complicit in their > repression nor be used as pawns in their PR campaign as to how great the > country is. > > To not challenge the country to do better - before, during and after the > IGF in Nov - is to not be faithful to the hard fought inclusion of Human > Rights in the IGF 2005 summit documents. > > Look forward to everyone's comments. > > regards > > Robert > > > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 3 21:44:02 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 21:44:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <8CEF77D5D51CA35-2334-4C4C@webmail-m142.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On 3 May 2012, at 21:37, Katy P wrote: > Is it standard for this list to post entire news stories? > Standard, probably not. Not sure what is standard. But it happens, especially when a member thinks there is something worth posting. And i do not think we have any rules about it. cheers avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri May 4 00:11:54 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 16:11:54 +1200 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <8CEF77D5D51CA35-2334-4C4C@webmail-m142.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Thanks Rony that was very informative and disturbing to read about the reports. I am wondering whether the journalist has taken the invasion of privacy to court. On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 3 May 2012, at 21:37, Katy P wrote: > > > Is it standard for this list to post entire news stories? > > > > Standard, probably not. Not sure what is standard. > But it happens, especially when a member thinks there is something worth > posting. > And i do not think we have any rules about it. > > cheers > > avri > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Fri May 4 04:37:08 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 10:37:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <8CEF77D5D51CA35-2334-4C4C@webmail-m142.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Hi, Repression and corruption in Azerbaijan appear similar to the situation in Tunisia before 2011. A Baku boycott might be an option to make it clear that internet promoters don't want to mingle with governments violating human rights. This could be gauged during the coming consultations in Geneva. - - - On 5/4/12, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Thanks Rony that was very informative and disturbing to read about the reports. I am wondering whether the journalist has > taken the invasion of privacy to court. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 4 07:05:42 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 13:05:42 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: (salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com) References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <8CEF77D5D51CA35-2334-4C4C@webmail-m142.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <20120504110542.565222397@quill.bollow.ch> Sala wrote: > Thanks Rony that was very informative and disturbing to read about the > reports. I am wondering whether the journalist has taken the invasion of > privacy to court. Is it even possible to take something like this to a court of law? (If I understand the situation right, there is no concrete evidence about who specifically did it, and the police is not willing to do more than pay lip service to their responsibility of investigating the crime.) The harsh reality is that some crimes can only be brought before the court of international public opinion. 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 Fri May 4 07:18:57 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 08:18:57 -0300 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <8CEF77D5D51CA35-2334-4C4C@webmail-m142.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4FA3BB21.7050601@cafonso.ca> +1 --c.a. On 05/04/2012 05:37 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Hi, > > Repression and corruption in Azerbaijan appear similar to the > situation in Tunisia before 2011. A Baku boycott might be an option to > make it clear that internet promoters don't want to mingle with > governments violating human rights. This could be gauged during the > coming consultations in Geneva. > - - - > > On 5/4/12, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: >> Thanks Rony that was very informative and disturbing to read about the reports. I am wondering whether the journalist has >> taken the invasion of privacy to court. > >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 4 07:31:46 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 07:31:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <8CEF77D5D51CA35-2334-4C4C@webmail-m142.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <09854141-BEC5-4A3B-A1AC-3E2EE7FFC084@acm.org> Hi, But, as with Tunis, being there helped to highlight some of the issues. Perhaps instead of boycotting, we can go and be supportive, in some yet to be defined manner, of those who are being intimidated. Perhaps this is something else the IGC could discuss. avri On 4 May 2012, at 04:37, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Hi, > > Repression and corruption in Azerbaijan appear similar to the > situation in Tunisia before 2011. A Baku boycott might be an option to > make it clear that internet promoters don't want to mingle with > governments violating human rights. This could be gauged during the > coming consultations in Geneva. > - - - > > On 5/4/12, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: >> Thanks Rony that was very informative and disturbing to read about the reports. I am wondering whether the journalist has >> taken the invasion of privacy to court. > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri May 4 07:51:18 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 08:51:18 -0300 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: <09854141-BEC5-4A3B-A1AC-3E2EE7FFC084@acm.org> References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <8CEF77D5D51CA35-2334-4C4C@webmail-m142.sysops.aol.com> <09854141-BEC5-4A3B-A1AC-3E2EE7FFC084@acm.org> Message-ID: <4FA3C2B6.3080908@cafonso.ca> Yes, Avri, but each situation is different, and I think at least the possibility should be discussed. Boycott might also work as a strong form of pressure. Europe is doing it right now in relation to the mistreatment of Ms Timoshenko in Ukraine, just to mention an immediate example. The problem with trying to be supportive by being there is that most of us do not know details of the political situation to engage in a complicated political scenario as foreigners. frt rgds --c.a. On 05/04/2012 08:31 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > But, as with Tunis, being there helped to highlight some of the > issues. > > Perhaps instead of boycotting, we can go and be supportive, in some > yet to be defined manner, of those who are being intimidated. > Perhaps this is something else the IGC could discuss. > > avri > > On 4 May 2012, at 04:37, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Repression and corruption in Azerbaijan appear similar to the >> situation in Tunisia before 2011. A Baku boycott might be an option >> to make it clear that internet promoters don't want to mingle with >> governments violating human rights. This could be gauged during >> the coming consultations in Geneva. - - - >> >> On 5/4/12, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >>> Thanks Rony that was very informative and disturbing to read >>> about the reports. I am wondering whether the journalist has >>> taken the invasion of privacy to court. >> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ You >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and >> to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 4 07:55:00 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 07:55:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: <4FA3C2B6.3080908@cafonso.ca> References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <8CEF77D5D51CA35-2334-4C4C@webmail-m142.sysops.aol.com> <09854141-BEC5-4A3B-A1AC-3E2EE7FFC084@acm.org> <4FA3C2B6.3080908@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <8A5104B7-2068-43E0-9D0F-04259203D5AC@acm.org> On 4 May 2012, at 07:51, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > The problem with trying to be supportive by being there is that most of > us do not know details of the political situation to engage in a > complicated political scenario as foreigners. As with previous situations, we find out from those who are there, what they need us to help with. Are they asking us to boycott? 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 Fri May 4 08:04:02 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 09:04:02 -0300 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: <8A5104B7-2068-43E0-9D0F-04259203D5AC@acm.org> References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <8CEF77D5D51CA35-2334-4C4C@webmail-m142.sysops.aol.com> <09854141-BEC5-4A3B-A1AC-3E2EE7FFC084@acm.org> <4FA3C2B6.3080908@cafonso.ca> <8A5104B7-2068-43E0-9D0F-04259203D5AC@acm.org> Message-ID: <4FA3C5B2.1010408@cafonso.ca> Hmmmm... I do not know. But one point is: who are the ones "who are there"? Sorry, maybe most of you already have plenty of info regarding this question, unfortunately I do not. frt rgds --c.a. On 05/04/2012 08:55 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 4 May 2012, at 07:51, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> The problem with trying to be supportive by being there is that most of >> us do not know details of the political situation to engage in a >> complicated political scenario as foreigners. > > > As with previous situations, we find out from those who are there, what they need us to help with. > > Are they asking us to boycott? > > 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 Fri May 4 08:06:14 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 09:06:14 -0300 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: <8A5104B7-2068-43E0-9D0F-04259203D5AC@acm.org> References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <8CEF77D5D51CA35-2334-4C4C@webmail-m142.sysops.aol.com> <09854141-BEC5-4A3B-A1AC-3E2EE7FFC084@acm.org> <4FA3C2B6.3080908@cafonso.ca> <8A5104B7-2068-43E0-9D0F-04259203D5AC@acm.org> Message-ID: <4FA3C636.9030205@cafonso.ca> Further, at this point, with the scant info I have, if I decided to go to Baku, I would not meddle in the local political situation at all. frt rgds --c.a. On 05/04/2012 08:55 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 4 May 2012, at 07:51, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> The problem with trying to be supportive by being there is that most of >> us do not know details of the political situation to engage in a >> complicated political scenario as foreigners. > > > As with previous situations, we find out from those who are there, what they need us to help with. > > Are they asking us to boycott? > > avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Fri May 4 08:20:07 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 08:20:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: <4FA3C636.9030205@cafonso.ca> References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <8CEF77D5D51CA35-2334-4C4C@webmail-m142.sysops.aol.com> <09854141-BEC5-4A3B-A1AC-3E2EE7FFC084@acm.org> <4FA3C2B6.3080908@cafonso.ca> <8A5104B7-2068-43E0-9D0F-04259203D5AC@acm.org> <4FA3C636.9030205@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Hi, Well I think there may be some distance between meddling and being supportive. avri On 4 May 2012, at 08:06, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Further, at this point, with the scant info I have, if I decided to go > to Baku, I would not meddle in the local political situation at all. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 05/04/2012 08:55 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> On 4 May 2012, at 07:51, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> The problem with trying to be supportive by being there is that most of >>> us do not know details of the political situation to engage in a >>> complicated political scenario as foreigners. >> >> >> As with previous situations, we find out from those who are there, what they need us to help with. >> >> Are they asking us to boycott? >> >> 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 ginger at paque.net Fri May 4 08:22:18 2012 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 07:52:18 -0430 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: <4FA3C5B2.1010408@cafonso.ca> References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <8CEF77D5D51CA35-2334-4C4C@webmail-m142.sysops.aol.com> <09854141-BEC5-4A3B-A1AC-3E2EE7FFC084@acm.org> <4FA3C2B6.3080908@cafonso.ca> <8A5104B7-2068-43E0-9D0F-04259203D5AC@acm.org> <4FA3C5B2.1010408@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: I understand and support the value of making a strong, visible demonstration and I think all possible tools should be considered. Boycott is not the only social statement that can be made--look at ACTA and SOPA. Having seen what a boycott of the parliamentary elections did to Venezuela (it gave complete control to the party did participate), I am very wary of boycotts. I have three particular concerns: 1 As Avri asked: what do the people in Azerbaijan want us to do? 2. How can we make a strong statement? How about an 'alternate IGF' or other very visible meeting--simultaneous or not--that constructs a strong IG discussion, instead of simply making the IGF12 a non-meeting. What could be a newsmaker instead of an IGF killer? 3. How would a boycott of IGF12 affect the IGF process, particularly at this point when it seems very vulnerable? What alternatives do we have? As Robert Guerra indicated in an earlier post, we need to work constructively, and in a coordinated way--possibly joining with other stakeholder group(s). I would like to step back and plan a more coherent strategy. With all of the brilliant people on this list, I am sure we can develop a solid framework, learning from the Tunis experience. I look forward to more discussion and ideas. Cheers, Ginger On 4 May 2012 07:34, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hmmmm... I do not know. But one point is: who are the ones "who are > there"? Sorry, maybe most of you already have plenty of info regarding > this question, unfortunately I do not. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 05/04/2012 08:55 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > On 4 May 2012, at 07:51, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > > >> The problem with trying to be supportive by being there is that most of > >> us do not know details of the political situation to engage in a > >> complicated political scenario as foreigners. > > > > > > As with previous situations, we find out from those who are there, what > they need us to help with. > > > > Are they asking us to boycott? > > > > 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 sana.pryhod at gmail.com Fri May 4 09:15:23 2012 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 16:15:23 +0300 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <8CEF77D5D51CA35-2334-4C4C@webmail-m142.sysops.aol.com> <09854141-BEC5-4A3B-A1AC-3E2EE7FFC084@acm.org> <4FA3C2B6.3080908@cafonso.ca> <8A5104B7-2068-43E0-9D0F-04259203D5AC@acm.org> <4FA3C636.9030205@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Hi, I am writing from Ukraine, mentioned above) You are talking about boycott. I would like to know - boycott of whom? If you are talking about boycott of oligarchy (nice ancient word for mafia in power in Post-Soviet world) - it can really work! Please boycott all children of "our" presidents in Western universities, all our "businessmen" at your business lunches, do not give visa to Schengen and USA to "our" VIPs, their wife, their lovers, their children. Block their bank accounts in Western banks! This is the only one mechanism to stop them! Even free and democratic election in such countries can not help - I am speaking about experience of orange revolution in Ukraine( But do not boycott IG event in the country, which can use (of course there is the possibility that it will not use) this tool to approach to direct democracy! The possibility of boycott of soccer craziness in Ukraine leaves me absolutely indifferent. From my taxes I paid more for Euro 2012 then I pay for pensions, and in any case I can not return my money( I (50 years old, female) doubt if this soccer event can teach me something useful for democratic development. But I will be happy to see great IG event in Ukraine - maybe with special workshop (or at least remote participation) from prison, where Julia Timoshenko is tortured just now! Sorry for extra emotions, Best regards, Oksana Prykhodko 2012/5/4 Avri Doria : > > Hi, > > Well I think there may be some distance between meddling and being supportive. > > avri > > On 4 May 2012, at 08:06, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Further, at this point, with the scant info I have, if I decided to go >> to Baku, I would not meddle in the local political situation at all. >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 05/04/2012 08:55 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>> On 4 May 2012, at 07:51, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> >>>> The problem with trying to be supportive by being there is that most of >>>> us do not know details of the political situation to engage in a >>>> complicated political scenario as foreigners. >>> >>> >>> As with previous situations, we find out from those who are there, what they need us to help with. >>> >>> Are they asking us to boycott? >>> >>> 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 nb at bollow.ch Fri May 4 09:22:20 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 15:22:20 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: (message from Oksana Prykhodko on Fri, 4 May 2012 16:15:23 +0300) References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <8CEF77D5D51CA35-2334-4C4C@webmail-m142.sysops.aol.com> <09854141-BEC5-4A3B-A1AC-3E2EE7FFC084@acm.org> <4FA3C2B6.3080908@cafonso.ca> <8A5104B7-2068-43E0-9D0F-04259203D5AC@acm.org> <4FA3C636.9030205@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <20120504132220.EFEB72FE@quill.bollow.ch> Dear all, Oksana's points sound very convincing to me. Greetings, Norbert Oksana Prykhodko wrote: > Hi, > > I am writing from Ukraine, mentioned above) > > You are talking about boycott. I would like to know - boycott of whom? > > If you are talking about boycott of oligarchy (nice ancient word for > mafia in power in Post-Soviet world) - it can really work! Please > boycott all children of "our" presidents in Western universities, all > our "businessmen" at your business lunches, do not give visa to > Schengen and USA to "our" VIPs, their wife, their lovers, their > children. Block their bank accounts in Western banks! This is the only > one mechanism to stop them! Even free and democratic election in such > countries can not help - I am speaking about experience of orange > revolution in Ukraine( > > But do not boycott IG event in the country, which can use (of course > there is the possibility that it will not use) this tool to approach > to direct democracy! > > The possibility of boycott of soccer craziness in Ukraine leaves me > absolutely indifferent. From my taxes I paid more for Euro 2012 then > I pay for pensions, and in any case I can not return my money( > > I (50 years old, female) doubt if this soccer event can teach me > something useful for democratic development. But I will be happy to > see great IG event in Ukraine - maybe with special workshop (or at > least remote participation) from prison, where Julia Timoshenko is > tortured just now! > > Sorry for extra emotions, > Best regards, > Oksana Prykhodko > > > > 2012/5/4 Avri Doria : > > > > Hi, > > > > Well I think there may be some distance between meddling and being suppor= > tive. > > > > avri > > > > On 4 May 2012, at 08:06, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > > >> Further, at this point, with the scant info I have, if I decided to go > >> to Baku, I would not meddle in the local political situation at all. > >> > >> frt rgds > >> > >> --c.a. > >> > >> On 05/04/2012 08:55 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >>> > >>> On 4 May 2012, at 07:51, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >>> > >>>> The problem with trying to be supportive by being there is that most of > >>>> us do not know details of the political situation to engage in a > >>>> complicated political scenario as foreigners. > >>> > >>> > >>> As with previous situations, we find out from those who are there, what= > they need us to help with. > >>> > >>> Are they asking us to boycott? > >>> > >>> avri > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ------------=_1336137251-31001-0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; name="message-footer.txt" > Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ------------=_1336137251-31001-0-- > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri May 4 09:25:11 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 10:25:11 -0300 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <8CEF77D5D51CA35-2334-4C4C@webmail-m142.sysops.aol.com> <09854141-BEC5-4A3B-A1AC-3E2EE7FFC084@acm.org> <4FA3C2B6.3080908@cafonso.ca> <8A5104B7-2068-43E0-9D0F-04259203D5AC@acm.org> <4FA3C636.9030205@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4FA3D8B7.3010508@cafonso.ca> I agree, but authorities in the country might not. Just trying to be careful. --c.a. On 05/04/2012 09:20 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > Well I think there may be some distance between meddling and being supportive. > > avri > > On 4 May 2012, at 08:06, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Further, at this point, with the scant info I have, if I decided to go >> to Baku, I would not meddle in the local political situation at all. >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 05/04/2012 08:55 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>> On 4 May 2012, at 07:51, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> >>>> The problem with trying to be supportive by being there is that most of >>>> us do not know details of the political situation to engage in a >>>> complicated political scenario as foreigners. >>> >>> >>> As with previous situations, we find out from those who are there, what they need us to help with. >>> >>> Are they asking us to boycott? >>> >>> 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri May 4 10:49:34 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 16:49:34 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <8CEF77D5D51CA35-2334-4C4C@webmail-m142.sysops.aol.com> <09854141-BEC5-4A3B-A1AC-3E2EE7FFC084@acm.org> <4FA3C2B6.3080908@cafonso.ca> <8A5104B7-2068-43E0-9D0F-04259203D5AC@acm.org> <4FA3C636.9030205@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCC2E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thanks Oksana for this (needed) emotianal outcry! wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Oksana Prykhodko Gesendet: Fr 04.05.2012 15:15 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Avri Doria Betreff: Re: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? Hi, I am writing from Ukraine, mentioned above) You are talking about boycott. I would like to know - boycott of whom? If you are talking about boycott of oligarchy (nice ancient word for mafia in power in Post-Soviet world) - it can really work! Please boycott all children of "our" presidents in Western universities, all our "businessmen" at your business lunches, do not give visa to Schengen and USA to "our" VIPs, their wife, their lovers, their children. Block their bank accounts in Western banks! This is the only one mechanism to stop them! Even free and democratic election in such countries can not help - I am speaking about experience of orange revolution in Ukraine( But do not boycott IG event in the country, which can use (of course there is the possibility that it will not use) this tool to approach to direct democracy! The possibility of boycott of soccer craziness in Ukraine leaves me absolutely indifferent. From my taxes I paid more for Euro 2012 then I pay for pensions, and in any case I can not return my money( I (50 years old, female) doubt if this soccer event can teach me something useful for democratic development. But I will be happy to see great IG event in Ukraine - maybe with special workshop (or at least remote participation) from prison, where Julia Timoshenko is tortured just now! Sorry for extra emotions, Best regards, Oksana Prykhodko 2012/5/4 Avri Doria : > > Hi, > > Well I think there may be some distance between meddling and being supportive. > > avri > > On 4 May 2012, at 08:06, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Further, at this point, with the scant info I have, if I decided to go >> to Baku, I would not meddle in the local political situation at all. >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 05/04/2012 08:55 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>> On 4 May 2012, at 07:51, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> >>>> The problem with trying to be supportive by being there is that most of >>>> us do not know details of the political situation to engage in a >>>> complicated political scenario as foreigners. >>> >>> >>> As with previous situations, we find out from those who are there, what they need us to help with. >>> >>> Are they asking us to boycott? >>> >>> 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 ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com Fri May 4 12:31:30 2012 From: ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com (Narine Khachatryan) Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 21:01:30 +0430 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <8CEF77D5D51CA35-2334-4C4C@webmail-m142.sysops.aol.com> <09854141-BEC5-4A3B-A1AC-3E2EE7FFC084@acm.org> <4FA3C2B6.3080908@cafonso.ca> <8A5104B7-2068-43E0-9D0F-04259203D5AC@acm.org> <4FA3C5B2.1010408@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Dear all, Read what Azerbaijan's President office's head of Foreign Relations Department told two days ago to Bloomberg, briefly threatening 'to change their pro-western stance and political alliance'...Words are unnecessary... Azerbaijan Blackmails West http://asbarez.com/102706/azerbaijan-blackmails-west/ BAKU—A senior Azeri official told Bloomberg Businessweek that Azerbaijan would rethink what he called its “pro-Western” stance and align itself with “a new bloc” if the West does not amp up its support, especially vis-à-vis the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Azerbaijan wants Europe and the US to pressure Armenia into relinquishing the liberated territories of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. In what was clearly a move to blackmail the West, Novruz Mammadov, head of the presidential office’s foreign-relations department told Bloomberg Businessweek that Azerbaijan had been invited to join another political alliance, without elaborating. “We aren’t paying attention to those proposals for now. But if it continues like this, we may consider it in five to 10 years. We’re expecting help from the West on the Karabakh issue,” Mammedov told Bloomberg in an interview in Baku. Mammadov also rebuked Israel for allegedly breaking an agreement to keep a recent $1.6 billion arms deal with Azerbaijan a secret. Israeli defense officials announced the deal earlier this spring, with Azeri officials confirming the reports. The Azeri officials also noted that the weapons would not be used against Iran, as speculated by Western sources, but rather to bolster its abilities against Armenians. Last month Foreign Policy magazine and other Western media outlets reported that Azerbaijan had turned into an Israeli spy zone and that Baku was allowing Israel to use its airports for possible airstrikes against Iran. Azerbaijan has vehemently rejected that assertion. “We’re the only secular Muslim nation in the world that’s tied its destiny with the West,” Mammadov told Bloomberg. He estimated that about 35 percent of all NATO supplies to Afghanistan transit Azerbaijan. “But we haven’t seen a positive attitude in return.” “Iran’s telling us: Why are you selling your oil to the West? You should sever your relations with the U.S. and Israel because they’re our enemies,” Mammadov told Bloomberg. Regards, Narine -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katycarvt at gmail.com Fri May 4 12:38:49 2012 From: katycarvt at gmail.com (Katy P) Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 12:38:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <8CEF77D5D51CA35-2334-4C4C@webmail-m142.sysops.aol.com> <09854141-BEC5-4A3B-A1AC-3E2EE7FFC084@acm.org> <4FA3C2B6.3080908@cafonso.ca> <8A5104B7-2068-43E0-9D0F-04259203D5AC@acm.org> <4FA3C5B2.1010408@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Is there a source for this that isn't Asbarez? (An Armenian political news source.) On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Narine Khachatryan < ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear all, > > Read what Azerbaijan's President office's head of Foreign Relations > Department told two days ago to Bloomberg, briefly threatening 'to change > their pro-western stance and political alliance'...Words are unnecessary... > > > > Azerbaijan Blackmails West > > http://asbarez.com/102706/azerbaijan-blackmails-west/ > > BAKU—A senior Azeri official told Bloomberg Businessweek that Azerbaijan > would rethink what he called its “pro-Western” stance and align itself with > “a new bloc” if the West does not amp up its support, especially vis-à-vis > the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. > > Azerbaijan wants Europe and the US to pressure Armenia into relinquishing > the liberated territories of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. > > In what was clearly a move to blackmail the West, Novruz Mammadov, head of > the presidential office’s foreign-relations department told Bloomberg > Businessweek that Azerbaijan had been invited to join another political > alliance, without elaborating. > > “We aren’t paying attention to those proposals for now. But if it > continues like this, we may consider it in five to 10 years. We’re > expecting help from the West on the Karabakh issue,” Mammedov told > Bloomberg in an interview in Baku. > > Mammadov also rebuked Israel for allegedly breaking an agreement to keep a > recent $1.6 billion arms deal with Azerbaijan a secret. Israeli defense > officials announced the deal earlier this spring, with Azeri officials > confirming the reports. The Azeri officials also noted that the weapons > would not be used against Iran, as speculated by Western sources, but > rather to bolster its abilities against Armenians. > > Last month Foreign Policy magazine and other Western media outlets > reported that Azerbaijan had turned into an Israeli spy zone and that Baku > was allowing Israel to use its airports for possible airstrikes against > Iran. Azerbaijan has vehemently rejected that assertion. > > “We’re the only secular Muslim nation in the world that’s tied its destiny > with the West,” Mammadov told Bloomberg. He estimated that about 35 percent > of all NATO supplies to Afghanistan transit Azerbaijan. “But we haven’t > seen a positive attitude in return.” > “Iran’s telling us: Why are you selling your oil to the West? You should > sever your relations with the U.S. and Israel because they’re our enemies,” > Mammadov told Bloomberg. > > > Regards, > Narine > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 4 13:13:19 2012 From: ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com (Narine Khachatryan) Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 21:43:19 +0430 Subject: [governance] Rights issues in Azerbaijan / What will CS @ Baku do? In-Reply-To: References: <9E31BF0D-4F90-4592-A946-7E71BEDA3DDC@privaterra.org> <8CEF77D5D51CA35-2334-4C4C@webmail-m142.sysops.aol.com> <09854141-BEC5-4A3B-A1AC-3E2EE7FFC084@acm.org> <4FA3C2B6.3080908@cafonso.ca> <8A5104B7-2068-43E0-9D0F-04259203D5AC@acm.org> <4FA3C5B2.1010408@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: yes, here is the Bloomberg story: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-30/azerbaijan-may-rethink-pro-western-stance-if-no-karabakh-support.html Azerbaijan May Rethink Pro-Western Stance If No Karabakh Support Azerbaijan may rethink its pro- Western stance and realign with “a new bloc” if it doesn’t get more support, particularly in its conflict with neighboring Armenia , a senior Azeri official said. The Caspian Sea nation wants Europe and the U.S. to pressure Armenia into pulling out of Azeri districts adjacent to the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region, according to Novruz Mammadov, head of the presidential office’s foreign-relations department. The country has also been invited to join another political alliance, he added, without elaborating. “We aren’t paying attention to those proposals for now. But if it continues like this, we may consider it in five to 10 years,” Mammadov said today in an interview in the capital, Baku. “We’re expecting help from the West on the Karabakh issue.” The mostly Muslim nation of 9 million people fought a war with Christian Armenia after the Soviet Union broke up in 1991. About 30,000 people were killed and 1 million displaced in the conflict, which left Nagorno-Karabakh, a predominantly ethnic Armenian region previously under Azeri control, in the hands of Armenia. While hostilities largely ended with a Russia-brokered cease-fire in 1994, a peace accord has never been signed. Azerbaijan is the third-largest oil producer in the former Soviet Union after Russia and Kazakhstan, with energy companies including BP Plc (BP/) , Statoil ASA (STL) , Total SA (FP)investing more than $35 billion there since 1992. The government has sent troops to join NATO peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and sells oil to Israel, from whom it also buys weapons. ‘Tied its Destiny’ “We’re the only secular Muslim nation in the world that’s tied its destiny with the West,” said Mammadov, who estimates that about 35 percent of all NATO supplies to Afghanistan transit his country. “But we haven’t seen a positive attitude in return.” While Azerbaijan is also a member of the Commonwealth of Independent States, which unites some former Soviet nations, its closeness to the West has caused “some tension” in relations with Iran, according to Mammadov. “Iran’s telling us: Why are you selling your oil to the West? You should sever your relations with the U.S. and Israel because they’re our enemies,” Mammadov said. He accused some Western media of seeking to stoke tensions between Azerbaijan and Iran after Foreign Policy magazine reported last month that his nation had offered some of its airports to Israel for possible air strikes against Iran, citing unnamed U.S. intelligence agents. Azerbaijan has strongly rejected the report. Mammadov also complained that Israel broke an agreement to keep the $1.6 billion purchase of Israeli weapons secret. To contact the reporter on this story: Zulfugar Agayev in Baku at zagayev at bloomberg.net To contact the editor responsible for this story: Hellmuth Tromm at htromm at bloomberg.net On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Katy P wrote: > Is there a source for this that isn't Asbarez? (An Armenian political news > source.) > > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Narine Khachatryan < > ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Read what Azerbaijan's President office's head of Foreign Relations >> Department told two days ago to Bloomberg, briefly threatening 'to change >> their pro-western stance and political alliance'...Words are unnecessary... >> >> >> >> Azerbaijan Blackmails West >> >> http://asbarez.com/102706/azerbaijan-blackmails-west/ >> >> BAKU—A senior Azeri official told Bloomberg Businessweek that Azerbaijan >> would rethink what he called its “pro-Western” stance and align itself with >> “a new bloc” if the West does not amp up its support, especially vis-à-vis >> the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. >> >> Azerbaijan wants Europe and the US to pressure Armenia into relinquishing >> the liberated territories of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. >> >> In what was clearly a move to blackmail the West, Novruz Mammadov, head >> of the presidential office’s foreign-relations department told Bloomberg >> Businessweek that Azerbaijan had been invited to join another political >> alliance, without elaborating. >> >> “We aren’t paying attention to those proposals for now. But if it >> continues like this, we may consider it in five to 10 years. We’re >> expecting help from the West on the Karabakh issue,” Mammedov told >> Bloomberg in an interview in Baku. >> >> Mammadov also rebuked Israel for allegedly breaking an agreement to keep >> a recent $1.6 billion arms deal with Azerbaijan a secret. Israeli defense >> officials announced the deal earlier this spring, with Azeri officials >> confirming the reports. The Azeri officials also noted that the weapons >> would not be used against Iran, as speculated by Western sources, but >> rather to bolster its abilities against Armenians. >> >> Last month Foreign Policy magazine and other Western media outlets >> reported that Azerbaijan had turned into an Israeli spy zone and that Baku >> was allowing Israel to use its airports for possible airstrikes against >> Iran. Azerbaijan has vehemently rejected that assertion. >> >> “We’re the only secular Muslim nation in the world that’s tied its >> destiny with the West,” Mammadov told Bloomberg. He estimated that about 35 >> percent of all NATO supplies to Afghanistan transit Azerbaijan. “But we >> haven’t seen a positive attitude in return.” >> “Iran’s telling us: Why are you selling your oil to the West? You should >> sever your relations with the U.S. and Israel because they’re our enemies,” >> Mammadov told Bloomberg. >> >> >> Regards, >> Narine >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 4 20:35:35 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 17:35:35 -0700 Subject: [governance] FBI: We need wiretap-ready Web sites - now Message-ID: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57428067-83/fbi-we-need-wiretap-ready-web-s ites-now/ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat May 5 04:49:37 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 11:49:37 +0300 Subject: [governance] Google Safari Fine... Message-ID: <4FA4E9A1.8080602@gmail.com> Forden - May 5, 2012 7:01 AM GMT+0300 Facebook Share LinkedIn Google +1 6 Comments Print QUEUE Q Google Inc. (GOOG) is negotiating with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission over how big a fine it will have to pay for its breach of Apple Inc. (AAPL)’s Safari Internet browser, a person familiar with the matter said. The fine could amount to more than $10 million dollars, said the person, who declined to be identified because the talks are confidential. The fine would be the first by the FTC for a violation of Internet privacy as the agency steps up enforcement of consumers’ online rights. Enlarge image Google Said to Face FTC Fine A pedestrian walks past Google Inc. signage displayed at company headquarters in Mountain View, California. Photographer: Tony Avelar/Bloomberg The FTC is preparing to allege that Mountain View, California-based Google deceived consumers and violated terms of a consent decree signed with the commission last year when it planted so-called cookies on Safari, bypassing Apple software’s privacy settings, the person said. “We will of course cooperate with any officials who have questions,” Chris Gaither, a Google spokesman, said in an e- mail, declining to comment further. An FTC spokeswoman, Claudia Bourne Farrell, declined to comment. The cookies allowed Google to bypass Safari’s built-in privacy protections to aim targeted advertising at users of Safari on computers, laptops, iPhones and iPads. Google said at the time that it “didn’t anticipate this would happen” and that it was removing the files since discovering the slip. The Safari breach was first identified by Stanford researcher Jonathan Mayer, who published a blog entry on his discoveries Feb. 16. ‘Unfair and Deceptive’ The FTC is charged with protecting consumers against “unfair and deceptive” practices under the law that created the agency. European regulators are probing Google more broadly on its privacy policy and sent a detailed questionnaire to the company in March. Google signed a consent decree with the FTC last year in which it settled allegations it used deceptive tactics and violated its own privacy policies in introducing the Buzz social-networking service in 2010. The 20-year settlement bars Google from misrepresenting how it handles user information, and requires the company to follow policies that protect consumer data in new products and to submit to regular privacy audits. The FTC has the authority to levy fines for violations of its consent decrees of as much as $16,000 a day for each violation. First-Quarter Revenue Google, the world’s largest Internet search company, on April 12 reported first-quarter revenue of $8.14 billion, excluding sales passed on to partner sites. Profit before certain costs was $10.08 a share. The agency issued its largest fine in a privacy-related case against data broker ChoicePoint Inc. in 2006 for compromises of personal financial records of more than 163,000 consumers. ChoicePoint agreed to pay $10 million in civil penalties and $5 million in consumer redress in a settlement with the FTC. “Google is quickly becoming the privacy problem child for regulators in the U.S. and Europe,” said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, which has urged regulators to review the handling of consumer data by companies including Google and Facebook Inc. “The Commission’s work to enforce its consent decree with Google shows there’s a real regulatory cop on the digital beat.” To contact the reporter on this story: Sara Forden in Washington at sforden at bloomberg.net To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha at bloomberg.net -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 5 13:42:27 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 19:42:27 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Survey results: Public Interest Representation in Information Society Message-ID: <20120505174227.5E4E52FE@quill.bollow.ch> The results of the 2011 survey on Public Interest Representation in Information Society are available here: http://idgovmap.org/Survey_2011 together with two analysis papers (one by me, one by Elena Pavan). Furthermore, the online Map of Internet Governance is now reasonably complete with regard to the Internet governance fora that have been identified as particulrly important on the basis of these survey results: http://idgovmap.org/map/inst_category/key As a next step, if you have practical experiences in engaging at one or more of these fora, it would be good if you could share what you have learned that can empower others. Each page of the Map has an "Edit source" link that allows you add information and email your modified version to the "editors" of the map, currently Jeremy Malcolm and myself. Don't worry too much about whether the syntax is perfect, we can fix such details, just freely write what you think would be valuable for others to read in preparation for engaging in Internet governance. Many thanks in advance for your contributions to the Map, and also of course my sincere thanks again to all who have responded to the survey. 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 Sun May 6 11:20:16 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 08:20:16 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Re Speech by ITU Secretary-General - Canadian Wireless Telecommunication Association Wireless Antenna Sitting Forum : Closing Keynote Speech Message-ID: <8CD9D529CE494AD6ADD223BA9F209877@UserVAIO> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bob Frankston Date: Saturday, May 5, 2012 Subject: Re Speech by ITU Secretary-General - Canadian Wireless Telecommunication Association Wireless Antenna Sitting Forum : Closing Keynote Speech To: dave at farber.net "Everyone wants mobile broadband and the benefits it will bring. But few seem willing to pay for it - including both the over-the-top players, who are generating vast new demand through their applications, and consumers, who have become accustomed to unlimited packages." This is a classic problem we see when the old guard confronts a new framing. The ITU may want to reconcile with the Internet but they are living in the wrong paradigm. This is not about whether we are willing to pay for infrastructure, it's about how we pay for it. This is like listening to a railroad magnate trying to figure out how to pay for roads and sidewalks because people aren't willing to buy a ticket each time they take a walk. This is not about capital markets as such. It is simply foolish for anyone to invest in a for-profit telecommunications infrastructure. There may be exceptions, just as there are private roads, but limiting commerce in order to make a roads a profit center make no sense. Today we have a regulatory system which supports profligate redundancy rather than providing capacity but the problems cited show that that model isn't really working for us. The answer is painfully obvious - don't do that. Don't charge for "bits" as if they had value. Instead pay for common infrastructure like we pay for sidewalks. By funding the whole out of the value to society we solve the problem of mapping value to payments. Without the need to keep capacity locked away simply to create billable events we will not only discover that capital markets will open up, we'll find that we have far less need for capital because we can take advantage of the vast capacity already available within the gated world of telecommunications. But how can the ITU find solutions when those solutions challenge their members' business models? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 6 11:30:34 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 08:30:34 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inspiring video from Nigeria's and the development of a voter registration database Message-ID: <133DB10476D94AE7970B81674AA9EA50@UserVAIO> This video clip is well worth looking at. Niyimbi Odera left Google to work for his country -- Nigeria -- and save what the clip says is $100 million in costs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VSdIyo8cuU -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From admin at alkasir.com Sun May 6 13:12:20 2012 From: admin at alkasir.com (Walid AL-SAQAF ) Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 19:12:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Inspiring video from Nigeria's and the development of a voter registration database In-Reply-To: <133DB10476D94AE7970B81674AA9EA50@UserVAIO> References: <133DB10476D94AE7970B81674AA9EA50@UserVAIO> Message-ID: Remarkable story. Thanks for sharing Michael! Sincerely, Walid ----------------- Walid Al-Saqaf Founder & Administrator alkasir for mapping and circumventing cyber censorship https://alkasir.com On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 5:30 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > This video clip is well worth looking at. Niyimbi Odera left Google to work > for his country -- Nigeria -- and save what the clip says is $100 million > in > costs. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VSdIyo8cuU > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 6 13:38:46 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 10:38:46 -0700 Subject: [governance] Inspiring video from Nigeria's and the development of a voter registration database In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2453DC6A1CCA4DB192EC76E1330226CC@UserVAIO> Tks Walid, And the question for the IGC/IGF I think, is what IG policies (if any) could enable (or prevent the dis-enabling of) these kinds of developments throughout the non-OECD world. M -----Original Message----- From: Walid AL-SAQAF [mailto:admin at alkasir.com] Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2012 10:12 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] Inspiring video from Nigeria's and the development of a voter registration database Remarkable story. Thanks for sharing Michael! Sincerely, Walid ----------------- Walid Al-Saqaf Founder & Administrator alkasir for mapping and circumventing cyber censorship https://alkasir.com On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 5:30 PM, michael gurstein wrote: This video clip is well worth looking at. Niyimbi Odera left Google to work for his country -- Nigeria -- and save what the clip says is $100 million in costs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VSdIyo8cuU ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ggithaiga at hotmail.com Sun May 6 13:55:22 2012 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 17:55:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] Inspiring video from Nigeria's and the development of a voter registration database In-Reply-To: <133DB10476D94AE7970B81674AA9EA50@UserVAIO> References: <133DB10476D94AE7970B81674AA9EA50@UserVAIO> Message-ID: Thanks for the video. I have forwarded it to the Communications Manager of Kenya's Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission. As you know Kenya is preparing for an election either later this year or early next year under a new constitution. The Electoral Commission may just get ideas from the inspiring video. RegardsGrace > From: gurstein at gmail.com > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 08:30:34 -0700 > Subject: [governance] Inspiring video from Nigeria's and the development of a voter registration database > > This video clip is well worth looking at. Niyimbi Odera left Google to work > for his country -- Nigeria -- and save what the clip says is $100 million in > costs. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VSdIyo8cuU > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Mon May 7 09:05:12 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 22:05:12 +0900 Subject: [governance] New NomCom selected! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear list, Among the 38 volunteers for NomCom, one person joined IGC mailing list in less than two months ago, thus I made the lottery draw selection from the following 37 candidates using the results of the last week's lottery closed on Saturday as announced. The following five persons are selected as New NomCom members. Congratulations! Asif Kabani Hakikur Rahman Naveed-ul-Haq Shahid Uddin Akbar Wilson Abigaba And the following three persons are the reserves. Thomas Lowenhaupt Devon Blake Dixie Hawtin We will first confirm the five selected persons if they are willing to serve. Hope all five will accept the result. If not, we need to ask the people in the reserve pool to join. After that we will select the non-voting Chair. Many thanks, izumi 37 candidates: --------------------- Adam Peake Anriette Esterhuysen Asif Kabani Baudouin Schombe Carlton SAMUELS Charity Gamboa-Embley Deirdre Williams Devon Blake Dixie Hawtin Fouad Baija Ginger Paque Guru Hakikur Rahman Ian Peter Iliya Bazlyankov Jacob Odame Jeremy Hunsinger Jeremy Malcolm Julián Casasbuenas G. Keisha Taylor Ken Stubbs Kerry Brown Lorna Simiyu Madeeha Rehman Michael gurstein Naveed-ul-Haq Norbert Klein Naveed-ul-Haq Shaila Mistry Sonigitu Ekpe Sunil Abraham Tapani Tarvainen Thomas Lowenhaupt Vanda Scartezini VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA Naveed-ul-Haq Zeeshan Shoki ------------ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 7 09:45:54 2012 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 09:45:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] New NomCom selected! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FA7D212.8020909@communisphere.com> My congratulations to the new NomCom. I was on the previous NomCom and hope you find it as rewarding an experience as I did. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt On 5/7/2012 9:05 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear list, > > Among the 38 volunteers for NomCom, one person joined IGC mailing list > in less than two months ago, thus I made the lottery draw selection from > the following 37 candidates using the results of the last week's lottery > closed on Saturday as announced. > > The following five persons are selected as New NomCom members. > Congratulations! > > Asif Kabani > Hakikur Rahman > Naveed-ul-Haq > Shahid Uddin Akbar > Wilson Abigaba > > And the following three persons are the reserves. > > Thomas Lowenhaupt > Devon Blake > Dixie Hawtin > > We will first confirm the five selected persons if they are willing to serve. > Hope all five will accept the result. If not, we need to ask the people in > the reserve pool to join. > > After that we will select the non-voting Chair. > > Many thanks, > > izumi > > > 37 candidates: > --------------------- > Adam Peake > Anriette Esterhuysen > Asif Kabani > Baudouin Schombe > Carlton SAMUELS > Charity Gamboa-Embley > Deirdre Williams > Devon Blake > Dixie Hawtin > Fouad Baija > Ginger Paque > Guru > Hakikur Rahman > Ian Peter > Iliya Bazlyankov > Jacob Odame > Jeremy Hunsinger > Jeremy Malcolm > Julián Casasbuenas G. > Keisha Taylor > Ken Stubbs > Kerry Brown > Lorna Simiyu > Madeeha Rehman > Michael gurstein > Naveed-ul-Haq > Norbert Klein > Naveed-ul-Haq > Shaila Mistry > Sonigitu Ekpe > Sunil Abraham > Tapani Tarvainen > Thomas Lowenhaupt > Vanda Scartezini > VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA > Naveed-ul-Haq > Zeeshan Shoki > > ------------ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kabani.asif at gmail.com Mon May 7 10:19:23 2012 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 19:19:23 +0500 Subject: [governance] New NomCom selected! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Izumi and Friends, Greetings I hereby confirm to serve on the new NomCom and will do be of my ability to serve the community with my time and input. Thank you all. Best Regards Asif Kabani On 7 May 2012 18:05, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear list, > > Among the 38 volunteers for NomCom, one person joined IGC mailing list > in less than two months ago, thus I made the lottery draw selection from > the following 37 candidates using the results of the last week's lottery > closed on Saturday as announced. > > The following five persons are selected as New NomCom members. > Congratulations! > > Asif Kabani > Hakikur Rahman > Naveed-ul-Haq > Shahid Uddin Akbar > Wilson Abigaba > > And the following three persons are the reserves. > > Thomas Lowenhaupt > Devon Blake > Dixie Hawtin > > We will first confirm the five selected persons if they are willing to > serve. > Hope all five will accept the result. If not, we need to ask the people in > the reserve pool to join. > > After that we will select the non-voting Chair. > > Many thanks, > > izumi > > > 37 candidates: > --------------------- > Adam Peake > Anriette Esterhuysen > Asif Kabani > Baudouin Schombe > Carlton SAMUELS > Charity Gamboa-Embley > Deirdre Williams > Devon Blake > Dixie Hawtin > Fouad Baija > Ginger Paque > Guru > Hakikur Rahman > Ian Peter > Iliya Bazlyankov > Jacob Odame > Jeremy Hunsinger > Jeremy Malcolm > Julián Casasbuenas G. > Keisha Taylor > Ken Stubbs > Kerry Brown > Lorna Simiyu > Madeeha Rehman > Michael gurstein > Naveed-ul-Haq > Norbert Klein > Naveed-ul-Haq > Shaila Mistry > Sonigitu Ekpe > Sunil Abraham > Tapani Tarvainen > Thomas Lowenhaupt > Vanda Scartezini > VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA > Naveed-ul-Haq > Zeeshan Shoki > > ------------ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *P** **Before you print think about the** **ENVIRONMENT* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon May 7 10:29:47 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 07:29:47 -0700 Subject: [governance] White House Statement on "Ensuring An Open Internet" Message-ID: <21D24D931EE14D288FCEF9F6A9AC7D59@UserVAIO> " Central to the Internet's value as a platform for innovation, democracy, access to information and scientific progress are the technical standards on which it is built and the open manner in which it is governed. Yet, there are governments that seek to alter the fundamental way the Internet functions. Several governments recently called for new treaty http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/05/02/ensuring-open-internet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From devonrb at gmail.com Mon May 7 17:36:56 2012 From: devonrb at gmail.com (Devon Blake) Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 16:36:56 -0500 Subject: [governance] New NomCom selected! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I believe congratulations are in order for those selected. Congratulations to the New NOMCOM, I wish us all a great year. Devon Blake On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear list, > > Among the 38 volunteers for NomCom, one person joined IGC mailing list > in less than two months ago, thus I made the lottery draw selection from > the following 37 candidates using the results of the last week's lottery > closed on Saturday as announced. > > The following five persons are selected as New NomCom members. > Congratulations! > > Asif Kabani > Hakikur Rahman > Naveed-ul-Haq > Shahid Uddin Akbar > Wilson Abigaba > > And the following three persons are the reserves. > > Thomas Lowenhaupt > Devon Blake > Dixie Hawtin > > We will first confirm the five selected persons if they are willing to > serve. > Hope all five will accept the result. If not, we need to ask the people in > the reserve pool to join. > > After that we will select the non-voting Chair. > > Many thanks, > > izumi > > > 37 candidates: > --------------------- > Adam Peake > Anriette Esterhuysen > Asif Kabani > Baudouin Schombe > Carlton SAMUELS > Charity Gamboa-Embley > Deirdre Williams > Devon Blake > Dixie Hawtin > Fouad Baija > Ginger Paque > Guru > Hakikur Rahman > Ian Peter > Iliya Bazlyankov > Jacob Odame > Jeremy Hunsinger > Jeremy Malcolm > Julián Casasbuenas G. > Keisha Taylor > Ken Stubbs > Kerry Brown > Lorna Simiyu > Madeeha Rehman > Michael gurstein > Naveed-ul-Haq > Norbert Klein > Naveed-ul-Haq > Shaila Mistry > Sonigitu Ekpe > Sunil Abraham > Tapani Tarvainen > Thomas Lowenhaupt > Vanda Scartezini > VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA > Naveed-ul-Haq > Zeeshan Shoki > > ------------ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Devon Blake Special Projects Director Earthwise Solutions Limited 29 Dominica Drive Kgn 5 ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632 To be kind, To be helpful, To network *Earthwise ... For Life!* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Tue May 8 01:43:07 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 14:43:07 +0900 Subject: [governance] New NomCom - Confirmation and Erratta Message-ID: Dear all, First, I like to announce that all five selected members accepted to be the NomCom. So we will proceed to nominate the non-voting Chair, together with Sala. I also have to mention that the 37 candidate list I attached had some errors. Mr. Naveed-ul-Haq's name appears three times, though that was not the data used for the random selection. When pasting the list to the email, I made some mistakes and pasted his name twice more. It did not affect the outcome of the draw. MRs. Wilson Abigaba and Shahid Uddin Akbar 's names were replaced accidentaly by Naveed. Note they were all selected, that's part of why I pasted Naveed's name over two others while trying to erase some color marks on the excel sheet. The right slate used is as follows. Please accept my sincere apology, izumi ---------- 1 Adam Peake 2 Anriette Esterhuysen 3 Asif Kabani 4 Baudouin Schombe 5 Carlton SAMUELS 6 Charity Gamboa-Embley 7 Deirdre Williams 8 Devon Blake 9 Dixie Hawtin 10 Fouad Baija 11 Ginger Paque 12 Guru 13 Hakikur Rahman 14 Ian Peter 15 Iliya Bazlyankov 16 Jacob Odame 17 Jeremy Hunsinger 18 Jeremy Malcolm 19 Julián Casasbuenas G. 20 Keisha Taylor 21 Ken Stubbs 22 Kerry Brown 23 Lorna Simiyu 24 Madeeha Rehman 25 Michael gurstein 26 Naveed-ul-Haq 27 Norbert Klein 28 Shahid Uddin Akbar 29 Shaila Mistry 30 Sonigitu Ekpe 31 Sunil Abraham 32 Tapani Tarvainen 33 Thomas Lowenhaupt 34 Vanda Scartezini 35 VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA 36 Wilson Abigaba 37 Zeeshan Shoki 2012/5/7 Izumi AIZU : > Dear list, > > Among the 38 volunteers for NomCom, one person joined IGC mailing list > in less than two months ago, thus I made the lottery draw selection from > the following 37 candidates using the results of the last week's lottery > closed on Saturday as announced. > > The following five persons are selected as New NomCom members. > Congratulations! > > Asif Kabani > Hakikur Rahman > Naveed-ul-Haq > Shahid Uddin Akbar > Wilson Abigaba > > And the following three persons are the reserves. > > Thomas Lowenhaupt > Devon Blake > Dixie Hawtin > > We will first confirm the five selected persons if they are willing to serve. > Hope all five will accept the result. If not, we need to ask the people in > the reserve pool to join. > > After that we will select the non-voting Chair. > > Many thanks, > > izumi > > > 37 candidates: > --------------------- > Adam Peake > Anriette Esterhuysen > Asif Kabani > Baudouin Schombe > Carlton SAMUELS > Charity Gamboa-Embley > Deirdre Williams > Devon Blake > Dixie Hawtin > Fouad Baija > Ginger Paque > Guru > Hakikur Rahman > Ian Peter > Iliya Bazlyankov > Jacob Odame > Jeremy Hunsinger > Jeremy Malcolm > Julián Casasbuenas G. > Keisha Taylor > Ken Stubbs > Kerry Brown > Lorna Simiyu > Madeeha Rehman > Michael gurstein > Naveed-ul-Haq > Norbert Klein > Naveed-ul-Haq > Shaila Mistry > Sonigitu Ekpe > Sunil Abraham > Tapani Tarvainen > Thomas Lowenhaupt > Vanda Scartezini > VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA > Naveed-ul-Haq > Zeeshan Shoki > > ------------ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Tue May 8 02:25:47 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 23:25:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] New NomCom - Confirmation and Erratta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1336458347.68567.YahooMailNeo@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Congratulation to new NomCom and both friends from Pakistan Naveed and Asif. Wish all of you best of luck.   Regards   Imran Ahmed Shah >________________________________ > From: Izumi AIZU >To: governance >Sent: Tuesday, 8 May 2012, 10:43 >Subject: [governance] New NomCom - Confirmation and Erratta > >Dear all, > >First, I like to announce that all five selected members accepted to >be the NomCom. >So we will proceed to nominate the non-voting Chair, together with Sala. > >I also have to mention that the 37 candidate list I attached had some errors. > >Mr. Naveed-ul-Haq's name appears three times, though that was not the >data used for the random selection. When pasting the list to the >email, I made some mistakes and pasted his name twice more. > >It did not affect the outcome of the draw. > >MRs. Wilson Abigaba and Shahid Uddin Akbar >'s names were replaced accidentaly by Naveed. >Note they were all selected, that's part of why I pasted Naveed's name >over two others while trying to erase some color marks on the excel >sheet. > >The right slate used is as follows. >Please accept my sincere apology, > >izumi > >---------- > >1    Adam Peake >2    Anriette Esterhuysen >3    Asif Kabani >4    Baudouin Schombe >5    Carlton SAMUELS >6    Charity Gamboa-Embley >7    Deirdre Williams >8    Devon Blake >9    Dixie Hawtin >10    Fouad Baija >11    Ginger Paque >12    Guru >13    Hakikur Rahman >14    Ian Peter >15    Iliya Bazlyankov >16    Jacob Odame >17    Jeremy Hunsinger >18    Jeremy Malcolm >19    Julián Casasbuenas G. >20    Keisha Taylor >21    Ken Stubbs >22    Kerry Brown >23    Lorna Simiyu >24    Madeeha Rehman >25    Michael gurstein >26    Naveed-ul-Haq >27    Norbert Klein >28    Shahid Uddin Akbar >29    Shaila Mistry >30    Sonigitu Ekpe >31    Sunil Abraham >32    Tapani Tarvainen >33    Thomas Lowenhaupt >34    Vanda Scartezini >35    VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA >36    Wilson Abigaba >37    Zeeshan Shoki > > > >2012/5/7 Izumi AIZU : >> Dear list, >> >> Among the 38 volunteers for NomCom, one person joined IGC mailing list >> in less than two months ago, thus I made the lottery draw selection from >> the following 37 candidates using the results of the last week's lottery >> closed on Saturday as announced. >> >> The following five persons are selected as New NomCom members. >> Congratulations! >> >> Asif Kabani >> Hakikur Rahman >> Naveed-ul-Haq >> Shahid Uddin Akbar >> Wilson Abigaba >> >> And the following three persons are the reserves. >> >> Thomas Lowenhaupt >> Devon Blake >> Dixie Hawtin >> >> We will first confirm the five selected persons if they are willing to serve. >> Hope all five will accept the result. If not, we need to ask the people in >> the reserve pool to join. >> >> After that we will select the non-voting Chair. >> >> Many thanks, >> >> izumi >> >> >> 37 candidates: >> --------------------- >> Adam Peake >> Anriette Esterhuysen >> Asif Kabani >> Baudouin Schombe >> Carlton SAMUELS >> Charity Gamboa-Embley >> Deirdre Williams >> Devon Blake >> Dixie Hawtin >> Fouad Baija >> Ginger Paque >> Guru >> Hakikur Rahman >> Ian Peter >> Iliya Bazlyankov >> Jacob Odame >> Jeremy Hunsinger >> Jeremy Malcolm >> Julián Casasbuenas G. >> Keisha Taylor >> Ken Stubbs >> Kerry Brown >> Lorna Simiyu >> Madeeha Rehman >> Michael gurstein >> Naveed-ul-Haq >> Norbert Klein >> Naveed-ul-Haq >> Shaila Mistry >> Sonigitu Ekpe >> Sunil Abraham >> Tapani Tarvainen >> Thomas Lowenhaupt >> Vanda Scartezini >> VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA >> Naveed-ul-Haq >> Zeeshan Shoki >> >> ------------ > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 8 02:55:59 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 08:55:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Just wondering if we want to do anything about this? The draft program has a couple of IGCers as speakers but no clarity on rules of engagement for other attendees…? Best, Bill On Apr 18, 2012, at 11:05 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hello, > > As you know, there will be an enhanced cooperation consultation on 18 May in Geneva, following the IGF consultations and MAG meeting. http://archive.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=6227&lang=1 > > It would be very important that all stakeholders are able to intervene and contribute freely (but strategically) during this consultation, rather than have to sit silently on the sidelines or be relegated to collective brief interventions at the end of each session. I imagine that ICC (business) and ISOC (TC) will be contacting the CSTD secretariat to make such a request. On behalf of civil society, the IGC should do the same. > > Assuming people agree with the proposition, may I suggest that the co-coordinators take a crack at drafting a one or two paragraph letter to Mongi to this effect? Probably it would be better to do it sooner than later, as the secretariat would then need to pass the request along to governments etc… > > Best, > > Bill > > *************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > william.drake at uzh.ch > www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake > www.williamdrake.org > **************************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue May 8 03:06:54 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 16:06:54 +0900 Subject: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Could you give a pointer to the agenda. Thanks, Adam On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 3:55 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Just wondering if we want to do anything about this? The draft program > has a couple of IGCers as speakers but no clarity on rules of engagement > for other attendees…? > > Best, > > Bill > > > On Apr 18, 2012, at 11:05 AM, William Drake wrote: > > Hello, > > As you know, there will be an enhanced cooperation consultation on 18 May > in Geneva, following the IGF consultations and MAG meeting. > http://archive.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=6227&lang=1 > > It would be very important that all stakeholders are able to intervene and > contribute freely (but strategically) during this consultation, rather than > have to sit silently on the sidelines or be relegated to collective brief > interventions at the end of each session. I imagine that ICC (business) > and ISOC (TC) will be contacting the CSTD secretariat to make such a > request. On behalf of civil society, the IGC should do the same. > > Assuming people agree with the proposition, may I suggest that the > co-coordinators take a crack at drafting a one or two paragraph letter to > Mongi to this effect? Probably it would be better to do it sooner than > later, as the secretariat would then need to pass the request along to > governments etc… > > Best, > > Bill > > *************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > william.drake at uzh.ch > www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake > www.williamdrake.org > **************************************************** > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue May 8 03:55:37 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 08:55:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 16:06:54 on Tue, 8 May 2012, Adam Peake writes >Could you give a pointer to the agenda. http://www.unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/cstd2012d01_WSISprog.pdf >On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 3:55 PM, William Drake >wrote: > Hi > > Just wondering if we want to do anything about this?  The draft > program has a couple of IGCers as speakers but no clarity on rules > of engagement for other attendees…? > Best, > Bill > On Apr 18, 2012, at 11:05 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hello, > As you know, there will be an enhanced cooperation consultation >> on 18 May in Geneva, following the IGF consultations and MAG >> meeting.  http://archive.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=6227&lang=1 >>   >> It would be very important that all stakeholders are able to >> intervene and contribute freely (but strategically) during this >> consultation, rather than have to sit silently on the sidelines >> or be relegated to collective brief interventions at the end of >> each session.  I imagine that ICC (business) and ISOC (TC) will >> be contacting the CSTD secretariat to make such a request.  On >> behalf of civil society, the IGC should do the same. > Assuming people agree with the proposition, may I suggest that >> the co-coordinators take a crack at drafting a one or two >> paragraph letter to Mongi to this effect?  Probably it would be >> better to do it sooner than later, as the secretariat would then >> need to pass the request along to governments etc… > Best, > Bill > *************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> william.drake at uzh.ch >> www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake >> www.williamdrake.org >> **************************************************** > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Tue May 8 04:08:13 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 10:08:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FA8D46D.4040005@apc.org> Dear Bill, Adam and all The agenda is very basic. I will post it below. Parminder and I have both been asked to speak. APC will post our basic input here as soon as we have had a chance to present it to members first. Basically my idea is to shift the discussion towards the involvement of civil society in EC and rather than just the usual involvement of governments. My gut reaction to EC is that there is all this dispute about the involvements from States and while this is kind of going nowhere, there appears to be less cooperation and more concentration of power among large companies, rich country governments, and established IG 'institutions'. I hope this will complement Parminder's input which I hope will focus on the imbalances in governmental involvement from governments in the north (who tend to say they don't want control, but they already have it) and governments in the south (who say they want more control and who don't have much at global level, and who are not demonstrating, consistently, good use of the control they do have at national level - in my view). A serious discussion on what governments responsibilities are and of WHAT they need to be involved in would be useful in my view. And then finally, and I would appreciate IGC input on this.. among APC staff we have had a discussion of the parameters of EC. Is EC just something we should be talking about at global level, or also at national level. I feel stongly that we need to take the discussion to EC in IG at national level. And this should touch on global IG issues (how countries engage, whether there is capacity building, consultation, etc. around involvement in global issues/process) as well as on national IG issues. Anriette 11:00- 13:00 Welcoming remarks by the Chair of the CSTD, Mr. Fortunato de la Peña ■ Address by: Dr. Hamadoun Touré, Secretary-General of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) ■ Address by: Mr. Nigel Hickson, Vice President for Europe, ICANN ■ Address by: Mr. Markus Kummer, Vice President Public Policy, Internet Society ■ Address by: Mr. Jimson Olufuye, Vice-Chairman, Africa Region, World Information Technology and Services Alliance ■ Address by: Mr. Parminder Singh, Executive Director, IT for Change ■ Address by: Ms. Marilyn Cade, CEO, mCADE LLC ■ Address by: Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications 15:00- 18:00 General discussion On 08/05/12 09:06, Adam Peake wrote: > Could you give a pointer to the agenda. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 3:55 PM, William Drake > wrote: > > Hi > > Just wondering if we want to do anything about this? The draft > program has a couple of IGCers as speakers but no clarity on rules > of engagement for other attendees…? > > Best, > > Bill > > > On Apr 18, 2012, at 11:05 AM, William Drake wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> As you know, there will be an enhanced cooperation consultation on >> 18 May in Geneva, following the IGF consultations and MAG >> meeting. http://archive.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=6227&lang=1 >> >> >> It would be very important that all stakeholders are able to >> intervene and contribute freely (but strategically) during this >> consultation, rather than have to sit silently on the sidelines or >> be relegated to collective brief interventions at the end of each >> session. I imagine that ICC (business) and ISOC (TC) will be >> contacting the CSTD secretariat to make such a request. On behalf >> of civil society, the IGC should do the same. >> >> Assuming people agree with the proposition, may I suggest that the >> co-coordinators take a crack at drafting a one or two paragraph >> letter to Mongi to this effect? Probably it would be better to do >> it sooner than later, as the secretariat would then need to pass >> the request along to governments etc… >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> *************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> william.drake at uzh.ch >> www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake >> >> www.williamdrake.org >> **************************************************** >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kabani.asif at gmail.com Tue May 8 06:26:54 2012 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 15:26:54 +0500 Subject: [governance] New NomCom - Confirmation and Erratta In-Reply-To: <1336458347.68567.YahooMailNeo@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1336458347.68567.YahooMailNeo@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Izumi Thank you for sharing the updated correction of list. Good to hear from. Dear Imran and Friends, Thank you all for the best wishes. Sincerely Asif Kabani On 8 May 2012 11:25, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Congratulation to new NomCom and both friends from Pakistan Naveed and > Asif. > Wish all of you best of luck. > > Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > *From:* Izumi AIZU > *To:* governance > *Sent:* Tuesday, 8 May 2012, 10:43 > *Subject:* [governance] New NomCom - Confirmation and Erratta > > Dear all, > > First, I like to announce that all five selected members accepted to > be the NomCom. > So we will proceed to nominate the non-voting Chair, together with Sala. > > I also have to mention that the 37 candidate list I attached had some > errors. > > Mr. Naveed-ul-Haq's name appears three times, though that was not the > data used for the random selection. When pasting the list to the > email, I made some mistakes and pasted his name twice more. > > It did not affect the outcome of the draw. > > MRs. Wilson Abigaba and Shahid Uddin Akbar > 's names were replaced accidentaly by Naveed. > Note they were all selected, that's part of why I pasted Naveed's name > over two others while trying to erase some color marks on the excel > sheet. > > The right slate used is as follows. > Please accept my sincere apology, > > izumi > > ---------- > > 1 Adam Peake > 2 Anriette Esterhuysen > 3 Asif Kabani > 4 Baudouin Schombe > 5 Carlton SAMUELS > 6 Charity Gamboa-Embley > 7 Deirdre Williams > 8 Devon Blake > 9 Dixie Hawtin > 10 Fouad Baija > 11 Ginger Paque > 12 Guru > 13 Hakikur Rahman > 14 Ian Peter > 15 Iliya Bazlyankov > 16 Jacob Odame > 17 Jeremy Hunsinger > 18 Jeremy Malcolm > 19 Julián Casasbuenas G. > 20 Keisha Taylor > 21 Ken Stubbs > 22 Kerry Brown > 23 Lorna Simiyu > 24 Madeeha Rehman > 25 Michael gurstein > 26 Naveed-ul-Haq > 27 Norbert Klein > 28 Shahid Uddin Akbar > 29 Shaila Mistry > 30 Sonigitu Ekpe > 31 Sunil Abraham > 32 Tapani Tarvainen > 33 Thomas Lowenhaupt > 34 Vanda Scartezini > 35 VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA > 36 Wilson Abigaba > 37 Zeeshan Shoki > > > > 2012/5/7 Izumi AIZU : > > Dear list, > > > > Among the 38 volunteers for NomCom, one person joined IGC mailing list > > in less than two months ago, thus I made the lottery draw selection from > > the following 37 candidates using the results of the last week's lottery > > closed on Saturday as announced. > > > > The following five persons are selected as New NomCom members. > > Congratulations! > > > > Asif Kabani > > Hakikur Rahman > > Naveed-ul-Haq > > Shahid Uddin Akbar > > Wilson Abigaba > > > > And the following three persons are the reserves. > > > > Thomas Lowenhaupt > > Devon Blake > > Dixie Hawtin > > > > We will first confirm the five selected persons if they are willing to > serve. > > Hope all five will accept the result. If not, we need to ask the people > in > > the reserve pool to join. > > > > After that we will select the non-voting Chair. > > > > Many thanks, > > > > izumi > > > > > > 37 candidates: > > --------------------- > > Adam Peake > > Anriette Esterhuysen > > Asif Kabani > > Baudouin Schombe > > Carlton SAMUELS > > Charity Gamboa-Embley > > Deirdre Williams > > Devon Blake > > Dixie Hawtin > > Fouad Baija > > Ginger Paque > > Guru > > Hakikur Rahman > > Ian Peter > > Iliya Bazlyankov > > Jacob Odame > > Jeremy Hunsinger > > Jeremy Malcolm > > Julián Casasbuenas G. > > Keisha Taylor > > Ken Stubbs > > Kerry Brown > > Lorna Simiyu > > Madeeha Rehman > > Michael gurstein > > Naveed-ul-Haq > > Norbert Klein > > Naveed-ul-Haq > > Shaila Mistry > > Sonigitu Ekpe > > Sunil Abraham > > Tapani Tarvainen > > Thomas Lowenhaupt > > Vanda Scartezini > > VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA > > Naveed-ul-Haq > > Zeeshan Shoki > > > > ------------ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *P** **Before you print think about the** **ENVIRONMENT* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Tue May 8 07:06:29 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 13:06:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] White House Statement on "Ensuring An Open Internet" In-Reply-To: <21D24D931EE14D288FCEF9F6A9AC7D59@UserVAIO> References: <21D24D931EE14D288FCEF9F6A9AC7D59@UserVAIO> Message-ID: It sounds like Sesame street. Sleep well, Uncle Sam takes care. How about Amazon, Apple, Ebay, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, and the likes of ACTA, SOPA, etc. ? Open and multi-stakeholder, is it ? The White House dialectic is skirting major stakes. - - - On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 4:29 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > ** > " Central to the Internet’s value as a platform for innovation, > democracy, access to information and scientific progress are the technical > standards on which it is built and the open manner in which it is > governed. Yet, there are governments that seek to alter the fundamental > way the Internet functions. Several governments recently called for new > treaty http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/05/02/ensuring-open-internet > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From qshatti at gmail.com Tue May 8 09:07:53 2012 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 16:07:53 +0300 Subject: [governance] Arab MAG membership Deadline Extended Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: 2012/5/8 Subject: [Arab IGF] تمديد مهلة تقديم الطلبات للجنة الإستشارية -- AMAG Deadline Extended To: list at igfarab.org // English text below // السادة الأفاضل الأخوة والأخوات تحية طيبة وبعد كما تعلمون فقد تم فتح باب التقدم لعضوية اللجنة الاستشارية العليا للمنتدى منذ 18 إبريل، وكان قد تم تحديد موعد الثلاثاء 8 مايو (اليوم) كموعد نهائي لتقديم طلبات الالتحاق. إلا أننا تلقينا بعض الطلبات بتمديد هذه الفترة للسماح للمزيد من الأفراد والجهات لإعداد طلبات التقديم الخاصة بهم والتي أبدى البعض ضيق الوقت المتاح لاعتماد تلك الطلبات والتنسيق بشأنها من خلال الإجراءات الداخلية في كل جهة حسب طبيعتها. وعليه، وحرصا على تحقيق تمثيل واسع ومتوازن لكافة الأطراف داخل اللجنة الاستشارية، فقد رأينا تمديد الموعد النهائي للتقديم *إلى يوم الثلاثاء القادم الموافق 15 مايو*، وذلك لجميع أصحاب المصلحة، وجاري تحديث الموعد النهائي الجديد على الموقع الالكتروني كذلك. مع خالص تحياتنا أمانة المنتدى -------------------------------------- Dear all, As you may already know, the deadline for application to the AMAG (Arab Multistakeholder Advisory Group) was planned for today Tuesday 8 May. We have received a number of requests to extend this deadline to allow more individuals and entities to put their applications, as some found this window relatively insufficient to coordinate within their respective entities/constituencies. Hence, and in order to ensure better representation of all stakeholders in the region, we are therefore extending the deadline for submitting applications for one week *till Tuesday 15 May*, and will update the website accordingly. Best Regards, Arab IGF Secretariat _______________________________________________ list mailing list list at igfarab.org http://igfarab.org/mailman/listinfo/list -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 8 11:10:58 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 08:10:58 -0700 Subject: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva In-Reply-To: <4FA8D46D.4040005@apc.org> Message-ID: <6D6899A1E5984901A2C7561B7A4649BD@UserVAIO> It seems to me that the basic issues of Enhanced Cooperation from a CS perspective are twofold: 1. what is the normative framework within which EC should take place--my strong suggestion would be that it is that of transparency, accountability, democracy and inclusiveness (and of course there is the WSIS declaration etc. to support this). And that this should be presented as a declaration and within a framing document. 2. that having agreed on such a normative framework the question is what is the most appropriate institutional arrangement for achieving these within the context of Internet governance. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 1:08 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva Dear Bill, Adam and all The agenda is very basic. I will post it below. Parminder and I have both been asked to speak. APC will post our basic input here as soon as we have had a chance to present it to members first. Basically my idea is to shift the discussion towards the involvement of civil society in EC and rather than just the usual involvement of governments. My gut reaction to EC is that there is all this dispute about the involvements from States and while this is kind of going nowhere, there appears to be less cooperation and more concentration of power among large companies, rich country governments, and established IG 'institutions'. I hope this will complement Parminder's input which I hope will focus on the imbalances in governmental involvement from governments in the north (who tend to say they don't want control, but they already have it) and governments in the south (who say they want more control and who don't have much at global level, and who are not demonstrating, consistently, good use of the control they do have at national level - in my view). A serious discussion on what governments responsibilities are and of WHAT they need to be involved in would be useful in my view. And then finally, and I would appreciate IGC input on this.. among APC staff we have had a discussion of the parameters of EC. Is EC just something we should be talking about at global level, or also at national level. I feel stongly that we need to take the discussion to EC in IG at national level. And this should touch on global IG issues (how countries engage, whether there is capacity building, consultation, etc. around involvement in global issues/process) as well as on national IG issues. Anriette 11:00- 13:00 Welcoming remarks by the Chair of the CSTD, Mr. Fortunato de la Peña ■ Address by: Dr. Hamadoun Touré, Secretary-General of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) ■ Address by: Mr. Nigel Hickson, Vice President for Europe, ICANN ■ Address by: Mr. Markus Kummer, Vice President Public Policy, Internet Society ■ Address by: Mr. Jimson Olufuye, Vice-Chairman, Africa Region, World Information Technology and Services Alliance ■ Address by: Mr. Parminder Singh, Executive Director, IT for Change ■ Address by: Ms. Marilyn Cade, CEO, mCADE LLC ■ Address by: Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications 15:00- 18:00 General discussion On 08/05/12 09:06, Adam Peake wrote: > Could you give a pointer to the agenda. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 3:55 PM, William Drake > wrote: > > Hi > > Just wondering if we want to do anything about this? The draft > program has a couple of IGCers as speakers but no clarity on rules > of engagement for other attendees…? > > Best, > > Bill > > > On Apr 18, 2012, at 11:05 AM, William Drake wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> As you know, there will be an enhanced cooperation consultation on >> 18 May in Geneva, following the IGF consultations and MAG >> meeting. http://archive.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=6227&lang=1 >> >> >> >> It would be very important that all stakeholders are able to >> intervene and contribute freely (but strategically) during this >> consultation, rather than have to sit silently on the sidelines or >> be relegated to collective brief interventions at the end of each >> session. I imagine that ICC (business) and ISOC (TC) will be >> contacting the CSTD secretariat to make such a request. On behalf >> of civil society, the IGC should do the same. >> >> Assuming people agree with the proposition, may I suggest that the >> co-coordinators take a crack at drafting a one or two paragraph >> letter to Mongi to this effect? Probably it would be better to do >> it sooner than later, as the secretariat would then need to pass >> the request along to governments etc… >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> *************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> william.drake at uzh.ch >> www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake >> >> www.williamdrake.org >> **************************************************** >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue May 8 11:53:59 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 18:53:59 +0300 Subject: [governance] New Legislation Would Give Power to Keyboard Cops Message-ID: <4FA94197.8010109@gmail.com> [The Great Fall of Liberty?] New Legislation Would Give Power to Keyboard Cops By Naomi Wolf, The Daily Star 07 May 12 lmost no one had read the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act before it was rushed through the United States House of Representatives in late April and sent on to the Senate. CISPA is the successor to SOPA, the "anti-piracy" bill that was recently defeated after an outcry from citizens and Internet companies. SOPA, which was framed by its proponents in terms of protecting America's entertainment industry from theft, would have shackled content providers and users, and spawned copycat legislation around the world, from Canada and the United Kingdom to Israel and Australia. Now, with CISPA, the clampdown on Internet freedom comes in the guise of a bill aimed at cyber terrorism that should give Internet entrepreneurs - and all business leaders - nightmares. And yet, this time, major Internet and technology companies, including Facebook and Microsoft, supported the bill, on the grounds that it would create a clear procedure for handling government requests for information. Microsoft, at least, belatedly dropped its support after recognizing that the law would allow the U.S. government to force any Internet business to hand over information about its users' online activities. But the bill is far more alarming than that. For example, "the head of a department or agency of the Federal Government receiving cyber threat information ... shall provide such cyber threat information to the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center of the Department of Homeland Security." In fact, no actual threat need be made. And what counts as "threat information" is defined so broadly that it can mean anything. "Notwithstanding any other provision of law," the government may rely on "cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information." The vague concept of "cyber threat information" does not just let the Department of Homeland Security investigate anyone. By including information pertaining to "a vulnerability of a system or network of a government or private entity," and the "theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information," the bill appears to target whistleblowers and leakers, and threatens investigative journalism. The respected Internet technology site Techdirt has called the bill "insanity." It has written that "CISPA can no longer be called a cybersecurity bill at all. The government would be able to search information ... for the purposes of investigating American citizens with complete immunity from all privacy protections as long as [it] can claim someone committed a ‘cybersecurity crime.'" Indeed, the Department of Homeland Security may look through data transmitted online without restraint, regardless of what it ultimately finds. And, in this respect, business leaders who believe that this bill is aimed at terrorists - or "at most" at the domestic activists and documentarians who can make it harder for them to operate - should be careful about what they wish for. Indeed, because the definition of cyberterrorism is so broad and subjective, U.S. business leaders who are pushing for CISPA risk exposing themselves to the Department of Homeland Security's power to scrutinize their personal lives, subpoena their bank records, and disrupt their electronic communications. And the law would give the Department of Homeland Security similar control over the personal and financial lives of anyone who does business in the United States or with American companies - a power that the U.S. government has already tried to assert by issuing a subpoena for Icelandic legislator Birgitta Jonsdottir's personal bank records. Everyone has secrets: love affairs, substance-abuse problems, mental-health diagnoses, heterodox sexual preferences or questionable discussions with accountants. In a strong civil society, these personal matters properly remain private. In a surveillance society, they become leverage. I am fearful of the effects of unrestrained domestic surveillance for specific reasons: I worked in two U.S. presidential campaigns, and saw firsthand the standard tactics - nonviolent but still mafia-inflected - of high-level politics. There was no shortage of privately contracted surveillance and wiretapping. Campaigns routinely planted spies - interns, household staff or even lovers - in the opposing camp, and devoted vast numbers of man-hours to combing through private records in opposition research. The results were then regularly used behind the scenes to bully, intimidate and coerce targets. Most of these "scandals" never saw the light of day - the goal was pressure, not disclosure. CISPA would give the same power to the Department of Homeland Security. America's business leaders may think that they are immune, but the bill's definition of "a threat" is so vague - with no distinction between a "threat" to the Internet and any random, even metaphorical "threat" on the Internet - that the Department of Homeland Security may keep tabs on anyone who says something that irks someone in a cubicle. If CISPA enters into U.S. law, alongside the recently enacted National Defense Authorization Act - which gives the government the power to detain any American for anything forever - fundamental civil liberties will be threatened in a way that no democracy can tolerate. And because so much of the freedom of the Internet around the world derives from the freedom of expression that until recently characterized the U.S., enactment of CISPA poses a similar threat around the world. The good news is that President Barack Obama has vowed to veto CISPA. The bad news is that he made - and then broke - a similar vow on the National Defense Authorization Act. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Tue May 8 14:28:06 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 14:28:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva In-Reply-To: <6D6899A1E5984901A2C7561B7A4649BD@UserVAIO> References: <4FA8D46D.4040005@apc.org> <6D6899A1E5984901A2C7561B7A4649BD@UserVAIO> Message-ID: On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 11:10 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > It seems to me that the basic issues of Enhanced Cooperation from a CS > perspective are twofold: > 1. what is the normative framework within which EC should take > place--my strong suggestion would be that it is that of transparency, > accountability, democracy and inclusiveness (and of course there is the > WSIS declaration etc. to support this). And that this should be presented > as a declaration and within a framing document. > 2. that having agreed on such a normative framework the question is > what is the most appropriate institutional arrangement for achieving these > within the context of Internet governance. > I believe that once democracy is adopted as a normative framework (it can hardly be denied, so it can only be ignored at worst), then it follows that all the "stakeholder" stuff can at most only be seen as an intermediate and transition-state to real democracy. The existence of "stakeholders" along with their necessarily limited numbers creates the existence of non-stakeholders, who have neither a vote nor a voice. In the event any civil society group purports to informally "represent" the public, and assuming they somehow succeed in that, the public in a stakeholder situation then only has one vote, and is drowned out by all of the other private special interests represented at the "stakeholder" table. Paul Lehto, J.D. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 9 03:26:45 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 08:26:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva In-Reply-To: <6D6899A1E5984901A2C7561B7A4649BD@UserVAIO> References: <4FA8D46D.4040005@apc.org> <6D6899A1E5984901A2C7561B7A4649BD@UserVAIO> Message-ID: In message <6D6899A1E5984901A2C7561B7A4649BD at UserVAIO>, at 08:10:58 on Tue, 8 May 2012, michael gurstein writes >It seems to me that the basic issues of Enhanced Cooperation from a CS perspective are twofold: > 1. what is the normative framework within which EC should take place--my strong suggestion would be that it is that of transparency, >accountability, democracy and inclusiveness (and of course there is the WSIS declaration etc. to support this). And that this should be >presented as a declaration and within a framing document. > 2. that having agreed on such a normative framework the question is what is the most appropriate institutional arrangement for achieving >these within the context of Internet governance. As far as I can see (but I wasn't in Tunis for WSIS) the process of Enhanced CoOperation [Tunis 69-71] could be re-stated as : 1) The Capacity Building of Governments, so that they can introduce laws (but not about day-to-day operations) which are based upon an understanding the issues, not ignorance of them. 2) Separately, a group of "relevant organisations" should develop public policy principles applicable to Critical Internet Resources. You can get an idea of the "relevant organisations" from the reports[1] which have been previously requested and supplied to the CSTD, and their existing policy development processes are intended to be "enhanced" to cover part 2. The IGF looks like a suitable venue for part 1, and given the list of Intergovernmental venues already in part 2, what's left are regional organisations and the UN [eg ECOSOC]. Relevant capacity building can be done by judicious lobbying from well intentioned bystanders, although not all of the "relevant organisations" currently embrace "all stakeholders" (even in a "role" of well intentioned bystander). [1] #A3: viz ICANN, ITU, W3C CoE, ISOC, OECD, UNESCO, WIPO, NRO, IETF. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed May 9 08:19:59 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 21:19:59 +0900 Subject: [governance] Seek for advice re:NomCom Chair Message-ID: Dear list, Now that all five NomCom candidates accepted the selection, we need to finalize the non-voting Chair. The Charter says in http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process "A non voting chair will be appointed by the coordinators for each nomcom with the advice of the IGC membership. In order to serve as a chair, it is recommended that a person has served in at least one nomcom previously." So, first we like to ask you to provide your advice, suggestions, for the Chair, preferably someone served in previous nomcoms. Unfortunately, I do not have the list of all the previous NomCom members and I am afraid I need to go all the archives to find them which is prohibitively time-consuming for me. Instead, I rely on your wisdom. Please make your advice based on your own knowledge. Nomination or self-nomination is appreciated. If you think it's better to keep it confidential, you can send your nomination directly to either myself or Sala. We also like to make some lessons learned from the last NomCom to be implemented for the next round, and suggest you to read their Report and Cover Letter, as attached. Among them, I think the following suggestions are worth to consider. We like to hear your comments on these as well before making the final nomination of the Chair. We are open to any other advice or suggestions, Thank you, izumi --------- - In addition to the randomly selected members, include two experienced non-voting Co Chairs or Coordinators who would be responsible for guiding and ensuring the process is integral and all communications reach NomCom team members. Having two chairs will preclude instances where the experienced non-voting member becomes unavailable." - Duties and responsibilities of Chairs and of members should be made clear at the outset of NomCom selection. In particular the time frame of activation of NomCom should be stated at outset. ------------------ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CSIGC Nominating Committee Cover Letter and Report - February 24 2012.odt Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text Size: 27849 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ceo at bnnrc.net Wed May 9 08:43:12 2012 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 18:43:12 +0600 Subject: [governance] Bangladesh Consultation on 7th IGF, WSIS+10 & Broadband Targets for 2015 of Broadband Commission Message-ID: *Bangladesh Consultation on * *7th IGF, WSIS+10 & Broadband Targets for 2015 of Broadband Commission* A Multi-Stakeholders 'Consultation on 7th Internet Governance Forum(IGF) , World Summit on the Information Society Forum 2012 (WSIS+10) & Broadband Commission for Digital Development’s broad Band action plan was organized at Conference Room of Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) on 7th May 2012 in Dhaka, Bangladesh. The consultation was jointly organized by Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio & Communication (BNNRC), Monthly Computer Jagat and Angkur ICT Development Foundation in Collaboration with Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) Mr. Hasnul Haque Inu, MP, Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Ministry of Post & Tele Communication joined as the Chief Guest, while Major General Zia Ahmed,PSC (Rtd.) Chairman, Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) participated as the Special Guest of the meeting. Dr.Akram Hossain Chowdhury, MP and Chairman, Center for E-Parliament Research moderated the program. In his speech as Chief Guest Mr.Hasanul Haq Inu, MP told that this consultation would contribute and play important role on the eve of 7thInternet Governance Forum.We need to review now our achievement in Digital Bangladesh. We need to revise some of the policy aspects in relevance to Digital progress. I personally believe that access to broadband internet is our constitutional right. He claimed to exempt 15% VAT on internet and demanded zero-taxation on all other ICT equipment. Maj. General (Rtd.) Zia Ahmed, PSC told that the profits of lowering the price of Internet Bandwidth yet not reached to common people .If we could ensure this scope to the common people ,it would accelerate the implementation of Digital Bangladesh vision. We are working to cover the wider community in future Bangladesh. At the outset of the consultation, Mr.AHM Bazlur Rahman, Chief Executive Officer of Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio & Communication (BNNRC) welcomed all the participants and invited opinion and recommendations from them. Two presentations were made dealing with WSIS Goals and broadband issues, by Reza Salim, Director, Amader Gram ICT for Development Project and Lieutenant Colonel Md.Rakibul Hasan, Director (Systems & Services) of Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC). Among others Md.Faizullah Khan, President , Bangladesh Computer Somity(BCS) , Shamim Ahsan, Ex-vice president of BASIS, S M Altaf Hossain, Managing Director of DRIK-ICT, Ms. Nazneen Nahar, Editor, Monthly Techworld Bangladesh also took part in the consultation by putting forward their valuable opinion and comments . Bazlu _______________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR Chief Executive Officer Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) [NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council] & Head, Community Radio Academy House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 Bangladesh Phone: +88-02-9130750, +88-02-9138501, Cell: +88 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105, E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net, bnnr cbd at gmail.com www.bnnrc.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed May 9 09:14:38 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 22:14:38 +0900 Subject: [governance] 2012 Asia Pacific Regional IGF CFP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear CS IGC members, I am pleased to share this CFP for the APrIGF to be held in Tokyo, July 18-20. An optional study tour to the Tohoku Devastated Area is also being prepared, July 21-22. Lessons learned from the last year's quake and tsunami disasters will be reported from local people, am working hard on this event, too. izumi -------------- Call for Participation: 2012 Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum Venue: Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo, Japan Date: 18-20 July 2012 Theme: Development of the Internet as a Robust Infrastructure Important issues of Internet governance must be addressed if we are to ensure the continued successful deployment and development of the Internet. Globally, the Asia-Pacific region has seen the fastest growth of the Internet in recent years. Particularly in China, India and Indonesia, the first, second and fourth most populous countries on the planet –the USA is third– the Internet's rate of growth has been dramatic. It was the consumption of IP addresses in the Asia-Pacific that triggered the final release of IPv4 addresses at the global level by IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority).  And yet there are still vast areas of the region where the Internet has yet to penetrate. IPv6 is now the route to future Internet use. But what must be done to facilitate this transition to IPv6? Meanwhile, the borderless nature of the Internet and the potential extra-territorial impact of domestic legislative action were highlighted earlier this year when the U.S. proposed tough laws aimed at preventing the theft of copyright materials online; laws which would have made Internet users world-wide vulnerable to U.S. law. The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) were proposed, but action by citizens and businesses stopped them becoming law. Some are now concerned that new domestic legislation, such as the U.S. Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) may have a similar global impact as international treaties, such as Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) or pending Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP). On the technical front, our use of smart phones and the development of increasingly sophisticated software on the Internet means that communication over data networks is rapidly displacing traditional telecommunications in use and therefore also as a source of profits. The ongoing struggle over control of the Internet can therefore only intensify. How should this be played out? These are just three of the significant issues concerning the laws and policies governing the Internet, or Internet governance, that will be discussed at the Third Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum, to be held in Tokyo, Japan 18-20 July. Please join the Forum and please respond to this call for contributions to the Forum programme.  Outcomes from the APrIGF will be presented at the 7th Global IGF to be held in Baku, Azerbaijan, 6-9 November 2012. This third APrIGF follows earlier meetings held in Hong Kong (2010) and Singapore (2011). Information about past APrIGFs can be found on the Forum's website:  http://2012.rigf.asia/ The Third APrIGF will discuss a wide range of Internet governance issues, for example: •       Cybersecurity, privacy and data protection •       The use of the Internet and other communication technologies in disasters and emergencies •       Child safety online •       Transition to IPv6 •       Influence of SOPA/PIPA/ACTA, and other legislation •       Freedom of expression and Internet democracy •       New top level domain names and their impact on the Asia Pacific •       Impact of the transition from voice to data on the network There are several ways for you to participate: •       submit a panel proposal of four presenters, •       volunteer to be a speaker, •       join as a hosting or supporting organization, and •       participating in the meeting. Proposals for panels to discuss these and other Internet governance-related issues are welcome. Each panel lasts 90 minutes with time for Q&A and should present the proposed issue in an inclusive manner, incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective. Send your proposals of not more than 600 words, with the full name and contact details of the presenters and an abstract of each presentation to proposals at aprigf.asia. The deadline for submission is May 24 11:59 pm. If you are volunteering as a speaker, send your name, contact details, subject area and a short statement outlining your expertise to proposals at aprigf.asia.  Successful applicants will be contacted by the end of May, and an announcement made on the Forum website. We welcome any Internet-related organization that wishes to become a supporting organization.  Please contact msg at aprigf.asia for more information. Organized by: Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder Steering Group (MSG) Chair: Peng Hwa Ang Secretariat: Dot.Asia Organization/Japan Internet Providers Association msg at aprigf.asia http://2012.rigf.asia/ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ceo at bnnrc.net Wed May 9 09:21:59 2012 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 19:21:59 +0600 Subject: [governance] Bangladesh Consultation on 7th IGF, WSIS+10 & Broadband Targets for 2015 of Broadband Commission Message-ID: *Bangladesh Consultation on * *7th IGF, WSIS+10 & Broadband Targets for 2015 of Broadband Commission* A Multi-Stakeholders 'Consultation on 7th Internet Governance Forum(IGF) , World Summit on the Information Society Forum 2012 (WSIS+10) & Broadband Commission for Digital Development’s broad Band action plan was organized at Conference Room of Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) on 7th May 2012 in Dhaka, Bangladesh. The consultation was jointly organized by Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio & Communication (BNNRC), Monthly Computer Jagat and Angkur ICT Development Foundation in Collaboration with Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) Mr. Hasnul Haque Inu, MP, Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Ministry of Post & Tele Communication joined as the Chief Guest, while Major General Zia Ahmed,PSC (Rtd.) Chairman, Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) participated as the Special Guest of the meeting. Dr.Akram Hossain Chowdhury, MP and Chairman, Center for E-Parliament Research moderated the program. In his speech as Chief Guest Mr.Hasanul Haq Inu, MP told that this consultation would contribute and play important role on the eve of 7th Internet Governance Forum.We need to review now our achievement in Digital Bangladesh. We need to revise some of the policy aspects in relevance to Digital progress. I personally believe that access to broadband internet is our constitutional right. He claimed to exempt 15% VAT on internet and demanded zero-taxation on all other ICT equipment. Maj. General (Rtd.) Zia Ahmed, PSC told that the profits of lowering the price of Internet Bandwidth yet not reached to common people .If we could ensure this scope to the common people ,it would accelerate the implementation of Digital Bangladesh vision. We are working to cover the wider community in future Bangladesh. At the outset of the consultation, Mr.AHM Bazlur Rahman, Chief Executive Officer of Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio & Communication (BNNRC) welcomed all the participants and invited opinion and recommendations from them. Two presentations were made dealing with WSIS Goals and broadband issues, by Reza Salim, Director, Amader Gram ICT for Development Project and Lieutenant Colonel Md.Rakibul Hasan, Director (Systems & Services) of Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC). Among others Md.Faizullah Khan, President , Bangladesh Computer Somity(BCS) , Shamim Ahsan, Ex-vice president of BASIS, S M Altaf Hossain, Managing Director of DRIK-ICT, Ms. Nazneen Nahar, Editor, Monthly Techworld Bangladesh also took part in the consultation by putting forward their valuable opinion and comments . Bazlu _______________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR Chief Executive Officer Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) [NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council] & Head, Community Radio Academy House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 Bangladesh Phone: +88-02-9130750 <%2B88-02-9130750>, +88-02-9138501 <%2B88-02-9138501>, Cell: +88 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105, E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net, bnnr cbd at gmail.com www.bnnrc.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 9 09:40:48 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 19:10:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva In-Reply-To: <6D6899A1E5984901A2C7561B7A4649BD@UserVAIO> References: <6D6899A1E5984901A2C7561B7A4649BD@UserVAIO> Message-ID: <4FAA73E0.1050404@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 08 May 2012 08:40 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > It seems to me that the basic issues of Enhanced Cooperation from a CS perspective are twofold: > We, as a set of civil society players, have tried to present concrete possibilities for both, but with no engagement from the larger CS involved with IG. > 1. what is the normative framework within which EC should take place--my strong suggestion would be that it is that of transparency, accountability, democracy and inclusiveness (and of course there is the WSIS declaration etc. to support this). And that this should be presented as a declaration and within a framing document. > A framework convention on the Internet was proposed, but found no traction among the CS actors in IG. Yes, it needs to be informed by the values that you mention. > 2. that having agreed on such a normative framework the question is what is the most appropriate institutional arrangement for achieving these within the context of Internet governance. > UN CIRP proposal has as multistakeholder a structure as OECD's Internet policy making mechanism (which is the default global Internet policy making system at present), plus seeking strong linkages with a rather empowered multistakeholder IGF (India IGF proposal). If something else/more is needed and possible that it must be spelt out. Still, we believe that even a CIRP kind of body should be an interim arrangement, doing stop-gap work, but focussing on the activity of being the nodal point for developing a suitable framework convention on the Internet, which 'framework convention' then proposes the right body for global governance of the global internet, which is fully adequate and appropriate to the phenomenon, context etc. If someone has a different/ better roadmap, lets discuss it. Non engagement with and non-proposal of clear concrete road-maps is simply an acceptance of the status quo in global Internet governance, and we think that the staus quo is hugely problematic, involves ever greater concentration of power, and is thus not acceptable. parminder > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 1:08 AM > To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva > > > Dear Bill, Adam and all > > The agenda is very basic. I will post it below. Parminder and I have both been asked to speak. APC will post our basic input here as soon as we have had a chance to present it to members first. > > Basically my idea is to shift the discussion towards the involvement of civil society in EC and rather than just the usual involvement of governments. My gut reaction to EC is that there is all this dispute about the involvements from States and while this is kind of going nowhere, there appears to be less cooperation and more concentration of power among large companies, rich country governments, and established IG 'institutions'. > > I hope this will complement Parminder's input which I hope will focus on the imbalances in governmental involvement from governments in the north (who tend to say they don't want control, but they already have it) and governments in the south (who say they want more control and who don't have much at global level, and who are not demonstrating, consistently, good use of the control they do have at national level - in my view). > > A serious discussion on what governments responsibilities are and of WHAT they need to be involved in would be useful in my view. > > And then finally, and I would appreciate IGC input on this.. among APC staff we have had a discussion of the parameters of EC. Is EC just something we should be talking about at global level, or also at national level. > > I feel stongly that we need to take the discussion to EC in IG at national level. And this should touch on global IG issues (how countries engage, whether there is capacity building, consultation, etc. around involvement in global issues/process) as well as on national IG issues. > > Anriette > > 11:00- > 13:00 > Welcoming remarks by the Chair of the CSTD, Mr. Fortunato de la Peña ■ Address by: Dr. Hamadoun Touré, Secretary-General of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) ■ Address by: Mr. Nigel Hickson, Vice President for Europe, ICANN ■ Address by: Mr. Markus Kummer, Vice President Public Policy, Internet Society ■ Address by: Mr. Jimson Olufuye, Vice-Chairman, Africa Region, World Information Technology and Services Alliance ■ Address by: Mr. Parminder Singh, Executive Director, IT for Change ■ Address by: Ms. Marilyn Cade, CEO, mCADE LLC ■ Address by: Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications > 15:00- > 18:00 > General discussion > > On 08/05/12 09:06, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Could you give a pointer to the agenda. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 3:55 PM, William Drake> > wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> Just wondering if we want to do anything about this? The draft >> program has a couple of IGCers as speakers but no clarity on rules >> of engagement for other attendees…? >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> >> On Apr 18, 2012, at 11:05 AM, William Drake wrote: >> >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> As you know, there will be an enhanced cooperation consultation on >>> 18 May in Geneva, following the IGF consultations and MAG >>> meeting.http://archive.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=6227&lang=1 >>> >>> >>> >>> It would be very important that all stakeholders are able to >>> intervene and contribute freely (but strategically) during this >>> consultation, rather than have to sit silently on the sidelines or >>> be relegated to collective brief interventions at the end of each >>> session. I imagine that ICC (business) and ISOC (TC) will be >>> contacting the CSTD secretariat to make such a request. On behalf >>> of civil society, the IGC should do the same. >>> >>> Assuming people agree with the proposition, may I suggest that the >>> co-coordinators take a crack at drafting a one or two paragraph >>> letter to Mongi to this effect? Probably it would be better to do >>> it sooner than later, as the secretariat would then need to pass >>> the request along to governments etc… >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> *************************************************** >>> William J. Drake >>> International Fellow& Lecturer >>> Media Change& Innovation Division, IPMZ >>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >>> william.drake at uzh.ch >>> www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake >>> >>> www.williamdrake.org >>> **************************************************** >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed May 9 10:03:08 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 16:03:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] CIRP+ References: <6D6899A1E5984901A2C7561B7A4649BD@UserVAIO> <4FAA73E0.1050404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCCD2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Parminder: UN CIRP proposal has as multistakeholder a structure as OECD's Internet policy making mechanism (which is the default global Internet policy making system at present), plus seeking strong linkages with a rather empowered multistakeholder IGF (India IGF proposal). If something else/more is needed and possible that it must be spelt out. Wolfgang: The Problem with the OECD MS model is, that it evolved from an existing (intergovernmental) structure. It did not create a new body. It just added to an IGO with one existing advisory committee to other advisory committees (CS and TC). This was good. But .- as you can see in the drafting of the Internet policy Making guidelines document - not good enough. There is no mechanism how the advisory bodies are directly involved into the decision making procedure. Remember the Internet Governance definition whre "shared decsion making procedures" are mentioned as a key element similar to the involvement of the various stakeholders in their respective roles. If a new (UN) body should be created to fill a (possible) gap in the existing global Internet Governance Ecosystem, such a new body has to go beyond "advisory committees" and introduce a mechanism which follows the definition of "shared decision making". This would be new, but this is what is needed. We need here innovation and creativity in internaitonal politics. WGIG is a good example that this can work. The UNCSTD IGF Improvement WG has also demonstrated that it can be done. If a renewed CIRP proposal follows the WGIG model, it could be the starting point for a new discussion, embedded into the IGF discussions on a multistakeholder "Framework of Committments". -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 9 10:07:36 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 07:07:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Seek for advice re:NomCom Chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1336572456.51449.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Just for reference, the some previous NomCom Results are as follows:   NOMCOM 2007 (Draw Dec 2006)      Bret Fausett     Milton Mueller     Maja Andjelkovic     Adam Peake     Ralf Bendrath   NOMCOM 2008 (Draw Dec 2007)          Gurumurthy K     Ian Peter     Robert Guerra     Rudi Rusdiah     Hakikur Rahman   NOMCOM 2011 (Draw June 2011)     Antonio Medina Gómez     Carlos Watson     Shaila Mistry     Vincent Solomon     Rajendra Poudel   >________________________________ > From: Izumi AIZU >To: governance >Sent: Wednesday, 9 May 2012, 17:19 >Subject: [governance] Seek for advice re:NomCom Chair > >Dear list, >Now that all five NomCom candidates accepted the selection, we need to >finalize the non-voting Chair. > >The Charter says in http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process >"A non voting chair will be appointed by the coordinators for each nomcom >with the advice of the IGC membership. In order to serve as a chair, >it is recommended >that a person has served in at least one nomcom previously." > >So, first we like to ask you to provide your advice, suggestions, for >the Chair, >preferably someone served in previous nomcoms. Unfortunately, I do not >have the list of all the previous NomCom members and I am afraid I need to >go all the archives to find them which is prohibitively time-consuming for me. > >Instead, I rely on your wisdom. Please make your advice based on your own >knowledge. Nomination or self-nomination is appreciated. > >If you think it's better to keep it confidential, you can send your >nomination directly to either myself or Sala. > >We also like to make some lessons learned from the last NomCom to be implemented >for the next round, and suggest you to read their Report and Cover >Letter, as attached. >Among them, I think the following suggestions are worth to consider. > >We like to hear your comments on these as well before making the final >nomination >of the Chair. > >We are open to any other advice or suggestions, > >Thank you, > >izumi > >--------- >- In addition to the randomly selected members, include two >experienced non-voting Co Chairs or Coordinators who would be >responsible for guiding and ensuring the process is integral and all >communications reach NomCom team members. Having two chairs will >preclude instances where the experienced non-voting member becomes >unavailable." > >- Duties and responsibilities of Chairs and of members should be made >clear at the outset of NomCom selection. In particular the time frame >of activation of NomCom should be stated at outset. >------------------ > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 9 10:46:04 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 07:46:04 -0700 Subject: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva In-Reply-To: <4FAA73E0.1050404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <59E98D39B4254E79BF7F6E1491E14352@UserVAIO> In this context, I think that the IGC should be paying extremely close attention to the Open Government Partnership which I pointed to earlier. The OGP has a formal "Declaration " (i.e. normative statement--"convention" if you will) to which Members need to formally commit themeselves. The Partner country's membership in the Partnership is initially accepted based on their adherence to the Charter and whose on-going performance is equally assessed (includng by CS) against their stated plan/committment concerning the implementation of the forward looking provisions of the Charter. Secondly, CS has a formally defined role as a full-fledged "partner" in the Partnership with certain designated rights and responsibilities including a co-Chairmanship of the overall Partnership. Although there are a number of elements still in the process of being worked out (not the least of which is the structuring of CS in the context of the OGP) to my mind this is a direction towards which EC/IG should be moving, towards which CS should be pushing IG, and which overall represents a potentially very positive post Atlantic Charter direction for the overall evolution of CS and Global Governance in the Age of the Internet. Best, Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 6:41 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva On Tuesday 08 May 2012 08:40 PM, michael gurstein wrote: It seems to me that the basic issues of Enhanced Cooperation from a CS perspective are twofold: We, as a set of civil society players, have tried to present concrete possibilities for both, but with no engagement from the larger CS involved with IG. 1. what is the normative framework within which EC should take place--my strong suggestion would be that it is that of transparency, accountability, democracy and inclusiveness (and of course there is the WSIS declaration etc. to support this). And that this should be presented as a declaration and within a framing document. A framework convention on the Internet was proposed, but found no traction among the CS actors in IG. Yes, it needs to be informed by the values that you mention. 2. that having agreed on such a normative framework the question is what is the most appropriate institutional arrangement for achieving these within the context of Internet governance. UN CIRP proposal has as multistakeholder a structure as OECD's Internet policy making mechanism (which is the default global Internet policy making system at present), plus seeking strong linkages with a rather empowered multistakeholder IGF (India IGF proposal). If something else/more is needed and possible that it must be spelt out. Still, we believe that even a CIRP kind of body should be an interim arrangement, doing stop-gap work, but focussing on the activity of being the nodal point for developing a suitable framework convention on the Internet, which 'framework convention' then proposes the right body for global governance of the global internet, which is fully adequate and appropriate to the phenomenon, context etc. If someone has a different/ better roadmap, lets discuss it. Non engagement with and non-proposal of clear concrete road-maps is simply an acceptance of the status quo in global Internet governance, and we think that the staus quo is hugely problematic, involves ever greater concentration of power, and is thus not acceptable. parminder Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 1:08 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva Dear Bill, Adam and all The agenda is very basic. I will post it below. Parminder and I have both been asked to speak. APC will post our basic input here as soon as we have had a chance to present it to members first. Basically my idea is to shift the discussion towards the involvement of civil society in EC and rather than just the usual involvement of governments. My gut reaction to EC is that there is all this dispute about the involvements from States and while this is kind of going nowhere, there appears to be less cooperation and more concentration of power among large companies, rich country governments, and established IG 'institutions'. I hope this will complement Parminder's input which I hope will focus on the imbalances in governmental involvement from governments in the north (who tend to say they don't want control, but they already have it) and governments in the south (who say they want more control and who don't have much at global level, and who are not demonstrating, consistently, good use of the control they do have at national level - in my view). A serious discussion on what governments responsibilities are and of WHAT they need to be involved in would be useful in my view. And then finally, and I would appreciate IGC input on this.. among APC staff we have had a discussion of the parameters of EC. Is EC just something we should be talking about at global level, or also at national level. I feel stongly that we need to take the discussion to EC in IG at national level. And this should touch on global IG issues (how countries engage, whether there is capacity building, consultation, etc. around involvement in global issues/process) as well as on national IG issues. Anriette 11:00- 13:00 Welcoming remarks by the Chair of the CSTD, Mr. Fortunato de la Peña ■ Address by: Dr. Hamadoun Touré, Secretary-General of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) ■ Address by: Mr. Nigel Hickson, Vice President for Europe, ICANN ■ Address by: Mr. Markus Kummer, Vice President Public Policy, Internet Society ■ Address by: Mr. Jimson Olufuye, Vice-Chairman, Africa Region, World Information Technology and Services Alliance ■ Address by: Mr. Parminder Singh, Executive Director, IT for Change ■ Address by: Ms. Marilyn Cade, CEO, mCADE LLC ■ Address by: Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications 15:00- 18:00 General discussion On 08/05/12 09:06, Adam Peake wrote: Could you give a pointer to the agenda. Thanks, Adam On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 3:55 PM, William Drake > wrote: Hi Just wondering if we want to do anything about this? The draft program has a couple of IGCers as speakers but no clarity on rules of engagement for other attendees…? Best, Bill On Apr 18, 2012, at 11:05 AM, William Drake wrote: Hello, As you know, there will be an enhanced cooperation consultation on 18 May in Geneva, following the IGF consultations and MAG meeting. http://archive.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=6227 &lang=1 It would be very important that all stakeholders are able to intervene and contribute freely (but strategically) during this consultation, rather than have to sit silently on the sidelines or be relegated to collective brief interventions at the end of each session. I imagine that ICC (business) and ISOC (TC) will be contacting the CSTD secretariat to make such a request. On behalf of civil society, the IGC should do the same. Assuming people agree with the proposition, may I suggest that the co-coordinators take a crack at drafting a one or two paragraph letter to Mongi to this effect? Probably it would be better to do it sooner than later, as the secretariat would then need to pass the request along to governments etc… Best, Bill *************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland william.drake at uzh.ch www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake www.williamdrake.org **************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed May 9 10:59:34 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 07:59:34 -0700 Subject: [governance] CIRP+ In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCCD2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <3640E1FBB5584B04B1053437395AAF34@UserVAIO> With respect to Wolfgang's note below which crossed my own note... I think that the non-UN/non-OECD OGP does go beyond these in the ways that Wolfgang suggests as being necessary. Please note that the OGP Declaration does reference both the UNDHR and the UN Convention Against Corruption, that the UN (and the OECD) were represented and participating at the OGP meeting, and at least some representatives of those organizations seemed to think that the OGP initiative would ultimately find a home within the UN systems somewhere. Although exactly the path to achieving that was as yet very obscure. (The suggestion here being that rather than starting off as a UN body, the next stage IGF framework might begin as a non-UN agency but with the possibility that it might, as it universalizes, evolve in that direction.) M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 7:03 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] CIRP+ Parminder: UN CIRP proposal has as multistakeholder a structure as OECD's Internet policy making mechanism (which is the default global Internet policy making system at present), plus seeking strong linkages with a rather empowered multistakeholder IGF (India IGF proposal). If something else/more is needed and possible that it must be spelt out. Wolfgang: The Problem with the OECD MS model is, that it evolved from an existing (intergovernmental) structure. It did not create a new body. It just added to an IGO with one existing advisory committee to other advisory committees (CS and TC). This was good. But .- as you can see in the drafting of the Internet policy Making guidelines document - not good enough. There is no mechanism how the advisory bodies are directly involved into the decision making procedure. Remember the Internet Governance definition whre "shared decsion making procedures" are mentioned as a key element similar to the involvement of the various stakeholders in their respective roles. If a new (UN) body should be created to fill a (possible) gap in the existing global Internet Governance Ecosystem, such a new body has to go beyond "advisory committees" and introduce a mechanism which follows the definition of "shared decision making". This would be new, but this is what is needed. We need here innovation and creativity in internaitonal politics. WGIG is a good example that this can work. The UNCSTD IGF Improvement WG has also demonstrated that it can be done. If a renewed CIRP proposal follows the WGIG model, it could be the starting point for a new discussion, embedded into the IGF discussions on a multistakeholder "Framework of Committments". -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 10 04:02:19 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 10:02:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] WSIS Forum Workshop next Thursday 17th Message-ID: <8C4C2C03-E211-4AC2-BAC2-26746E3DA3CD@uzh.ch> Hi People who will be in Geneva next week are invited to attend the following WSIS Forum workshop at the ILO. Registration for the IGF gets you into the WF too. There will also be remote participation http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2012/Information/RemoteParticipation.aspx. Cheers, Bill --------- WSIS Forum 2012 Workshop 9:00-10:45, Thursday 17 May 2012 Room XI, the International Labor Organization Global Internet Governance for Development Does global Internet governance promote the effective participation of developing country stakeholders in the information society? What are its implication for national development trajectories? To fully address these and related questions, it would be useful to establish an Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) agenda. Such an agenda could comprise a holistic program that mainstreams development considerations into the procedures and policy outputs of global Internet governance mechanisms. While development agendas are being pursued in the multilateral organizations dealing with issues like international trade and intellectual property, there has been no corresponding effort with respect to global Internet governance. Accordingly, since 2007 a series of workshops and main sessions exploring the idea have been held at the annual Internet Governance Forum meetings. This workshop seeks to broaden the dialogue by engaging interested attendees at the WSIS Forum. A development agenda could involve organizing and improving access to knowledge about global Internet governance issues and institutions, including best practices and lessons learned such institutions could consider within their respective work programs. In addition, it could encourage concrete actions that strengthen the fit between governance and development, such as: a) facilitating access to capacity building programs that help enable the effective participation of governmental and nongovernmental actors from developing countries in global technical and policy processes; b) enhancing institutional procedures and practices in order to promote such participation; and c) identifying issues that raise distinctive developmental considerations and possible options for improvements in related policy frameworks. Given the highly distributed institutional ecosystem of global Internet governance, a development agenda would need to be flexible enough to facilitate varying responses that are appropriate to the issues and actors involved in each case. The workshop will consider these matters in relation to relevant multistakeholder, industry self-governance, and intergovernmental institutions. Of particular interest in this regard is the governance of critical Internet resources, e.g. names, numbers, and standards; and current proposals for new Enhanced Cooperation initiatives within the United Nations, and for international treaty regulations that could be applicable to the Internet. Organizer William J. Drake International Fellow, Media Change & Innovation Division Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research University of Zurich, Switzerland Co-Sponsoring Organizations Association for Progressive Communications Ministry of Communications and Information Technology Government of Egypt Kenya Internet Governance Steering Committee, Ministry of Information and Communications Government of Kenya Federal Office of Communications Government of Switzerland Speakers Olga Cavalli Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Government of Argentina Avri Doria Researcher & former Chair of the ICANN GNSO Council United States of America William J. Drake [moderator] International Fellow, Media Change & Innovation Division Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research University of Zurich, Switzerland Anriette Esterhuysen Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications South Africa Wolfgang Kleinwächter Professor of Internet Policy and Regulation, Department for Media and Information Sciences, University of Aarhus, Denmark Germany Markus Kummer Vice President of Public Policy, The Internet Society Switzerland Alice Munyua Convener, East Africa IGF, Kenya ICT Action Network; and Chair, Kenya Internet Governance Steering Committee, and Kenya Network Information Center Government of Kenya Nermine El Saadany Director of International Relations Division, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology Government of Egypt Thomas Schneider Deputy Head of International Relations Service, Federal Office of Communications Government of Switzerland *************************************************** 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Thu May 10 05:08:17 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 11:08:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation meeting is open to participation References: Message-ID: Hi Just heard from the CSTD secretariat, which says: The information about the meeting and registration details are available in the recently launched website of UNCTAD, http://www.unctad.org/cstd UNCTAD website was recently migrated to the new system, which does not allow any updates on the old site (anything that is in the "archive. unctad.org") 1) About the meeting; This is scheduled to open at 11:00 a.m in the Governing Body Room of the International Labour Organizations. 2) About registration: Although this meeting is not part of the WSIS Forum, for the convenience of participants, it will be held during and at the same venue of the WSIS Forum. So in order to participate in the meeting, participants should register for the WSIS Forum at http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2012/Registration/RegistrationInformation.aspx. This registration is necessary in order for the participants to enter the International Labour Organization headquarters building. 3) Rules of engagement; The meeting is intended to be interactive, all stackeholders will be able to make interventions from the floor. The agenda considers addresses from several speaker from 11:00 hrs. to 12:00, and then the floor will be open for interventions. For your information, please find attached the latest version of the agenda for the meeting. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find 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 May 10 05:43:15 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 21:43:15 +1200 Subject: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation meeting is open to participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:08 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Just heard from the CSTD secretariat, which says: > > > The information about the meeting and registration details are available > in the recently launched website of UNCTAD, http://www.unctad.org/cstd > > [Thanks Bill] > UNCTAD website was recently migrated to the new system, which does not > allow any updates on the old site (anything that is in the "archive. > unctad.org") > > 1) About the meeting; > > This is scheduled to open at 11:00 a.m in the Governing Body Room of the > International Labour Organizations. > > 2) About registration: > > Although this meeting is not part of the WSIS Forum, for the convenience > of participants, it will be held during and at the same venue of the WSIS > Forum. So in order to participate in the meeting, participants should > register for the WSIS Forum at > http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2012/Registration/RegistrationInformation.aspx. > This registration is necessary in order for the participants to enter the > International Labour Organization headquarters building. > > 3) Rules of engagement; > > The meeting is intended to be interactive, all stackeholders will be able > to make interventions from the floor. The agenda considers addresses from > several speaker from 11:00 hrs. to 12:00, and then the floor will be open > for interventions. For your information, please find attached the latest > version of the agenda for the meeting. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri May 11 02:35:17 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 15:35:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] Seek for advice re:NomCom Chair In-Reply-To: <1336572456.51449.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1336572456.51449.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Many thanks Imran, quite helpful. We didn't have 2009,2010 Data? Or hard to find? Izumi 2012年5月9日水曜日 Imran Ahmed Shah ias_pk at yahoo.com : > Just for reference, the some previous NomCom Results are as follows: > > NOMCOM 2007 (Draw Dec 2006) > Bret Fausett > Milton Mueller > Maja Andjelkovic > Adam Peake > Ralf Bendrath > > NOMCOM 2008 (Draw Dec 2007) > Gurumurthy K > Ian Peter > Robert Guerra > Rudi Rusdiah > Hakikur Rahman > > NOMCOM 2011 (Draw June 2011) > Antonio Medina Gómez > Carlos Watson > Shaila Mistry > Vincent Solomon > Rajendra Poudel > > > > *From:* Izumi AIZU > *To:* governance > *Sent:* Wednesday, 9 May 2012, 17:19 > *Subject:* [governance] Seek for advice re:NomCom Chair > > Dear list, > Now that all five NomCom candidates accepted the selection, we need to > finalize the non-voting Chair. > > The Charter says in http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process > "A non voting chair will be appointed by the coordinators for each nomcom > with the advice of the IGC membership. In order to serve as a chair, > it is recommended > that a person has served in at least one nomcom previously." > > So, first we like to ask you to provide your advice, suggestions, for > the Chair, > preferably someone served in previous nomcoms. Unfortunately, I do not > have the list of all the previous NomCom members and I am afraid I need to > go all the archives to find them which is prohibitively time-consuming for > me. > > Instead, I rely on your wisdom. Please make your advice based on your own > knowledge. Nomination or self-nomination is appreciated. > > If you think it's better to keep it confidential, you can send your > nomination directly to either myself or Sala. > > We also like to make some lessons learned from the last NomCom to be > implemented > for the next round, and suggest you to read their Report and Cover > Letter, as attached. > Among them, I think the following suggestions are worth to consider. > > We like to hear your comments on these as well before making the final > nomination > of the Chair. > > We are open to any other advice or suggestions, > > Thank you, > > izumi > > --------- > - In addition to the randomly selected members, include two > experienced non-voting Co Chairs or Coordinators who would be > responsible for guiding and ensuring the process is integral and all > communications reach NomCom team members. Having two chairs will > preclude instances where the experienced non-voting member becomes > unavailable." > > - Duties and responsibilities of Chairs and of members should be made > clear at the outset of NomCom selection. In particular the time frame > of activation of NomCom should be stated at outset. > ------------------ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri May 11 02:45:27 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 16:45:27 +1000 Subject: [governance] Seek for advice re:NomCom Chair In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Look in the Archives section of our website. From: Izumi Aizu Reply-To: , Izumi Aizu Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 15:35:17 +0900 To: Imran Ahmed Shah Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , Izumi Aizu Subject: [governance] Seek for advice re:NomCom Chair Many thanks Imran, quite helpful. We didn't have 2009,2010 Data? Or hard to find? Izumi 2012年5月9日水曜日 Imran Ahmed Shah ias_pk at yahoo.com : > Just for reference, the some previous NomCom Results are as follows: > > NOMCOM 2007 (Draw Dec 2006) > Bret Fausett > Milton Mueller > Maja Andjelkovic > Adam Peake > Ralf Bendrath > > NOMCOM 2008 (Draw Dec 2007) > Gurumurthy K > Ian Peter > Robert Guerra > Rudi Rusdiah > Hakikur Rahman > > NOMCOM 2011 (Draw June 2011) > Antonio Medina Gómez > Carlos Watson > Shaila Mistry > Vincent Solomon > Rajendra Poudel > > >> >> >> >> >> From: Izumi AIZU >> To: governance >> Sent: Wednesday, 9 May 2012, 17:19 >> Subject: [governance] Seek for advice re:NomCom Chair >> >> >> Dear list, >> Now that all five NomCom candidates accepted the selection, we need to >> finalize the non-voting Chair. >> >> The Charter says in http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process >> "A non voting chair will be appointed by the coordinators for each nomcom >> with the advice of the IGC membership. In order to serve as a chair, >> it is recommended >> that a person has served in at least one nomcom previously." >> >> So, first we like to ask you to provide your advice, suggestions, for >> the Chair, >> preferably someone served in previous nomcoms. Unfortunately, I do not >> have the list of all the previous NomCom members and I am afraid I need to >> go all the archives to find them which is prohibitively time-consuming for >> me. >> >> Instead, I rely on your wisdom. Please make your advice based on your own >> knowledge. Nomination or self-nomination is appreciated. >> >> If you think it's better to keep it confidential, you can send your >> nomination directly to either myself or Sala. >> >> We also like to make some lessons learned from the last NomCom to be >> implemented >> for the next round, and suggest you to read their Report and Cover >> Letter, as attached. >> Among them, I think the following suggestions are worth to consider. >> >> We like to hear your comments on these as well before making the final >> nomination >> of the Chair. >> >> We are open to any other advice or suggestions, >> >> Thank you, >> >> izumi >> >> --------- >> - In addition to the randomly selected members, include two >> experienced non-voting Co Chairs or Coordinators who would be >> responsible for guiding and ensuring the process is integral and all >> communications reach NomCom team members. Having two chairs will >> preclude instances where the experienced non-voting member becomes >> unavailable." >> >> - Duties and responsibilities of Chairs and of members should be made >> clear at the outset of NomCom selection. In particular the time frame >> of activation of NomCom should be stated at outset. >> ------------------ >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri May 11 03:07:56 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 16:07:56 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Seek for advice re:NomCom Chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I tried, but somehow I got "time out". Izumi 2012年5月11日金曜日 Ian Peter ian.peter at ianpeter.com: > Look in the Archives section of our website. > > > ------------------------------ > *From: *Izumi Aizu > *Reply-To: *, Izumi Aizu > *Date: *Fri, 11 May 2012 15:35:17 +0900 > *To: *Imran Ahmed Shah > *Cc: *"governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , > Izumi Aizu > *Subject: *[governance] Seek for advice re:NomCom Chair > > Many thanks Imran, quite helpful. > > We didn't have 2009,2010 Data? Or hard to find? > > Izumi > > 2012年5月9日水曜日 Imran Ahmed Shah ias_pk at yahoo.com 'ias_pk at yahoo.com');> : > > Just for reference, the some previous NomCom Results are as follows: > > NOMCOM 2007 (Draw Dec 2006) > Bret Fausett > Milton Mueller > Maja Andjelkovic > Adam Peake > Ralf Bendrath > > NOMCOM 2008 (Draw Dec 2007) > Gurumurthy K > Ian Peter > Robert Guerra > Rudi Rusdiah > Hakikur Rahman > > NOMCOM 2011 (Draw June 2011) > Antonio Medina Gómez > Carlos Watson > Shaila Mistry > Vincent Solomon > Rajendra Poudel > > > > > > > *From:* Izumi AIZU > *To:* governance > *Sent:* Wednesday, 9 May 2012, 17:19 > *Subject:* [governance] Seek for advice re:NomCom Chair > > > Dear list, > Now that all five NomCom candidates accepted the selection, we need to > finalize the non-voting Chair. > > The Charter says in http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process > "A non voting chair will be appointed by the coordinators for each nomcom > with the advice of the IGC membership. In order to serve as a chair, > it is recommended > that a person has served in at least one nomcom previously." > > So, first we like to ask you to provide your advice, suggestions, for > the Chair, > preferably someone served in previous nomcoms. Unfortunately, I do not > have the list of all the previous NomCom members and I am afraid I need to > go all the archives to find them which is prohibitively time-consuming for > me. > > Instead, I rely on your wisdom. Please make your advice based on your own > knowledge. Nomination or self-nomination is appreciated. > > If you think it's better to keep it confidential, you can send your > nomination directly to either myself or Sala. > > We also like to make some lessons learned from the last NomCom to be > implemented > for the next round, and suggest you to read their Report and Cover > Letter, as attached. > Among them, I think the following suggestions are worth to consider. > > We like to hear your comments on these as well before making the final > nomination > of the Chair. > > We are open to any other advice or suggestions, > > Thank you, > > izumi > > --------- > - In addition to the randomly selected members, include two > experienced non-voting Co Chairs or Coordinators who would be > responsible for guiding and ensuring the process is integral and all > communications reach NomCom team members. Having two chairs will > preclude instances where the experienced non-voting member becomes > unavailable." > > - Duties and responsibilities of Chairs and of members should be made > clear at the outset of NomCom selection. In particular the time frame > of activation of NomCom should be stated at outset. > ------------------ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- >> 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 anriette at apc.org Fri May 11 04:30:29 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 10:30:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Bangladesh Consultation on 7th IGF, WSIS+10 & Broadband Targets for 2015 of Broadband Commission In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FACCE25.6070806@apc.org> Thanks for the update Bazlur. Is the government of Bangladesh planning to participate in the Baku IGF it self? As in sending people to Baku? Anriette On 09/05/12 14:43, AHM Bazlur Rahman wrote: > *Bangladesh Consultation on * > > *7^th IGF, WSIS+10 & Broadband Targets for 2015 of Broadband Commission * > > > > A Multi-Stakeholders 'Consultation on 7th Internet Governance Forum(IGF) > , World Summit on the Information Society Forum 2012 (WSIS+10) & > Broadband Commission for Digital Development’s broad Band action plan > was organized at Conference Room of Bangladesh Telecommunication > Regulatory Commission (BTRC) on 7th May 2012 in Dhaka, Bangladesh. > > > The consultation was jointly organized by Bangladesh NGOs Network for > Radio & Communication (BNNRC), Monthly Computer Jagat and Angkur ICT > Development Foundation in Collaboration with Bangladesh > Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) > > Mr. Hasnul Haque Inu, MP, Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on > Ministry of Post & Tele Communication joined as the Chief Guest, while > Major General Zia Ahmed,PSC (Rtd.) Chairman, Bangladesh > Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) participated as the > Special Guest of the meeting. Dr.Akram Hossain Chowdhury, MP and > Chairman, Center for E-Parliament Research moderated the program. > > > In his speech as Chief Guest Mr.Hasanul Haq Inu, MP told that this > consultation would contribute and play important role on the eve of 7^th > Internet Governance Forum.We need to review now our achievement in > Digital Bangladesh. We need to revise some of the policy aspects in > relevance to Digital progress. I personally believe that access to > broadband internet is our constitutional right. He claimed to exempt 15% > VAT on internet and demanded zero-taxation on all other ICT equipment. > > > Maj. General (Rtd.) Zia Ahmed, PSC told that the profits of lowering > the price of Internet Bandwidth yet not reached to common people .If we > could ensure this scope to the common people ,it would accelerate the > implementation of Digital Bangladesh vision. We are working to cover the > wider community in future Bangladesh. > > > At the outset of the consultation, Mr.AHM Bazlur Rahman, Chief Executive > Officer of Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio & Communication (BNNRC) > welcomed all the participants and invited opinion and recommendations > from them. > > > Two presentations were made dealing with WSIS Goals and broadband > issues, by Reza Salim, Director, Amader Gram ICT for Development Project > and Lieutenant Colonel Md.Rakibul Hasan, Director (Systems & Services) > of Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC). > > Among others Md.Faizullah Khan, President , Bangladesh Computer > Somity(BCS) , Shamim Ahsan, Ex-vice president of BASIS, S M Altaf > Hossain, Managing Director of DRIK-ICT, Ms. Nazneen Nahar, Editor, > Monthly Techworld Bangladesh also took part in the consultation by > putting forward their valuable opinion and comments . > > > > Bazlu > _______________________ > AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR > Chief Executive Officer > Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) > [NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social > Council] > & > Head, Community Radio Academy > > House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 Bangladesh > Phone: +88-02-9130750, +88-02-9138501, Cell: +88 01711881647 > Fax: 88-02-9138501-105, > E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net , bnnr > cbd at gmail.com > www.bnnrc.net > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri May 11 11:18:54 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 17:18:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] CIRP+ In-Reply-To: <3640E1FBB5584B04B1053437395AAF34@UserVAIO> References: <3640E1FBB5584B04B1053437395AAF34@UserVAIO> Message-ID: <4FAD2DDE.3040101@apc.org> Another rather short response from me.... This part of Mike's message really resonates for me in relation to "Enhanced Cooperation": "(The suggestion here being that rather than starting off as a UN body, the next stage IGF framework might begin as a non-UN agency but with the possibility that it might, as it universalizes, evolve in that direction.)" I remain unconvinced that setting up any kind of oversight body inside the UN system at this point is (1) workable considering how hard it is for governments to agree with one another, (2) likely to strengthen the chances of an open internet that allows the free flow of information, or, (3) increase civil society's influence over IG. But.. I like the idea of exploring a new paradigm, and even a new body of some kind, that might, if it proves itself, evolve into a more institutionalised form, linked to the UN. How can we better use the IGF to explore such a process? Anriette On 09/05/12 16:59, michael gurstein wrote: > With respect to Wolfgang's note below which crossed my own note... I think > that the non-UN/non-OECD OGP does go beyond these in the ways that Wolfgang > suggests as being necessary. > > Please note that the OGP Declaration does reference both the UNDHR and the > UN Convention Against Corruption, that the UN (and the OECD) were > represented and participating at the OGP meeting, and at least some > representatives of those organizations seemed to think that the OGP > initiative would ultimately find a home within the UN systems somewhere. > Although exactly the path to achieving that was as yet very obscure. (The > suggestion here being that rather than starting off as a UN body, the next > stage IGF framework might begin as a non-UN agency but with the possibility > that it might, as it universalizes, evolve in that direction.) > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, > Wolfgang" > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 7:03 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] CIRP+ > > > Parminder: > UN CIRP proposal has as multistakeholder a structure as OECD's Internet > policy making mechanism (which is the default global Internet policy making > system at present), plus seeking strong linkages with a rather empowered > multistakeholder IGF (India IGF proposal). If something else/more is needed > and possible that it must be spelt out. > > Wolfgang: > The Problem with the OECD MS model is, that it evolved from an existing > (intergovernmental) structure. It did not create a new body. It just added > to an IGO with one existing advisory committee to other advisory committees > (CS and TC). This was good. But .- as you can see in the drafting of the > Internet policy Making guidelines document - not good enough. There is no > mechanism how the advisory bodies are directly involved into the decision > making procedure. Remember the Internet Governance definition whre "shared > decsion making procedures" are mentioned as a key element similar to the > involvement of the various stakeholders in their respective roles. > > If a new (UN) body should be created to fill a (possible) gap in the > existing global Internet Governance Ecosystem, such a new body has to go > beyond "advisory committees" and introduce a mechanism which follows the > definition of "shared decision making". This would be new, but this is what > is needed. We need here innovation and creativity in internaitonal politics. > WGIG is a good example that this can work. The UNCSTD IGF Improvement WG has > also demonstrated that it can be done. If a renewed CIRP proposal follows > the WGIG model, it could be the starting point for a new discussion, > embedded into the IGF discussions on a multistakeholder "Framework of > Committments". > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri May 11 11:23:48 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 17:23:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva In-Reply-To: <4FAD2BD7.1060306@apc.org> References: <4FAD2BD7.1060306@apc.org> Message-ID: <4FAD2F04.30004@apc.org> dear michael i am too busy to respond in full.... but i like the idea of looking at the OGP process a lot i had a good look at the declaration, and the section on 'measures' the idea this gave me is that what would be very useful for IG is a consultative process that will build such a declaration on EC - a process which is inclusive of a wide range of instutitions, constituencies, sectors etc. so.. like the WGIG process.. but with its specific goal being agreement on a 'Declaration on inclusive, multi-stakeholder international internet governance' anriette On 09/05/12 16:46, michael gurstein wrote: > In this context, I think that the IGC should be paying extremely > close attention to the Open Government Partnership > which I pointed to earlier. > > The OGP has a formal "Declaration > " > (i.e. normative statement--"convention" if you will) to which > Members need to formally commit themeselves. The Partner > country's membership in the Partnership is initially accepted > based on their adherence to the Charter and whose on-going > performance is equally assessed (includng by CS) against their > stated plan/committment concerning the implementation of the forward > looking provisions of the Charter. > > Secondly, CS has a formally defined role as a full-fledged "partner" > in the Partnership with certain designated rights and > responsibilities including a co-Chairmanship of the overall > Partnership. > > Although there are a number of elements still in the process of > being worked out (not the least of which is the structuring of CS in > the context of the OGP) to my mind this is a direction towards which > EC/IG should be moving, towards which CS should be pushing IG, and > which overall represents a potentially very positive post Atlantic > Charter direction for the overall evolution of CS and Global > Governance in the Age of the Internet. > > Best, > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 09, 2012 6:41 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the > Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva > > On Tuesday 08 May 2012 08:40 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> It seems to me that the basic issues of Enhanced Cooperation from a CS perspective are twofold: >> > We, as a set of civil society players, have tried to present > concrete possibilities for both, but with no engagement from the > larger CS involved with IG. > >> 1. what is the normative framework within which EC should take place--my strong suggestion would be that it is that of transparency, accountability, democracy and inclusiveness (and of course there is the WSIS declaration etc. to support this). And that this should be presented as a declaration and within a framing document. >> > > A framework convention on the Internet was proposed, but found no > traction among the CS actors in IG. Yes, it needs to be informed by > the values that you mention. > >> 2. that having agreed on such a normative framework the question is what is the most appropriate institutional arrangement for achieving these within the context of Internet governance. >> > > UN CIRP proposal has as multistakeholder a structure as OECD's > Internet policy making mechanism (which is the default global > Internet policy making system at present), plus seeking strong > linkages with a rather empowered multistakeholder IGF (India IGF > proposal). If something else/more is needed and possible that it > must be spelt out. > > Still, we believe that even a CIRP kind of body should be an interim > arrangement, doing stop-gap work, but focussing on the activity of > being the nodal point for developing a suitable framework convention > on the Internet, which 'framework convention' then proposes the > right body for global governance of the global internet, which is > fully adequate and appropriate to the phenomenon, context etc. > > If someone has a different/ better roadmap, lets discuss it. > > Non engagement with and non-proposal of clear concrete road-maps is > simply an acceptance of the status quo in global Internet > governance, and we think that the staus quo is hugely problematic, > involves ever greater concentration of power, and is thus not > acceptable. > > parminder > >> Mike >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen >> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 1:08 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva >> >> >> Dear Bill, Adam and all >> >> The agenda is very basic. I will post it below. Parminder and I have both been asked to speak. APC will post our basic input here as soon as we have had a chance to present it to members first. >> >> Basically my idea is to shift the discussion towards the involvement of civil society in EC and rather than just the usual involvement of governments. My gut reaction to EC is that there is all this dispute about the involvements from States and while this is kind of going nowhere, there appears to be less cooperation and more concentration of power among large companies, rich country governments, and established IG 'institutions'. >> >> I hope this will complement Parminder's input which I hope will focus on the imbalances in governmental involvement from governments in the north (who tend to say they don't want control, but they already have it) and governments in the south (who say they want more control and who don't have much at global level, and who are not demonstrating, consistently, good use of the control they do have at national level - in my view). >> >> A serious discussion on what governments responsibilities are and of WHAT they need to be involved in would be useful in my view. >> >> And then finally, and I would appreciate IGC input on this.. among APC staff we have had a discussion of the parameters of EC. Is EC just something we should be talking about at global level, or also at national level. >> >> I feel stongly that we need to take the discussion to EC in IG at national level. And this should touch on global IG issues (how countries engage, whether there is capacity building, consultation, etc. around involvement in global issues/process) as well as on national IG issues. >> >> Anriette >> >> 11:00- >> 13:00 >> Welcoming remarks by the Chair of the CSTD, Mr. Fortunato de la Peña ■ Address by: Dr. Hamadoun Touré, Secretary-General of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) ■ Address by: Mr. Nigel Hickson, Vice President for Europe, ICANN ■ Address by: Mr. Markus Kummer, Vice President Public Policy, Internet Society ■ Address by: Mr. Jimson Olufuye, Vice-Chairman, Africa Region, World Information Technology and Services Alliance ■ Address by: Mr. Parminder Singh, Executive Director, IT for Change ■ Address by: Ms. Marilyn Cade, CEO, mCADE LLC ■ Address by: Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications >> 15:00- >> 18:00 >> General discussion >> >> On 08/05/12 09:06, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> Could you give a pointer to the agenda. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 3:55 PM, William Drake >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> Just wondering if we want to do anything about this? The draft >>> program has a couple of IGCers as speakers but no clarity on rules >>> of engagement for other attendees…? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> On Apr 18, 2012, at 11:05 AM, William Drake wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> As you know, there will be an enhanced cooperation consultation on >>>> 18 May in Geneva, following the IGF consultations and MAG >>>> meeting. http://archive.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=6227&lang=1 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It would be very important that all stakeholders are able to >>>> intervene and contribute freely (but strategically) during this >>>> consultation, rather than have to sit silently on the sidelines or >>>> be relegated to collective brief interventions at the end of each >>>> session. I imagine that ICC (business) and ISOC (TC) will be >>>> contacting the CSTD secretariat to make such a request. On behalf >>>> of civil society, the IGC should do the same. >>>> >>>> Assuming people agree with the proposition, may I suggest that the >>>> co-coordinators take a crack at drafting a one or two paragraph >>>> letter to Mongi to this effect? Probably it would be better to do >>>> it sooner than later, as the secretariat would then need to pass >>>> the request along to governments etc… >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>> *************************************************** >>>> William J. Drake >>>> International Fellow & Lecturer >>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >>>> william.drake at uzh.ch >>>> www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake >>>> >>>> www.williamdrake.org >>>> **************************************************** >>>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >> -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Fri May 11 12:24:10 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 18:24:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] CIRP+ In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCCD2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <6D6899A1E5984901A2C7561B7A4649BD@UserVAIO> <4FAA73E0.1050404@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCCD2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <49752A0F-6810-40D2-913D-F3729D9C734B@uzh.ch> Hi Wolfgang, On May 9, 2012, at 4:03 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > If a renewed CIRP proposal follows the WGIG model, it could be the starting point for a new discussion, embedded into the IGF discussions on a multistakeholder "Framework of Committments". Given your well known enthusiasm for coining new terms and acronyms, I'd suggest you come up with something new rather than starting from one referring to a proposal that even its erstwhile chief proponent has disowned as "not well thought out." http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/03/10/india-drops-cirp-proposal Why start out weighed down with the baggage of an intergovernmental body under ECOSOC and the GA (!) and try to figure out how to evolve it into multistakeholder mechanism, a process that'll leave all sides unhappy? Who knows, with the right incentives, maybe someday the absence of better alternatives could lead us back to seriously considering an IGF that includes working groups capable of structured analysis and dialogue on frameworks (plural) of commitments where these could be useful. 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 avri at acm.org Fri May 11 13:40:18 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 13:40:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] CIRP+ In-Reply-To: <49752A0F-6810-40D2-913D-F3729D9C734B@uzh.ch> References: <6D6899A1E5984901A2C7561B7A4649BD@UserVAIO> <4FAA73E0.1050404@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCCD2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <49752A0F-6810-40D2-913D-F3729D9C734B@uzh.ch> Message-ID: William Drake wrote: >Who knows, with the right incentives, maybe someday the absence of >better alternatives could lead us back to seriously considering an IGF >that includes working groups capable of structured analysis and >dialogue on frameworks (plural) of commitments where these could be >useful. > Sounds like an interesting project for those of you who are now MAG. You are the people responsible for the evolution of the IGF. This is your time and your chance. Cheers, -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 11 13:44:04 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 13:44:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva In-Reply-To: <4FAD2F04.30004@apc.org> References: <4FAD2BD7.1060306@apc.org> <4FAD2F04.30004@apc.org> Message-ID: <536cd7d1-a014-48b1-a3b8-71e40339a25e@email.android.com> This makes sense to me. avri Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >dear michael > >i am too busy to respond in full.... but i like the idea of looking at >the OGP process a lot > >i had a good look at the declaration, and the section on 'measures' > >the idea this gave me is that what would be very useful for IG is a >consultative process that will build such a declaration on EC - a >process which is inclusive of a wide range of >instutitions, constituencies, sectors etc. > >so.. like the WGIG process.. but with its specific goal being agreement >on a 'Declaration on inclusive, multi-stakeholder international >internet >governance' > >anriette > > >On 09/05/12 16:46, michael gurstein wrote: >> In this context, I think that the IGC should be paying extremely >> close attention to the Open Government Partnership >> which I pointed to earlier. >> >> The OGP has a formal "Declaration >> >" >> (i.e. normative statement--"convention" if you will) to which >> Members need to formally commit themeselves. The Partner >> country's membership in the Partnership is initially accepted >> based on their adherence to the Charter and whose on-going >> performance is equally assessed (includng by CS) against their >> stated plan/committment concerning the implementation of the >forward >> looking provisions of the Charter. >> >> Secondly, CS has a formally defined role as a full-fledged >"partner" >> in the Partnership with certain designated rights and >> responsibilities including a co-Chairmanship of the overall >> Partnership. >> >> Although there are a number of elements still in the process of >> being worked out (not the least of which is the structuring of CS >in >> the context of the OGP) to my mind this is a direction towards >which >> EC/IG should be moving, towards which CS should be pushing IG, >and >> which overall represents a potentially very positive post >Atlantic >> Charter direction for the overall evolution of CS and Global >> Governance in the Age of the Internet. >> >> Best, >> >> Mike >> >> -----Original Message----- >> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of >*parminder >> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 09, 2012 6:41 AM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the >> Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva >> >> On Tuesday 08 May 2012 08:40 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>> It seems to me that the basic issues of Enhanced Cooperation >from a CS perspective are twofold: >>> >> We, as a set of civil society players, have tried to present >> concrete possibilities for both, but with no engagement from the >> larger CS involved with IG. >> >>> 1. what is the normative framework within which EC should take >place--my strong suggestion would be that it is that of transparency, >accountability, democracy and inclusiveness (and of course there is the >WSIS declaration etc. to support this). And that this should be >presented as a declaration and within a framing document. >>> >> >> A framework convention on the Internet was proposed, but found no >> traction among the CS actors in IG. Yes, it needs to be informed >by >> the values that you mention. >> >>> 2. that having agreed on such a normative framework the >question is what is the most appropriate institutional arrangement for >achieving these within the context of Internet governance. >>> >> >> UN CIRP proposal has as multistakeholder a structure as OECD's >> Internet policy making mechanism (which is the default global >> Internet policy making system at present), plus seeking strong >> linkages with a rather empowered multistakeholder IGF (India IGF >> proposal). If something else/more is needed and possible that it >> must be spelt out. >> >> Still, we believe that even a CIRP kind of body should be an >interim >> arrangement, doing stop-gap work, but focussing on the activity >of >> being the nodal point for developing a suitable framework >convention >> on the Internet, which 'framework convention' then proposes the >> right body for global governance of the global internet, which is >> fully adequate and appropriate to the phenomenon, context etc. >> >> If someone has a different/ better roadmap, lets discuss it. >> >> Non engagement with and non-proposal of clear concrete road-maps >is >> simply an acceptance of the status quo in global Internet >> governance, and we think that the staus quo is hugely >problematic, >> involves ever greater concentration of power, and is thus not >> acceptable. >> >> parminder >> >>> Mike >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > >[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette >Esterhuysen >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 1:08 AM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the >Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva >>> >>> >>> Dear Bill, Adam and all >>> >>> The agenda is very basic. I will post it below. Parminder and I >have both been asked to speak. APC will post our basic input here as >soon as we have had a chance to present it to members first. >>> >>> Basically my idea is to shift the discussion towards the >involvement of civil society in EC and rather than just the usual >involvement of governments. My gut reaction to EC is that there is all >this dispute about the involvements from States and while this is kind >of going nowhere, there appears to be less cooperation and more >concentration of power among large companies, rich country governments, >and established IG 'institutions'. >>> >>> I hope this will complement Parminder's input which I hope will >focus on the imbalances in governmental involvement from governments in >the north (who tend to say they don't want control, but they already >have it) and governments in the south (who say they want more control >and who don't have much at global level, and who are not demonstrating, >consistently, good use of the control they do have at national level - >in my view). >>> >>> A serious discussion on what governments responsibilities are >and of WHAT they need to be involved in would be useful in my view. >>> >>> And then finally, and I would appreciate IGC input on this.. >among APC staff we have had a discussion of the parameters of EC. Is EC >just something we should be talking about at global level, or also at >national level. >>> >>> I feel stongly that we need to take the discussion to EC in IG >at national level. And this should touch on global IG issues (how >countries engage, whether there is capacity building, consultation, >etc. around involvement in global issues/process) as well as on >national IG issues. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> 11:00- >>> 13:00 >>> Welcoming remarks by the Chair of the CSTD, Mr. Fortunato de la >Peña ■ Address by: Dr. Hamadoun Touré, Secretary-General of the >International Telecommunication Union (ITU) ■ Address by: Mr. Nigel >Hickson, Vice President for Europe, ICANN ■ Address by: Mr. Markus >Kummer, Vice President Public Policy, Internet Society ■ Address by: >Mr. Jimson Olufuye, Vice-Chairman, Africa Region, World Information >Technology and Services Alliance ■ Address by: Mr. Parminder Singh, >Executive Director, IT for Change ■ Address by: Ms. Marilyn Cade, CEO, >mCADE LLC ■ Address by: Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director, >Association for Progressive Communications >>> 15:00- >>> 18:00 >>> General discussion >>> >>> On 08/05/12 09:06, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>>> Could you give a pointer to the agenda. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 3:55 PM, William Drake > >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> Just wondering if we want to do anything about this? The >draft >>>> program has a couple of IGCers as speakers but no clarity >on rules >>>> of engagement for other attendees…? >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>> >>>> On Apr 18, 2012, at 11:05 AM, William Drake wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> As you know, there will be an enhanced cooperation >consultation on >>>>> 18 May in Geneva, following the IGF consultations and MAG >>>>> meeting. >http://archive.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=6227&lang=1 > >>>>> >>>>> > > >>>>> >>>>> It would be very important that all stakeholders are able >to >>>>> intervene and contribute freely (but strategically) during >this >>>>> consultation, rather than have to sit silently on the >sidelines or >>>>> be relegated to collective brief interventions at the end >of each >>>>> session. I imagine that ICC (business) and ISOC (TC) will >be >>>>> contacting the CSTD secretariat to make such a request. >On behalf >>>>> of civil society, the IGC should do the same. >>>>> >>>>> Assuming people agree with the proposition, may I suggest >that the >>>>> co-coordinators take a crack at drafting a one or two >paragraph >>>>> letter to Mongi to this effect? Probably it would be >better to do >>>>> it sooner than later, as the secretariat would then need >to pass >>>>> the request along to governments etc… >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Bill >>>>> >>>>> *************************************************** >>>>> William J. Drake >>>>> International Fellow & Lecturer >>>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >>>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >>>>> william.drake at uzh.ch > >>>>> www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake > >>>>> >>>>> www.williamdrake.org > >>>>> **************************************************** >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: >http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> > >-- >------------------------------------------------------ >anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >executive director, association for progressive communications >www.apc.org >po box 29755, melville 2109 >south africa >tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Sat May 12 11:05:44 2012 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 00:05:44 +0900 Subject: [governance] May 14 meeting in Geneva? In-Reply-To: <003301cd284b$403dc2a0$c0b947e0$@planet.tn> References: <4F9A9152.4000900@eff.org> <005001cd251c$87fe89d0$97fb9d70$@planet.tn> <00a401cd26d7$0f83ea60$2e8bbf20$@diplomacy.edu> <003301cd284b$403dc2a0$c0b947e0$@planet.tn> Message-ID: Sorry for the absence of confirmation. Let's meet at 1800 at Diplo Office in Geneva, May 14. Please write here once more if you are joining. 56, Rue de Lausanne Phone: +41 22 741 0420 See you there! izumi 2012/5/2 : > It's better for me too. > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 : izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] De la part de Izumi > AIZU > Envoyé : mardi 1 mai 2012 07:08 > À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Vladimir Radunovic > Objet : Re: [governance] May 14 meeting in Geneva? > > Dear Vlada and all, > > As suggested by Qusai and Vlada, may I propose to shift our meeting time to > 1800-1930 ish? > > As WSIS Forum is scheduled to end on 1800, this is still a challenge, but we > don't want to run late either especially for the late comers thus it is a > kind of compromise. > > And thanks Diplo for being so flexible. > > izumi > > > > Unless there is strong objection, we will do so. > > > > > 2012/4/30 Vladimir Radunovic : >> Izumi, >> >> >> >> latter time suggested by Qusai would also suit me since I should >> arrive to Geneva by 7pm only. If you start 6pm or latter I could join >> you (at least for a part of the meeting and dinner). >> >> >> >> Best! >> >> >> >>                 Vlada -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From glaser at cgi.br Sat May 12 11:31:23 2012 From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 12:31:23 -0300 Subject: [governance] May 14 meeting in Geneva? In-Reply-To: References: <4F9A9152.4000900@eff.org> <005001cd251c$87fe89d0$97fb9d70$@planet.tn> <00a401cd26d7$0f83ea60$2e8bbf20$@diplomacy.edu> <003301cd284b$403dc2a0$c0b947e0$@planet.tn> Message-ID: <4FAE824B.2070600@cgi.br> Dear All, I will be there... Hartmut Glaser ======================= On 12/05/12 12:05, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Sorry for the absence of confirmation. > Let's meet at 1800 at Diplo Office in Geneva, May 14. > > Please write here once more if you are joining. > > 56, Rue de Lausanne > Phone: +41 22 741 0420 > > See you there! > > izumi > > > > 2012/5/2: >> It's better for me too. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> 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 : izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] De la part de Izumi >> AIZU >> Envoyé : mardi 1 mai 2012 07:08 >> À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Vladimir Radunovic >> Objet : Re: [governance] May 14 meeting in Geneva? >> >> Dear Vlada and all, >> >> As suggested by Qusai and Vlada, may I propose to shift our meeting time to >> 1800-1930 ish? >> >> As WSIS Forum is scheduled to end on 1800, this is still a challenge, but we >> don't want to run late either especially for the late comers thus it is a >> kind of compromise. >> >> And thanks Diplo for being so flexible. >> >> izumi >> >> >> >> Unless there is strong objection, we will do so. >> >> >> >> >> 2012/4/30 Vladimir Radunovic: >>> Izumi, >>> >>> >>> >>> latter time suggested by Qusai would also suit me since I should >>> arrive to Geneva by 7pm only. If you start 6pm or latter I could join >>> you (at least for a part of the meeting and dinner). >>> >>> >>> >>> Best! >>> >>> >>> >>> Vlada -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat May 12 13:48:32 2012 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn) Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 18:48:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] May 14 meeting in Geneva? In-Reply-To: References: <4F9A9152.4000900@eff.org> <005001cd251c$87fe89d0$97fb9d70$@planet.tn> <00a401cd26d7$0f83ea60$2e8bbf20$@diplomacy.edu> <003301cd284b$403dc2a0$c0b947e0$@planet.tn> Message-ID: <002c01cd3067$72edbc40$58c934c0$@planet.tn> I am ------------------------------------------------------ TIjani BEN JEMAA Vice Chair of the CIC World Federation of Engineering Organizations Phone : + 216 70 825 231 Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------ -----Message d'origine----- De : izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] De la part de Izumi AIZU Envoyé : samedi 12 mai 2012 16:06 À : tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Cc : governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Vladimir Radunovic Objet : Re: [governance] May 14 meeting in Geneva? Sorry for the absence of confirmation. Let's meet at 1800 at Diplo Office in Geneva, May 14. Please write here once more if you are joining. 56, Rue de Lausanne Phone: +41 22 741 0420 See you there! izumi 2012/5/2 < tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn>: > It's better for me too. > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 : izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] De la part de > Izumi AIZU Envoyé : mardi 1 mai 2012 07:08 À : > governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Vladimir Radunovic Objet : Re: > [governance] May 14 meeting in Geneva? > > Dear Vlada and all, > > As suggested by Qusai and Vlada, may I propose to shift our meeting > time to > 1800-1930 ish? > > As WSIS Forum is scheduled to end on 1800, this is still a challenge, > but we don't want to run late either especially for the late comers > thus it is a kind of compromise. > > And thanks Diplo for being so flexible. > > izumi > > > > Unless there is strong objection, we will do so. > > > > > 2012/4/30 Vladimir Radunovic < vladar at diplomacy.edu>: >> Izumi, >> >> >> >> latter time suggested by Qusai would also suit me since I should >> arrive to Geneva by 7pm only. If you start 6pm or latter I could join >> you (at least for a part of the meeting and dinner). >> >> >> >> Best! >> >> >> >> Vlada ----- Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr Version: 10.0.1390 / Base de données virale: 1518/3785 - Date: 24/07/2011 La Base de données des virus a expiré. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sdkaaa at gmail.com Sat May 12 15:12:30 2012 From: sdkaaa at gmail.com (Bernard Sadaka) Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 22:12:30 +0300 Subject: [governance] May 14 meeting in Geneva? In-Reply-To: References: <4F9A9152.4000900@eff.org> <005001cd251c$87fe89d0$97fb9d70$@planet.tn> <00a401cd26d7$0f83ea60$2e8bbf20$@diplomacy.edu> <003301cd284b$403dc2a0$c0b947e0$@planet.tn> Message-ID: <5B17B9AD-35CB-4AB9-8B32-9211850F3399@gmail.com> I will be there as well if all technical preparations are well. All the best, Bernard. On May 12, 2012, at 6:05 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Sorry for the absence of confirmation. > Let's meet at 1800 at Diplo Office in Geneva, May 14. > > Please write here once more if you are joining. > > 56, Rue de Lausanne > Phone: +41 22 741 0420 > > See you there! > > izumi > > > > 2012/5/2 : >> It's better for me too. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> 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 : izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] De la part de Izumi >> AIZU >> Envoyé : mardi 1 mai 2012 07:08 >> À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Vladimir Radunovic >> Objet : Re: [governance] May 14 meeting in Geneva? >> >> Dear Vlada and all, >> >> As suggested by Qusai and Vlada, may I propose to shift our meeting time to >> 1800-1930 ish? >> >> As WSIS Forum is scheduled to end on 1800, this is still a challenge, but we >> don't want to run late either especially for the late comers thus it is a >> kind of compromise. >> >> And thanks Diplo for being so flexible. >> >> izumi >> >> >> >> Unless there is strong objection, we will do so. >> >> >> >> >> 2012/4/30 Vladimir Radunovic : >>> Izumi, >>> >>> >>> >>> latter time suggested by Qusai would also suit me since I should >>> arrive to Geneva by 7pm only. If you start 6pm or latter I could join >>> you (at least for a part of the meeting and dinner). >>> >>> >>> >>> Best! >>> >>> >>> >>> Vlada > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 12 18:25:14 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 15:25:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva In-Reply-To: <4FAD2F04.30004@apc.org> Message-ID: Yes, I think that would be the effective approach here... Again, what the OGP process has done is to create a consensus based normative declaration among a community of the willing and are building an institutional framework to support the on-going, broad based, and collabortive implementations towards the realization of these norms. It seems to me that CS should be striving in this direction in the IG area given that it's own involvement in IG is (or at least should be) based on consensus based operational Internet norms (transparency, net neutrality, inclusivity and so on). I don't expect to be in Baku so I'm hoping that should such a process be initiated at the upcoming IGF that it be one inclusive of remote participation. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 8:24 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva dear michael i am too busy to respond in full.... but i like the idea of looking at the OGP process a lot i had a good look at the declaration, and the section on 'measures' the idea this gave me is that what would be very useful for IG is a consultative process that will build such a declaration on EC - a process which is inclusive of a wide range of instutitions, constituencies, sectors etc. so.. like the WGIG process.. but with its specific goal being agreement on a 'Declaration on inclusive, multi-stakeholder international internet governance' anriette On 09/05/12 16:46, michael gurstein wrote: > In this context, I think that the IGC should be paying extremely > close attention to the Open Government Partnership > which I pointed to earlier. > > The OGP has a formal "Declaration > " > (i.e. normative statement--"convention" if you will) to which > Members need to formally commit themeselves. The Partner > country's membership in the Partnership is initially accepted > based on their adherence to the Charter and whose on-going > performance is equally assessed (includng by CS) against their > stated plan/committment concerning the implementation of the forward > looking provisions of the Charter. > > Secondly, CS has a formally defined role as a full-fledged "partner" > in the Partnership with certain designated rights and > responsibilities including a co-Chairmanship of the overall > Partnership. > > Although there are a number of elements still in the process of > being worked out (not the least of which is the structuring of CS in > the context of the OGP) to my mind this is a direction towards which > EC/IG should be moving, towards which CS should be pushing IG, and > which overall represents a potentially very positive post Atlantic > Charter direction for the overall evolution of CS and Global > Governance in the Age of the Internet. > > Best, > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 09, 2012 6:41 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the > Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva > > On Tuesday 08 May 2012 08:40 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> It seems to me that the basic issues of Enhanced Cooperation from >> a CS perspective are twofold: >> > We, as a set of civil society players, have tried to present > concrete possibilities for both, but with no engagement from the > larger CS involved with IG. > >> 1. what is the normative framework within which EC should take >> place--my strong suggestion would be that it is that of transparency, accountability, democracy and inclusiveness (and of course there is the WSIS declaration etc. to support this). And that this should be presented as a declaration and within a framing document. >> > > A framework convention on the Internet was proposed, but found no > traction among the CS actors in IG. Yes, it needs to be informed by > the values that you mention. > >> 2. that having agreed on such a normative framework the question >> is what is the most appropriate institutional arrangement for achieving these within the context of Internet governance. >> > > UN CIRP proposal has as multistakeholder a structure as OECD's > Internet policy making mechanism (which is the default global > Internet policy making system at present), plus seeking strong > linkages with a rather empowered multistakeholder IGF (India IGF > proposal). If something else/more is needed and possible that it > must be spelt out. > > Still, we believe that even a CIRP kind of body should be an interim > arrangement, doing stop-gap work, but focussing on the activity of > being the nodal point for developing a suitable framework convention > on the Internet, which 'framework convention' then proposes the > right body for global governance of the global internet, which is > fully adequate and appropriate to the phenomenon, context etc. > > If someone has a different/ better roadmap, lets discuss it. > > Non engagement with and non-proposal of clear concrete road-maps is > simply an acceptance of the status quo in global Internet > governance, and we think that the staus quo is hugely problematic, > involves ever greater concentration of power, and is thus not > acceptable. > > parminder > >> Mike >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen >> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 1:08 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the >> Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva >> >> >> Dear Bill, Adam and all >> >> The agenda is very basic. I will post it below. Parminder and I >> have both been asked to speak. APC will post our basic input here as >> soon as we have had a chance to present it to members first. >> >> Basically my idea is to shift the discussion towards the >> involvement of civil society in EC and rather than just the usual >> involvement of governments. My gut reaction to EC is that there is >> all this dispute about the involvements from States and while this is >> kind of going nowhere, there appears to be less cooperation and more >> concentration of power among large companies, rich country >> governments, and established IG 'institutions'. >> >> I hope this will complement Parminder's input which I hope will >> focus on the imbalances in governmental involvement from governments >> in the north (who tend to say they don't want control, but they >> already have it) and governments in the south (who say they want more >> control and who don't have much at global level, and who are not >> demonstrating, consistently, good use of the control they do have at >> national level - in my view). >> >> A serious discussion on what governments responsibilities are and >> of WHAT they need to be involved in would be useful in my view. >> >> And then finally, and I would appreciate IGC input on this.. >> among APC staff we have had a discussion of the parameters of EC. Is >> EC just something we should be talking about at global level, or also >> at national level. >> >> I feel stongly that we need to take the discussion to EC in IG at >> national level. And this should touch on global IG issues (how >> countries engage, whether there is capacity building, consultation, >> etc. around involvement in global issues/process) as well as on >> national IG issues. >> >> Anriette >> >> 11:00- >> 13:00 >> Welcoming remarks by the Chair of the CSTD, Mr. Fortunato de la Peña ■ Address by: Dr. Hamadoun Touré, Secretary-General of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) ■ Address by: Mr. Nigel Hickson, Vice President for Europe, ICANN ■ Address by: Mr. Markus Kummer, Vice President Public Policy, Internet Society ■ Address by: Mr. Jimson Olufuye, Vice-Chairman, Africa Region, World Information Technology and Services Alliance ■ Address by: Mr. Parminder Singh, Executive Director, IT for Change ■ Address by: Ms. Marilyn Cade, CEO, mCADE LLC ■ Address by: Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications >> 15:00- >> 18:00 >> General discussion >> >> On 08/05/12 09:06, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> Could you give a pointer to the agenda. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 3:55 PM, William Drake >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> Just wondering if we want to do anything about this? The draft >>> program has a couple of IGCers as speakers but no clarity on rules >>> of engagement for other attendees…? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> On Apr 18, 2012, at 11:05 AM, William Drake wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> As you know, there will be an enhanced cooperation consultation on >>>> 18 May in Geneva, following the IGF consultations and MAG >>>> meeting. >>>> http://archive.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=6227&lang=1 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It would be very important that all stakeholders are able to >>>> intervene and contribute freely (but strategically) during this >>>> consultation, rather than have to sit silently on the sidelines or >>>> be relegated to collective brief interventions at the end of each >>>> session. I imagine that ICC (business) and ISOC (TC) will be >>>> contacting the CSTD secretariat to make such a request. On behalf >>>> of civil society, the IGC should do the same. >>>> >>>> Assuming people agree with the proposition, may I suggest that the >>>> co-coordinators take a crack at drafting a one or two paragraph >>>> letter to Mongi to this effect? Probably it would be better to do >>>> it sooner than later, as the secretariat would then need to pass >>>> the request along to governments etc… >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>> *************************************************** >>>> William J. Drake >>>> International Fellow & Lecturer >>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >>>> william.drake at uzh.ch >>>> www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake >>>> >>>> www.williamdrake.org >>>> **************************************************** >>>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: >>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >> -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat May 12 18:25:14 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 15:25:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [liberationtech] Telecommunications minister has ordered the use of domain names ending with .ir" belonging to Iran Message-ID: <46DA1E9D088549C69BDF1319CF01DCB4@UserVAIO> -----Original Message----- From: liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu [mailto:liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of SiNA Rabbani Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 3:05 PM To: liberationtech at mailman.stanford.edu Subject: [liberationtech] Telecommunications minister has ordered the use of domain names ending with .ir" belonging to Iran ... http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jzh5OHjE_YOFj7PeAz8thcxLD XHg > TEHRAN - Iran's telecommunications ministry has barred local banks, > insurance firms and telephone operators from using foreign-sourced > emails to communicate with clients, a specialist weekly said on > Saturday. > > "The telecommunications minister has ordered the use of domain names > ending with .ir" belonging to Iran, Asr Ertebatat reported. > > The order prohibits banks, insurance firms and telephone firms using > foreign hosts for their sites or to inform their clients using foreign > providers such as Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail or MSN, it said. > > The weekly said that individuals seeking to communicate with such > firms must now use email addresses ending with iran.ir, post.ir or > chmail.ir. > > Entities linked to the Iranian government must use addresses ending in > gov.ir or .ir, while universities should use emails ending in ac.ir or > .ir, the report added. > > Iran has announced that as of May a national information network will > be used to replace the Internet in the daily management of the > administration of state entities, the banking system and public > enterprises. > > Officially, the launch of the "Iranian Internet" aims to secure > communications by making them independent from foreign Internet > operators. > > Iranian authorities announced in December having repatriated 90% of > official websites and encouraged Iranian companies to do the same. > > For the past two years, Tehran has been slapped with Western economic > and financial sanctions due to its controversial nuclear programme. > > The regime also regularly accuses the West of using the web for an > "undeclared war" to destabilise it, and Telecommunications Minister > Reza Taghipour has argued that Google and Yahoo posed a "threat to > national security." > > With over 36 million Internet users out of the population of 75 > million, electronic media played a major role in the popular protests > which rocked the country after the disputed re-election of President > Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2009. > > The authorities have since cut off or reduced Internet connections and > speed. > > The telecommunications ministry in April, however, denied that the > authority has decided to cut outside Internet connections to support > the development of Iran's own intranet. > > Earlier this year, access to foreign-sourced emails was cut without > explanation, disrupting the operations of many companies and millions > of Iranians while prompting sharp criticism within the regime. > > Since the unrest of 2009, authorities have sharply reduced the > available bandwidth of the Internet and blocked access to tens of > thousands of foreign websites, including opposition sites. > > US President Barack Obama on March accused Iran of imposing an > "electronic curtain" of censorship, announcing steps to use software > and social media to help Iranians communicate online. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolinaaguerre at gmail.com Sat May 12 19:11:15 2012 From: carolinaaguerre at gmail.com (carolinaaguerre at gmail.com) Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 23:11:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] May 14 meeting in Geneva? In-Reply-To: <5B17B9AD-35CB-4AB9-8B32-9211850F3399@gmail.com> References: <4F9A9152.4000900@eff.org> <005001cd251c$87fe89d0$97fb9d70$@planet.tn> <00a401cd26d7$0f83ea60$2e8bbf20$@diplomacy.edu> <003301cd284b$403dc2a0$c0b947e0$@planet.tn> <5B17B9AD-35CB-4AB9-8B32-9211850F3399@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1855609588-1336864104-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1528479359-@b3.c13.bise6.blackberry> I also confirm participation. Rgds, Carolina -----Original Message----- From: Bernard Sadaka Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 22:12:30 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Izumi AIZU Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Bernard Sadaka Cc: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Vladimir Radunovic Subject: Re: [governance] May 14 meeting in Geneva? I will be there as well if all technical preparations are well. All the best, Bernard. On May 12, 2012, at 6:05 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Sorry for the absence of confirmation. > Let's meet at 1800 at Diplo Office in Geneva, May 14. > > Please write here once more if you are joining. > > 56, Rue de Lausanne > Phone: +41 22 741 0420 > > See you there! > > izumi > > > > 2012/5/2 : >> It's better for me too. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> 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 : izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] De la part de Izumi >> AIZU >> Envoyé : mardi 1 mai 2012 07:08 >> À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Vladimir Radunovic >> Objet : Re: [governance] May 14 meeting in Geneva? >> >> Dear Vlada and all, >> >> As suggested by Qusai and Vlada, may I propose to shift our meeting time to >> 1800-1930 ish? >> >> As WSIS Forum is scheduled to end on 1800, this is still a challenge, but we >> don't want to run late either especially for the late comers thus it is a >> kind of compromise. >> >> And thanks Diplo for being so flexible. >> >> izumi >> >> >> >> Unless there is strong objection, we will do so. >> >> >> >> >> 2012/4/30 Vladimir Radunovic : >>> Izumi, >>> >>> >>> >>> latter time suggested by Qusai would also suit me since I should >>> arrive to Geneva by 7pm only. If you start 6pm or latter I could join >>> you (at least for a part of the meeting and dinner). >>> >>> >>> >>> Best! >>> >>> >>> >>> Vlada > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From qshatti at gmail.com Sat May 12 23:39:37 2012 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai Al-Shatti) Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 05:39:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] May 14 meeting in Geneva? In-Reply-To: References: <4F9A9152.4000900@eff.org> <005001cd251c$87fe89d0$97fb9d70$@planet.tn> <00a401cd26d7$0f83ea60$2e8bbf20$@diplomacy.edu> <003301cd284b$403dc2a0$c0b947e0$@planet.tn> Message-ID: I will be there. Sent from my iPhone On 12/05/2012, at 17:05, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Sorry for the absence of confirmation. > Let's meet at 1800 at Diplo Office in Geneva, May 14. > > Please write here once more if you are joining. > > 56, Rue de Lausanne > Phone: +41 22 741 0420 > > See you there! > > izumi > > > > 2012/5/2 : >> It's better for me too. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> 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 : izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] De la part de Izumi >> AIZU >> Envoyé : mardi 1 mai 2012 07:08 >> À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Vladimir Radunovic >> Objet : Re: [governance] May 14 meeting in Geneva? >> >> Dear Vlada and all, >> >> As suggested by Qusai and Vlada, may I propose to shift our meeting time to >> 1800-1930 ish? >> >> As WSIS Forum is scheduled to end on 1800, this is still a challenge, but we >> don't want to run late either especially for the late comers thus it is a >> kind of compromise. >> >> And thanks Diplo for being so flexible. >> >> izumi >> >> >> >> Unless there is strong objection, we will do so. >> >> >> >> >> 2012/4/30 Vladimir Radunovic : >>> Izumi, >>> >>> >>> >>> latter time suggested by Qusai would also suit me since I should >>> arrive to Geneva by 7pm only. If you start 6pm or latter I could join >>> you (at least for a part of the meeting and dinner). >>> >>> >>> >>> Best! >>> >>> >>> >>> Vlada > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 13 02:05:56 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 11:35:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: CIRP+ In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCCD2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <6D6899A1E5984901A2C7561B7A4649BD@UserVAIO> <4FAA73E0.1050404@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCCD2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4FAF4F44.6040400@itforchange.net> Wolfgang, Thanks for your engagement. This is an important issue and needs a thorough discussion. I think that if we do discuss it in all earnestness we will be closer to agreeing on many things.... On Wednesday 09 May 2012 07:33 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Parminder: > UN CIRP proposal has as multistakeholder a structure as OECD's Internet policy making mechanism (which is the default global Internet policy making system at present), plus seeking strong linkages with a rather empowered multistakeholder IGF (India IGF proposal). If something else/more is needed and possible that it must be spelt out. > > Wolfgang: > The Problem with the OECD MS model is, that it evolved from an existing (intergovernmental) structure. It did not create a new body. It just added to an IGO with one existing advisory committee to other advisory committees (CS and TC). OECD's /Committee for Information/, /Computer and Communications Policy /was created, I understand, sometime in late 1990s, as a new body/ committee of the OECD council, in addition to other such committees. On the same lines, UN CIRP is proposed as a new committee, in addition to other such committees, of the UN GA (the exact equivalent of OECD council if we include all countries). I fail to understand what difference really are you pointing to here. (The only difference I can see is that UN CIRP is proposed to be organically linked to the IGF, and OECD CICCP has no equivalent body that makes it so participative.) Indeed, CICCP was first created without a CS advisory body which got added a few years back. UN CIRP proposes to start with such a CS advisory body. So, Wolfgang, if you really can see a difference here, pl do tell it clearly. > This was good. But .- as you can see in the drafting of the Internet policy Making guidelines document - not good enough. Yes, and the CS advisory committee completely capitulated, first opposing the principles, and then tamely signing on, even without a wider CS discussion, despite my request to the CS advisory committee to bring the matter to IGC and other groups etc for a discussion. > There is no mechanism how the advisory bodies are directly involved into the decision making procedure. This is most interesting. Two points (1) Has the involved CS, at the time the CS advisory commitee was formed, or any time later, ever even proposed any such arrangement to OECD whereby they should be 'directly involved into decision making procedure'. Why did CS agree to join up without such arrangements being put in place, in fact, without even proposing them. CS seems to be very shy to speak up the to powerful like the OECD, right! Or if there is any other reason pl tell me. To me, it does suggest hypocrisy that this demand of 'direct involvement in decision making' comes up only when forums/ bodies involving all countries are suggested. Can you please explain this apparent paradox? (2) in any case, I am still ready to discuss the arrangement you suggest about *direct* involvement of CS,business etc in decision making. Will you please propose some such arrangement so that we can discuss it. And then perhaps take it up with existing bodies first, before thinking of them only in terms of bodies that do not seem likely to come into existence any time soon. May I humbly suggest that the real problem, which perhaps out of political correctness some people are hesitant to spell out here, is that you and many others here who are making these protestations trust the governments of the North and simply do not trust the governments of the South. I am sorry, but we in the South *cannot* take such a view. By god, we have more than enough problems with our governments back home, and fight them real hard on so many issues. But on the global stage, when up against the trenchant onslaught of the two biggest powers on the Interent - US gov/OECD and the monopoly internet companies - we know what political strategy to take, and not to hide behind convenient covers . This is nothing new, and is quite aligned with strategies employed in other areas of global governance like IP and trade, something strongly suggested by the co-sponsorship of the joint CS statement for May 18 meeting by some of the most prominent Southern NGOs involved in these latter areas. parminder > Remember the Internet Governance definition whre "shared decsion making procedures" are mentioned as a key element similar to the involvement of the various stakeholders in their respective roles. > > > If a new (UN) body should be created to fill a (possible) gap in the existing global Internet Governance Ecosystem, such a new body has to go beyond "advisory committees" and introduce a mechanism which follows the definition of "shared decision making". This would be new, but this is what is needed. We need here innovation and creativity in internaitonal politics. WGIG is a good example that this can work. The UNCSTD IGF Improvement WG has also demonstrated that it can be done. If a renewed CIRP proposal follows the WGIG model, it could be the starting point for a new discussion, embedded into the IGF discussions on a multistakeholder "Framework of Committments". > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 13 02:31:37 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 12:01:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: CIRP+ In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCCD2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <6D6899A1E5984901A2C7561B7A4649BD@UserVAIO> <4FAA73E0.1050404@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCCD2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4FAF5549.9080202@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 09 May 2012 07:33 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > If a new (UN) body should be created to fill a (possible) gap in the existing global Internet Governance Ecosystem, such a new body has to go beyond "advisory committees" and introduce a mechanism which follows the definition of "shared decision making". This would be new, but this is what is needed. We need here innovation and creativity in internaitonal politics. WGIG is a good example that this can work. The UNCSTD IGF Improvement WG has also demonstrated that it can be done. If a renewed CIRP proposal follows the WGIG model, it could be the starting point for a new discussion, embedded into the IGF discussions on a multistakeholder "Framework of Committments". > > WGIG was an advisory body to the intergovernmental WSIS. It had no independent standing or decision making capacity. So I am not sure if I follow what you means by saying WGIG model should be followed. CIRP proposes three separate advisory bodies which can of course draft clear, written recs like WGIG did. I dont even see any special barrier for them to do it together if they so wish, but then like WGIG report went to WSIS, and it took and left out things that it wanted to to draft the authoritative Tunis documents, the same may happen with CIRP/ GA. Also, do remember that WGIG dealt with a more analytical issue of area scoping/ defining etc which is a much more of a technical exercise than actually deciding on thorny issues which have differential impacts on different people/ groups/ countries. It is also significant to note that on the most contentious issue of oversight mechanism, WGIG gave 4 alternative models for WSIS to decide on. CIRP advisory committees can do all this. Therefore the advisory and non decision making role of WGIG is clear. It is as important to note that the more technical areas - whether involving technology related decisions or related more to concept defining, area mapping etc - can be dealt by mechanism that may be found wanting for relatively political and /or public policy decisions. 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 avri at acm.org Sun May 13 02:46:22 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 08:46:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: CIRP+ In-Reply-To: <4FAF4F44.6040400@itforchange.net> References: <6D6899A1E5984901A2C7561B7A4649BD@UserVAIO> <4FAA73E0.1050404@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCCD2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FAF4F44.6040400@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <651021c7-f938-41cb-87c6-4c421fe52c74@email.android.com> parminder wrote: > >May I humbly suggest that the real problem, which perhaps out of >political correctness some people are hesitant to spell out here, is >that you and many others here who are making these protestations trust >the governments of the North and simply do not trust the governments of >the South. excuse me? Putting aside your 'humility', i find this persistent accusation to be disturbing. I for one have never found a government I trust. Maybe some people in some governments who I have met and worked with, but a government per se? Not likely. But beyond that, this diremption you constantly insist upon in the fabric of civil society does help at all. For myself it make disucssion of any points impossible, knowing they will just be discounted becasue I am a government lover. I, not at all humbly, suggest you leave the accusantions out of any discussion you wish people to take seriously. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 13 03:15:21 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 12:45:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: CIRP+ In-Reply-To: <651021c7-f938-41cb-87c6-4c421fe52c74@email.android.com> References: <6D6899A1E5984901A2C7561B7A4649BD@UserVAIO> <4FAA73E0.1050404@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCCD2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FAF4F44.6040400@itforchange.net> <651021c7-f938-41cb-87c6-4c421fe52c74@email.android.com> Message-ID: <4FAF5F89.3080501@itforchange.net> On Sunday 13 May 2012 12:16 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > parminder wrote: > >> May I humbly suggest that the real problem, which perhaps out of >> political correctness some people are hesitant to spell out here, is >> that you and many others here who are making these protestations trust >> the governments of the North and simply do not trust the governments of >> the South. >> > excuse me? > > Putting aside your 'humility', i find this persistent accusation to be disturbing. I for one have never found a government I trust. Maybe some people in some governments who I have met and worked with, but a government per se? Not likely. > I said 'many' and not 'all'. While you may excuse yourself out of this 'many', I do make this claim with responsibility, and from what one sees on a regular basis in IG spaces. And of course trusting a government is meant in a relative manner, we all do in our political work in IG spaces work more closely with and trust some governments more than others, like we do vis a vis other actors. Any absolute declaration, in this regard, of 'I trust no government' is as meaningless, and leads us nowhere, as 'I like all governments', However, if we are speaking of the institution of democratic government, yes, I have great faith in it. I am not sure that is what you are referring in your disclaimer. > But beyond that, this diremption you constantly insist upon in the fabric of civil society does help at all. For myself it make disucssion of any points impossible, knowing they will just be discounted becasue I am a government lover. > On the other hand, I myself often find it difficult to speak of democratic global governance without the risk of being discounted as a government lover. Now you know how the pinch feels :) Parminder > I, not at all humbly, suggest you leave the accusantions out of any discussion you wish people to take seriously. > > 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun May 13 04:59:24 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 10:59:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] AW: CIRP+ References: <6D6899A1E5984901A2C7561B7A4649BD@UserVAIO> <4FAA73E0.1050404@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCCD2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FAF5549.9080202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCCF7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Parminder: WGIG was an advisory body to the intergovernmental WSIS. It had no independent standing or decision making capacity. Wolfgang: Formally you are right. But de facto, WGIG "decided" to define IG, to create the IGF and - as a result of a lack of consensus within WGIG - to launch a process for further discussion on oversight (which ended in EC). A new WGIG would not just repeat what the old was. It has to take the next formal step: From an body which prepares decision to a body which is able to produce rough consensus. The innovation with WGIG was that all stakeholders participated equally in the discussion and drafting of the report. Membership was not "layered". What you propose is a "layered" system. This is the hierarchical thinking of the 20th century. What we need is a network thinking for the 21st century. Parminder: CIRP proposes three separate advisory bodies which can of course draft clear, written recs like WGIG did. I dont even see any special barrier for them to do it together if they so wish, but then like WGIG report went to WSIS, and it took and left out things that it wanted to to draft the authoritative Tunis documents, the same may happen with CIRP/ GA. Wolfgang: That is the problem with CIRP. CIRP does no follow the "WGIG model" it follows the "WSIS Bureau model" where the non-governmental stakeholders were put into isolated baskets (CS & PS bureaus) on a lower layer with the option to give "advise" to the "master layer", the intergovernmental bureau. In the reality of the WSIS case, the advise from the CS bureau was sidelined. We made 86 recommendations during PrepCom3 (September 2003) and when we analyzed the draft produced by the intergovernmental bureau after they got our recommendations we discovered, that 82 recommendations were totally ignored and that 4 recommendations went into very vague paragraphs of the intergovernmental document. We called this "ignorance" and "arrogance" and this produced a deep crisis for the whole summit with the option of a walkout of Civil Society. It needed a lot of diplomatic efforts of the Swiss president Pierre Couchepin to keep the CS inside the WSIS process (a lot of CS wanted to got to Plan B and to protest and march through the streets of Geneva). I remember two night sessions in the Swiss embassy in Geneva, a special invitation by the Lord Mayor of the City of Geneva and a press conference with Minister Marc Furrer, Pierre Couchepin, Utsumi, Karen Banks and me in the conference center. They argued that they can not include CS proposals directly into their documents which are negotiated among governments. We argued we can not give (the wanted) legitimicy to a declaration which is negotiated only by governments. CS was invited to WSIS, now we are here and we want to participate in Realpolitik. To give us a seat on the table in exchange for being silent if it comes to decision making is no option. The compromise was to have two final documents in the end: A governmental declaration and the civil society declaration. It makes sense (and I recommend this not only to you but to everybody) to read again - in the light of the experiences of the last ten years - the civil society WSIS declaration. (http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/civil-society-declaration.pdf). The Geneva compromise was good for the moment. But it was a bad experience. It was 2003. At this time the multistakeholder model was still a baby. It grew with WGIG. Now it is a child. Not yet an adult. And you want to repeat this experience now in 2012? Look forward, not backwards and be more innovative. There is no need to continue with the mistakes of the past. BTW, you always critisize OECD. Did you notice the problems CISAC has? The step forward is that it can make its voice heard. But there is long way to participate in decision making. CISAC is on the road, but still in the rain. The OECD model - and CIRP is obviously partly inspired by it - is good for an existing organisation, but not for a new one. If the 2nd Committee of the UNGA (or the ITU) establishes advisory bodies for non-govenrmental stakeholders, including civil society, this would be an interesting proposal to enhance the mechanisms of yesterday. But if you want to create something new, you have to meet the challenges of tomorrow. Wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 13 05:53:44 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 15:23:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] CIRP+ In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCCF7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <6D6899A1E5984901A2C7561B7A4649BD@UserVAIO> <4FAA73E0.1050404@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCCD2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FAF5549.9080202@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCCF7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4FAF84A8.2010003@itforchange.net> Wolfgang, I have many things to say about your arguments, but about that perhaps we can go on endlessly. But let me be pragmatic and precise. Do you agree that (1) there are many pressing global public policy issues, the kind of which OECD and CoE is so actively dealing with at present (2) it is not globally democratic that OECD and CoE as clubs of a few rich countries do all this (default) global policy making. If you do not agree to the above, lets just first discuss this. If you do, lets move to the next step Vide (2) above, developing countries, their governments as well as people, are obviously not happy with the situation. The May 18th meeting is about this specific problem. And you will also recognise the dangerous directions that our joint statement argues the Internet may be moving towards, and the need to address this problem. Since you seem to have some model in mind, inspired by WGIG or whatever, why dont you present a clear proposal of what global institutional mechanism should address the global public policy issues that are today addressed by OECD/CoE. Please tell us clearly what would be the structure of this new mechanism, what functions will it perform, and how, what would be its outcomes and how will they be implemented. How would it address the public policy imperatives in all IG areas that need global attention.... What would be its relationship with the current technical/ CIR governance system. People are looking for real solutions to real issues, and the May18 meeting is about that. I would request you to be as clear and precise about your model as possible... Otherwise, just criticising every model for change that is proposed is simply voting for the status quo. parminder On Sunday 13 May 2012 02:29 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Parminder: > WGIG was an advisory body to the intergovernmental WSIS. It had no independent standing or decision making capacity. > > Wolfgang: > Formally you are right. But de facto, WGIG "decided" to define IG, to create the IGF and - as a result of a lack of consensus within WGIG - to launch a process for further discussion on oversight (which ended in EC). A new WGIG would not just repeat what the old was. It has to take the next formal step: From an body which prepares decision to a body which is able to produce rough consensus. The innovation with WGIG was that all stakeholders participated equally in the discussion and drafting of the report. Membership was not "layered". What you propose is a "layered" system. This is the hierarchical thinking of the 20th century. What we need is a network thinking for the 21st century. > > Parminder: > CIRP proposes three separate advisory bodies which can of course draft clear, written recs like WGIG did. I dont even see any special barrier for them to do it together if they so wish, but then like WGIG report went to WSIS, and it took and left out things that it wanted to to draft the authoritative Tunis documents, the same may happen with CIRP/ GA. > > Wolfgang: > That is the problem with CIRP. CIRP does no follow the "WGIG model" it follows the "WSIS Bureau model" where the non-governmental stakeholders were put into isolated baskets (CS& PS bureaus) on a lower layer with the option to give "advise" to the "master layer", the intergovernmental bureau. In the reality of the WSIS case, the advise from the CS bureau was sidelined. We made 86 recommendations during PrepCom3 (September 2003) and when we analyzed the draft produced by the intergovernmental bureau after they got our recommendations we discovered, that 82 recommendations were totally ignored and that 4 recommendations went into very vague paragraphs of the intergovernmental document. We called this "ignorance" and "arrogance" and this produced a deep crisis for the whole summit with the option of a walkout of Civil Society. It needed a lot of diplomatic efforts of the Swiss president Pierre Couchepin to keep the CS inside the WSIS process (a lot of CS wanted to got to Plan B and to protest and march through the streets of Geneva). I remember two night sessions in the Swiss embassy in Geneva, a special invitation by the Lord Mayor of the City of Geneva and a press conference with Minister Marc Furrer, Pierre Couchepin, Utsumi, Karen Banks and me in the conference center. They argued that they can not include CS proposals directly into their documents which are negotiated among governments. We argued we can not give (the wanted) legitimicy to a declaration which is negotiated only by governments. CS was invited to WSIS, now we are here and we want to participate in Realpolitik. To give us a seat on the table in exchange for being silent if it comes to decision making is no option. The compromise was to have two final documents in the end: A governmental declaration and the civil society declaration. It makes sense (and I recommend this not only to you but to everybody) to read again - in the light of the experiences of the last ten years - the civil society WSIS declaration. (http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/civil-society-declaration.pdf). > > The Geneva compromise was good for the moment. But it was a bad experience. It was 2003. At this time the multistakeholder model was still a baby. It grew with WGIG. Now it is a child. Not yet an adult. And you want to repeat this experience now in 2012? Look forward, not backwards and be more innovative. There is no need to continue with the mistakes of the past. > > BTW, you always critisize OECD. Did you notice the problems CISAC has? The step forward is that it can make its voice heard. But there is long way to participate in decision making. CISAC is on the road, but still in the rain. The OECD model - and CIRP is obviously partly inspired by it - is good for an existing organisation, but not for a new one. If the 2nd Committee of the UNGA (or the ITU) establishes advisory bodies for non-govenrmental stakeholders, including civil society, this would be an interesting proposal to enhance the mechanisms of yesterday. But if you want to create something new, you have to meet the challenges of tomorrow. > > 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 Sun May 13 06:24:15 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 12:24:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] CIRP+ In-Reply-To: <4FAF84A8.2010003@itforchange.net> References: <6D6899A1E5984901A2C7561B7A4649BD@UserVAIO> <4FAA73E0.1050404@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCCD2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FAF5549.9080202@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCCF7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FAF84A8.2010003@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <692cedad-801f-4625-93c0-762a3b0e3201@email.android.com> Not that you asked anyone other than Wolfgang, but I propose we fix the existing multistakeholder Internet governance organizations and leave the UN out of it. As for those the regional inter-governmental organizations and the national governments, I propose people from those countries and regions work with them to prevent them from doing anything further that harms civil society. I, for one, do not endorse your CIRP+ proposal and hope that the IGC does not presume to endorse it as an 'organzation' avri avri parminder wrote: >Wolfgang, > >I have many things to say about your arguments, but about that perhaps >we can go on endlessly. But let me be pragmatic and precise. > >Do you agree that > >(1) there are many pressing global public policy issues, the kind of >which OECD and CoE is so actively dealing with at present > >(2) it is not globally democratic that OECD and CoE as clubs of a few >rich countries do all this (default) global policy making. > >If you do not agree to the above, lets just first discuss this. If you >do, lets move to the next step > >Vide (2) above, developing countries, their governments as well as >people, are obviously not happy with the situation. The May 18th >meeting >is about this specific problem. And you will also recognise the >dangerous directions that our joint statement argues the Internet may >be >moving towards, and the need to address this problem. > >Since you seem to have some model in mind, inspired by WGIG or >whatever, >why dont you present a clear proposal of what global institutional >mechanism should address the global public policy issues that are today > >addressed by OECD/CoE. Please tell us clearly what would be the >structure of this new mechanism, what functions will it perform, and >how, what would be its outcomes and how will they be implemented. How >would it address the public policy imperatives in all IG areas that >need >global attention.... What would be its relationship with the current >technical/ CIR governance system. People are looking for real solutions > >to real issues, and the May18 meeting is about that. I would request >you >to be as clear and precise about your model as possible... > >Otherwise, just criticising every model for change that is proposed is >simply voting for the status quo. > >parminder > > > > > > >On Sunday 13 May 2012 02:29 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> Parminder: >> WGIG was an advisory body to the intergovernmental WSIS. It had no >independent standing or decision making capacity. >> >> Wolfgang: >> Formally you are right. But de facto, WGIG "decided" to define IG, to >create the IGF and - as a result of a lack of consensus within WGIG - >to launch a process for further discussion on oversight (which ended in >EC). A new WGIG would not just repeat what the old was. It has to take >the next formal step: From an body which prepares decision to a body >which is able to produce rough consensus. The innovation with WGIG was >that all stakeholders participated equally in the discussion and >drafting of the report. Membership was not "layered". What you propose >is a "layered" system. This is the hierarchical thinking of the 20th >century. What we need is a network thinking for the 21st century. >> >> Parminder: >> CIRP proposes three separate advisory bodies which can of course >draft clear, written recs like WGIG did. I dont even see any special >barrier for them to do it together if they so wish, but then like WGIG >report went to WSIS, and it took and left out things that it wanted to >to draft the authoritative Tunis documents, the same may happen with >CIRP/ GA. >> >> Wolfgang: >> That is the problem with CIRP. CIRP does no follow the "WGIG model" >it follows the "WSIS Bureau model" where the non-governmental >stakeholders were put into isolated baskets (CS& PS bureaus) on a >lower layer with the option to give "advise" to the "master layer", the >intergovernmental bureau. In the reality of the WSIS case, the advise >from the CS bureau was sidelined. We made 86 recommendations during >PrepCom3 (September 2003) and when we analyzed the draft produced by >the intergovernmental bureau after they got our recommendations we >discovered, that 82 recommendations were totally ignored and that 4 >recommendations went into very vague paragraphs of the >intergovernmental document. We called this "ignorance" and "arrogance" >and this produced a deep crisis for the whole summit with the option of >a walkout of Civil Society. It needed a lot of diplomatic efforts of >the Swiss president Pierre Couchepin to keep the CS inside the WSIS >process (a lot of CS wanted to got to Plan B and to protest and march >through the streets of Geneva). I remember two night sessions in the >Swiss embassy in Geneva, a special invitation by the Lord Mayor of the >City of Geneva and a press conference with Minister Marc Furrer, Pierre >Couchepin, Utsumi, Karen Banks and me in the conference center. They >argued that they can not include CS proposals directly into their >documents which are negotiated among governments. We argued we can not >give (the wanted) legitimicy to a declaration which is negotiated only >by governments. CS was invited to WSIS, now we are here and we want to >participate in Realpolitik. To give us a seat on the table in exchange >for being silent if it comes to decision making is no option. The >compromise was to have two final documents in the end: A governmental >declaration and the civil society declaration. It makes sense (and I >recommend this not only to you but to everybody) to read again - in the >light of the experiences of the last ten years - the civil society WSIS >declaration. >(http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/civil-society-declaration.pdf). >> >> The Geneva compromise was good for the moment. But it was a bad >experience. It was 2003. At this time the multistakeholder model was >still a baby. It grew with WGIG. Now it is a child. Not yet an adult. >And you want to repeat this experience now in 2012? Look forward, not >backwards and be more innovative. There is no need to continue with the >mistakes of the past. >> >> BTW, you always critisize OECD. Did you notice the problems CISAC >has? The step forward is that it can make its voice heard. But there is >long way to participate in decision making. CISAC is on the road, but >still in the rain. The OECD model - and CIRP is obviously partly >inspired by it - is good for an existing organisation, but not for a >new one. If the 2nd Committee of the UNGA (or the ITU) establishes >advisory bodies for non-govenrmental stakeholders, including civil >society, this would be an interesting proposal to enhance the >mechanisms of yesterday. But if you want to create something new, you >have to meet the challenges of tomorrow. >> >> 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sun May 13 06:32:55 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 06:32:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: CIRP+ In-Reply-To: <651021c7-f938-41cb-87c6-4c421fe52c74@email.android.com> References: <6D6899A1E5984901A2C7561B7A4649BD@UserVAIO> <4FAA73E0.1050404@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCCD2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FAF4F44.6040400@itforchange.net> <651021c7-f938-41cb-87c6-4c421fe52c74@email.android.com> Message-ID: On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 2:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > parminder wrote: > > > >May I humbly suggest that the real problem, which perhaps out of > >political correctness some people are hesitant to spell out here, is > >that you and many others here who are making these protestations trust > >the governments of the North and simply do not trust the governments of > >the South. > > excuse me? > > Putting aside your 'humility', i find this persistent accusation to be > disturbing. I for one have never found a government I trust. Maybe some > people in some governments who I have met and worked with, but a government > per se? Not likely. > > hear hear, I am in the Gambia this week, and we are making Internet policy for the African region with governments as just another "stakeholder" amongst many (including lots of CS). The model works BTW, I have seen no one from Google/Cisco/FB/USG here this week. > But beyond that, this diremption you constantly insist upon in the fabric > of civil society does help at all. For myself it make disucssion of any > points impossible, knowing they will just be discounted becasue I am a > government lover. > > I, not at all humbly, suggest you leave the accusantions out of any > discussion you wish people to take seriously. > +1. Besides, it dilutes your arguments when you argue from a 'conspiracy theorist' 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 13 06:38:30 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 16:08:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] CIRP+ In-Reply-To: <692cedad-801f-4625-93c0-762a3b0e3201@email.android.com> References: <6D6899A1E5984901A2C7561B7A4649BD@UserVAIO> <4FAA73E0.1050404@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCCD2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FAF5549.9080202@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCCF7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FAF84A8.2010003@itforchange.net> <692cedad-801f-4625-93c0-762a3b0e3201@email.android.com> Message-ID: <4FAF8F26.4030305@itforchange.net> On Sunday 13 May 2012 03:54 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Not that you asked anyone other than Wolfgang, but > I propose we fix the existing multistakeholder Internet governance organizations and leave the UN out of it. > I am not sure you mean only technical/ CIR governance part of IG or also the larger public policies side, the kind of work that OECD's CICCP and CoE does. As for the technical/ CIR gov part of IG the joint CS statement that we circulated proposes not disturbing the distributed governance system, though improvements are needed which you seem to agree with. Only the US gov role in that system is not acceptable and that should be moved from there. I dont think it would do to ignore the other side of IG, that I dont see you address. CoE writes cyber security policies and export it to other countries, OECD writes principles for Internet-policy making and now seeks other countries to accept it, same with ACTA, CoE writes search engine guidelines, social networking guidelines, and by default they will inflate to become global guidlelines or rules. I find this side of IG even more important that the tech/CIR side. It is this other side of global Internet policy making that is significantly shaping the Internet as people of the world experience it, and people want to be able to participate equally in the policy making process. parminder > As for those the regional inter-governmental organizations and the national governments, I propose people from those countries and regions work with them to prevent them from doing anything further that harms civil society. > > I, for one, do not endorse your CIRP+ proposal and hope that the IGC does not presume to endorse it as an 'organzation' > > avri > > avri > > > parminder wrote: > > >> Wolfgang, >> >> I have many things to say about your arguments, but about that perhaps >> we can go on endlessly. But let me be pragmatic and precise. >> >> Do you agree that >> >> (1) there are many pressing global public policy issues, the kind of >> which OECD and CoE is so actively dealing with at present >> >> (2) it is not globally democratic that OECD and CoE as clubs of a few >> rich countries do all this (default) global policy making. >> >> If you do not agree to the above, lets just first discuss this. If you >> do, lets move to the next step >> >> Vide (2) above, developing countries, their governments as well as >> people, are obviously not happy with the situation. The May 18th >> meeting >> is about this specific problem. And you will also recognise the >> dangerous directions that our joint statement argues the Internet may >> be >> moving towards, and the need to address this problem. >> >> Since you seem to have some model in mind, inspired by WGIG or >> whatever, >> why dont you present a clear proposal of what global institutional >> mechanism should address the global public policy issues that are today >> >> addressed by OECD/CoE. Please tell us clearly what would be the >> structure of this new mechanism, what functions will it perform, and >> how, what would be its outcomes and how will they be implemented. How >> would it address the public policy imperatives in all IG areas that >> need >> global attention.... What would be its relationship with the current >> technical/ CIR governance system. People are looking for real solutions >> >> to real issues, and the May18 meeting is about that. I would request >> you >> to be as clear and precise about your model as possible... >> >> Otherwise, just criticising every model for change that is proposed is >> simply voting for the status quo. >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sunday 13 May 2012 02:29 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> >>> Parminder: >>> WGIG was an advisory body to the intergovernmental WSIS. It had no >>> >> independent standing or decision making capacity. >> >>> Wolfgang: >>> Formally you are right. But de facto, WGIG "decided" to define IG, to >>> >> create the IGF and - as a result of a lack of consensus within WGIG - >> to launch a process for further discussion on oversight (which ended in >> EC). A new WGIG would not just repeat what the old was. It has to take >> the next formal step: From an body which prepares decision to a body >> which is able to produce rough consensus. The innovation with WGIG was >> that all stakeholders participated equally in the discussion and >> drafting of the report. Membership was not "layered". What you propose >> is a "layered" system. This is the hierarchical thinking of the 20th >> century. What we need is a network thinking for the 21st century. >> >>> Parminder: >>> CIRP proposes three separate advisory bodies which can of course >>> >> draft clear, written recs like WGIG did. I dont even see any special >> barrier for them to do it together if they so wish, but then like WGIG >> report went to WSIS, and it took and left out things that it wanted to >> to draft the authoritative Tunis documents, the same may happen with >> CIRP/ GA. >> >>> Wolfgang: >>> That is the problem with CIRP. CIRP does no follow the "WGIG model" >>> >> it follows the "WSIS Bureau model" where the non-governmental >> stakeholders were put into isolated baskets (CS& PS bureaus) on a >> lower layer with the option to give "advise" to the "master layer", the >> intergovernmental bureau. In the reality of the WSIS case, the advise >> > >from the CS bureau was sidelined. We made 86 recommendations during > >> PrepCom3 (September 2003) and when we analyzed the draft produced by >> the intergovernmental bureau after they got our recommendations we >> discovered, that 82 recommendations were totally ignored and that 4 >> recommendations went into very vague paragraphs of the >> intergovernmental document. We called this "ignorance" and "arrogance" >> and this produced a deep crisis for the whole summit with the option of >> a walkout of Civil Society. It needed a lot of diplomatic efforts of >> the Swiss president Pierre Couchepin to keep the CS inside the WSIS >> process (a lot of CS wanted to got to Plan B and to protest and march >> through the streets of Geneva). I remember two night sessions in the >> Swiss embassy in Geneva, a special invitation by the Lord Mayor of the >> City of Geneva and a press conference with Minister Marc Furrer, Pierre >> Couchepin, Utsumi, Karen Banks and me in the conference center. They >> argued that they can not include CS proposals directly into their >> documents which are negotiated among governments. We argued we can not >> give (the wanted) legitimicy to a declaration which is negotiated only >> by governments. CS was invited to WSIS, now we are here and we want to >> participate in Realpolitik. To give us a seat on the table in exchange >> for being silent if it comes to decision making is no option. The >> compromise was to have two final documents in the end: A governmental >> declaration and the civil society declaration. It makes sense (and I >> recommend this not only to you but to everybody) to read again - in the >> light of the experiences of the last ten years - the civil society WSIS >> declaration. >> (http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/civil-society-declaration.pdf). >> >>> The Geneva compromise was good for the moment. But it was a bad >>> >> experience. It was 2003. At this time the multistakeholder model was >> still a baby. It grew with WGIG. Now it is a child. Not yet an adult. >> And you want to repeat this experience now in 2012? Look forward, not >> backwards and be more innovative. There is no need to continue with the >> mistakes of the past. >> >>> BTW, you always critisize OECD. Did you notice the problems CISAC >>> >> has? The step forward is that it can make its voice heard. But there is >> long way to participate in decision making. CISAC is on the road, but >> still in the rain. The OECD model - and CIRP is obviously partly >> inspired by it - is good for an existing organisation, but not for a >> new one. If the 2nd Committee of the UNGA (or the ITU) establishes >> advisory bodies for non-govenrmental stakeholders, including civil >> society, this would be an interesting proposal to enhance the >> mechanisms of yesterday. But if you want to create something new, you >> have to meet the challenges of tomorrow. >> >>> 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 Sun May 13 06:56:12 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 12:56:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] CIRP+ In-Reply-To: <4FAF8F26.4030305@itforchange.net> References: <6D6899A1E5984901A2C7561B7A4649BD@UserVAIO> <4FAA73E0.1050404@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCCD2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FAF5549.9080202@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCCF7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FAF84A8.2010003@itforchange.net> <692cedad-801f-4625-93c0-762a3b0e3201@email.android.com> <4FAF8F26.4030305@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <3dc4aaa1-991f-43f8-9bdf-3d4a4262fa07@email.android.com> I don't ignore the policy issues. That is largely what I meant by CS working to stop the intergovernmental organizations from creating more harm. For the most part I see most of the work done on cyber-crime etc as causing more harm than good, and something that needs to be fought by the CS groups who are local to those countries and regions. I include the IGF among the existing multistakeholder groups that I beleive needs fixing and think that it is the place for covering those global policy issues that do not fall into the technical or techno-policy areas already being covered. But I think there are very few issues that need to be governed at the purely policy level, becasue most of the purely policy governance i see, i beleive, causes more harm than good. And so while I would like to see more IGF work toward making substantive recommendations, I am happy that no organization, especially not the UN or any organization in its system or that is controled/initiated by the UN or any other inter-governmental treaty, have binding oversight over Interent policy governance. avri parminder wrote: > > >On Sunday 13 May 2012 03:54 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Not that you asked anyone other than Wolfgang, but >> I propose we fix the existing multistakeholder Internet governance >organizations and leave the UN out of it. >> >I am not sure you mean only technical/ CIR governance part of IG or >also >the larger public policies side, the kind of work that OECD's CICCP and > >CoE does. As for the technical/ CIR gov part of IG the joint CS >statement that we circulated proposes not disturbing the distributed >governance system, though improvements are needed which you seem to >agree with. Only the US gov role in that system is not acceptable and >that should be moved from there. > >I dont think it would do to ignore the other side of IG, that I dont >see >you address. CoE writes cyber security policies and export it to other >countries, OECD writes principles for Internet-policy making and now >seeks other countries to accept it, same with ACTA, CoE writes search >engine guidelines, social networking guidelines, and by default they >will inflate to become global guidlelines or rules. I find this side of > >IG even more important that the tech/CIR side. It is this other side of > >global Internet policy making that is significantly shaping the >Internet >as people of the world experience it, and people want to be able to >participate equally in the policy making process. > >parminder > >> As for those the regional inter-governmental organizations and the >national governments, I propose people from those countries and regions >work with them to prevent them from doing anything further that harms >civil society. >> >> I, for one, do not endorse your CIRP+ proposal and hope that the IGC >does not presume to endorse it as an 'organzation' >> >> avri >> >> avri >> >> >> parminder wrote: >> >> >>> Wolfgang, >>> >>> I have many things to say about your arguments, but about that >perhaps >>> we can go on endlessly. But let me be pragmatic and precise. >>> >>> Do you agree that >>> >>> (1) there are many pressing global public policy issues, the kind of >>> which OECD and CoE is so actively dealing with at present >>> >>> (2) it is not globally democratic that OECD and CoE as clubs of a >few >>> rich countries do all this (default) global policy making. >>> >>> If you do not agree to the above, lets just first discuss this. If >you >>> do, lets move to the next step >>> >>> Vide (2) above, developing countries, their governments as well as >>> people, are obviously not happy with the situation. The May 18th >>> meeting >>> is about this specific problem. And you will also recognise the >>> dangerous directions that our joint statement argues the Internet >may >>> be >>> moving towards, and the need to address this problem. >>> >>> Since you seem to have some model in mind, inspired by WGIG or >>> whatever, >>> why dont you present a clear proposal of what global institutional >>> mechanism should address the global public policy issues that are >today >>> >>> addressed by OECD/CoE. Please tell us clearly what would be the >>> structure of this new mechanism, what functions will it perform, and >>> how, what would be its outcomes and how will they be implemented. >How >>> would it address the public policy imperatives in all IG areas that >>> need >>> global attention.... What would be its relationship with the current >>> technical/ CIR governance system. People are looking for real >solutions >>> >>> to real issues, and the May18 meeting is about that. I would request >>> you >>> to be as clear and precise about your model as possible... >>> >>> Otherwise, just criticising every model for change that is proposed >is >>> simply voting for the status quo. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday 13 May 2012 02:29 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >>> >>>> Parminder: >>>> WGIG was an advisory body to the intergovernmental WSIS. It had no >>>> >>> independent standing or decision making capacity. >>> >>>> Wolfgang: >>>> Formally you are right. But de facto, WGIG "decided" to define IG, >to >>>> >>> create the IGF and - as a result of a lack of consensus within WGIG >- >>> to launch a process for further discussion on oversight (which ended >in >>> EC). A new WGIG would not just repeat what the old was. It has to >take >>> the next formal step: From an body which prepares decision to a body >>> which is able to produce rough consensus. The innovation with WGIG >was >>> that all stakeholders participated equally in the discussion and >>> drafting of the report. Membership was not "layered". What you >propose >>> is a "layered" system. This is the hierarchical thinking of the 20th >>> century. What we need is a network thinking for the 21st century. >>> >>>> Parminder: >>>> CIRP proposes three separate advisory bodies which can of course >>>> >>> draft clear, written recs like WGIG did. I dont even see any special >>> barrier for them to do it together if they so wish, but then like >WGIG >>> report went to WSIS, and it took and left out things that it wanted >to >>> to draft the authoritative Tunis documents, the same may happen with >>> CIRP/ GA. >>> >>>> Wolfgang: >>>> That is the problem with CIRP. CIRP does no follow the "WGIG model" >>>> >>> it follows the "WSIS Bureau model" where the non-governmental >>> stakeholders were put into isolated baskets (CS& PS bureaus) on a >>> lower layer with the option to give "advise" to the "master layer", >the >>> intergovernmental bureau. In the reality of the WSIS case, the >advise >>> >> >from the CS bureau was sidelined. We made 86 recommendations during >> >>> PrepCom3 (September 2003) and when we analyzed the draft produced by >>> the intergovernmental bureau after they got our recommendations we >>> discovered, that 82 recommendations were totally ignored and that 4 >>> recommendations went into very vague paragraphs of the >>> intergovernmental document. We called this "ignorance" and >"arrogance" >>> and this produced a deep crisis for the whole summit with the option >of >>> a walkout of Civil Society. It needed a lot of diplomatic efforts of >>> the Swiss president Pierre Couchepin to keep the CS inside the WSIS >>> process (a lot of CS wanted to got to Plan B and to protest and >march >>> through the streets of Geneva). I remember two night sessions in the >>> Swiss embassy in Geneva, a special invitation by the Lord Mayor of >the >>> City of Geneva and a press conference with Minister Marc Furrer, >Pierre >>> Couchepin, Utsumi, Karen Banks and me in the conference center. They >>> argued that they can not include CS proposals directly into their >>> documents which are negotiated among governments. We argued we can >not >>> give (the wanted) legitimicy to a declaration which is negotiated >only >>> by governments. CS was invited to WSIS, now we are here and we want >to >>> participate in Realpolitik. To give us a seat on the table in >exchange >>> for being silent if it comes to decision making is no option. The >>> compromise was to have two final documents in the end: A >governmental >>> declaration and the civil society declaration. It makes sense (and I >>> recommend this not only to you but to everybody) to read again - in >the >>> light of the experiences of the last ten years - the civil society >WSIS >>> declaration. >>> (http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/civil-society-declaration.pdf). >>> >>>> The Geneva compromise was good for the moment. But it was a bad >>>> >>> experience. It was 2003. At this time the multistakeholder model was >>> still a baby. It grew with WGIG. Now it is a child. Not yet an >adult. >>> And you want to repeat this experience now in 2012? Look forward, >not >>> backwards and be more innovative. There is no need to continue with >the >>> mistakes of the past. >>> >>>> BTW, you always critisize OECD. Did you notice the problems CISAC >>>> >>> has? The step forward is that it can make its voice heard. But there >is >>> long way to participate in decision making. CISAC is on the road, >but >>> still in the rain. The OECD model - and CIRP is obviously partly >>> inspired by it - is good for an existing organisation, but not for a >>> new one. If the 2nd Committee of the UNGA (or the ITU) establishes >>> advisory bodies for non-govenrmental stakeholders, including civil >>> society, this would be an interesting proposal to enhance the >>> mechanisms of yesterday. But if you want to create something new, >you >>> have to meet the challenges of tomorrow. >>> >>>> 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Sun May 13 08:57:31 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 20:57:31 +0800 Subject: [governance] CIRP+ In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCCF7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <6D6899A1E5984901A2C7561B7A4649BD@UserVAIO> <4FAA73E0.1050404@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCCD2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FAF5549.9080202@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCCF7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <8E8EA838-99E2-40A4-870D-559063C14524@ciroap.org> On 13/05/2012, at 4:59 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > That is the problem with CIRP. CIRP does no follow the "WGIG model" it follows the "WSIS Bureau model" where the non-governmental stakeholders were put into isolated baskets (CS & PS bureaus) on a lower layer with the option to give "advise" to the "master layer", the intergovernmental bureau. In the reality of the WSIS case, the advise from the CS bureau was sidelined. I was glad to see the CIRP proposal put forward because it was the first (and still the only) concrete proposal for an enhanced cooperation model from any government, and it was neither surprising nor particularly alarming that it maintained a silo approach. This is a tried and tested model, and there is merit in beginning that way. Even within purely intergovernmental fora, the diplomats make all their decisions within their country blocs. Only in the formal stages of decision making do they come back together, and that stage is basically just theatre. So in my own proposal for a consociational bureau for the IGF, I had designed something similar. The stakeholder groups would come together at the beginning and end, and they would deliberate together to a point, but ultimately they would have to agree on any proposal by negotiating separately in private, by whatever means they are accustomed to and comfortable with. This would deliver the best of both worlds: the groups would come together on an equal footing during the opinion formation stage, but the formal decision-taking phase would be in the silos. At that level, oil and water do not mix. > The compromise was to have two final documents in the end: A governmental declaration and the civil society declaration. It makes sense (and I recommend this not only to you but to everybody) to read again - in the light of the experiences of the last ten years - the civil society WSIS declaration. (http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/civil-society-declaration.pdf). This happens elsewhere too. I was at UNCTAD XIII last month, and the civil society declaration was the only place where we could be sure our concerns would be reflected, but at least it is a formal output of the conference, on the public record and translated into all the UN languages. I agree it is far from ideal, but again, one had to start somewhere. One would hope we could innovate further in 2012. The CIRP model is, at least, a progression from that. -- 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 Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org Mon May 14 04:05:20 2012 From: Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org (Stuart Hamilton) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 10:05:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] IFLA/EIFL/COAR Open Access Workshop at the WSIS Forum 2012, May 17th, 16.15-18.00 Message-ID: <54A34818249DE34CB1697E94F0553F3701B82257@mfp01.IFLA.lan> Dear Colleagues I'm pleased to draw your attention to a workshop organised by IFLA (The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions), EIFL (Electronic Information for Libraries, SPARC (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) and COAR (Confederation of Open Access Repositories) at this week's World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Forum in Geneva (http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2012/Home.aspx). The workshop takes place on Thursday 17th May, 16.15-18.00. Rethinking the Agenda for Development: Open Access Policies and Practice Open access seeks to remove price and permission barriers that prevent knowledge from being shared. It creates an unprecedented opportunity to provide equality of access to essential research information and to raise awareness of national research. The WSIS Forum 2012 offers a timely opportunity to look at current achievements in the field of open access - policies and practices - and hold a detailed discussion about their implications for development and how open access can help to rethink the development agenda. The workshop's starting point will be a presentation of best practice regarding the implementation of open access policies - how they were drawn up and implemented, and whether their results not only increased content but also allayed concerned on the part of researchers. Following an introduction of policies the workshop will call on presenters who are currently in the middle of similar processes, and they will describe the challenges they are facing to implement their programmes. The second part of the workshop will focus more on advice and tools to implement open access policies in support of development. Participants will be encouraged to bring their problems, hypothetical or real, to the panel for advice and discussion. This interactive session will be able to harness contributions from in the room and also from remote participants. Presenters will be joined on a panel by an expert on the development agenda. Panellists in Geneva: * Lars Bjornshauge, Director of Library Relations, SPARC Europe and Chair of International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) Open Access Taskforce (Denmark) * Eve Gray, Honorary Research Associate, Centre for Educational Technology, University of Cape Town (South Africa) * Silvia Nakano, Director of the Science & Technology National Directorate of Physical Resources, Ministry of Science Technology and Productive Innovation (Argentina) * Stuart Hamilton, Director of Policy and Advocacy, International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (United Kingdom) Further information on the session can be found here: http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2012/Agenda/DraftAgenda.aspx?se=42173 Remote Participation For those of you who cannot make it to Geneva, you can follow in the workshop online, and even use the remote participation facilities to ask questions to the panellists or make observation. Further information can be found here: http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2012/Agenda/RemoteParticipationRooms.asp x Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions, and do feel free to forward this message further to your networks. For anyone with an interest in open access who will not be in Geneva, I strongly encourage you to consider remote participation so that we can have a good discussion and make sure that all viewpoints are covered. Kind regards, Stuart Stuart Hamilton Director of Policy and Advocacy International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) P.O. Box 95312 2509 CH The Hague Netherlands 00 31 70 314 0884 Twitter: @iflaspa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Mon May 14 14:49:38 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 03:49:38 +0900 Subject: [governance] Aggregated Proposal for the Workshop Message-ID: Hi, I like to share this PDF file including all workshop proposals, sent to MAG for your convenience. Same proposals appear several times in different thematic sections. Secretariat also sent us the result of Average scores per all workshops. (not sure if I can share them yet) izumi -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WorkshopProp.25.4.2012.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1550804 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Mon May 14 14:55:30 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 03:55:30 +0900 Subject: [governance] Draft "talking points" for MAG Consultation tomorrow Message-ID: Dear list, We have been discussing about the preparation for the MAG, here are the talking points. We may not do "formal statement" all the way, but plan to make effective interventions based on these points. Please give your responses we will try to accommodate as much as possible. izumi Draft Talking points from IGC to the MAG Open Consultation May 15 2012 MAG renewal Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is pleased to see some new faces and bloods in the renewed MAG, as well as some old faces, and appreciate the effort of the UN Secretariat for the selection of some of our nominees. We also like to point out some concerns, however: On MAG selection We still feel that there is a room to improve the openness and transparency of the selection process. We also note that timing of the selection was too close to the May meeting so that some of our colleagues have difficulty in getting the discount rate of air ticket and hotel accommodations. Financial Support We also like to point out that the though there has been some financial assistance to the travel for MAG members from the developing countries, civil society members in the non-developing countries, people like myself, also do not have such financially allowance, and need to make hard effort to support own cost of travels. Remote Participation We are grateful to the past hosts of the IGF, especially recent ones in Vilnius and Nairobi, for their attention to the Remote Participation. We also urge the need for better preparation, financing and implementation for the RP for Baku meeting and support the RP Working Group (host country, Secretary, volunteers, moderators) following our past best practices with more support and recognition. Organization of remote hubs has been huge challenges. More support for remote moderators. Aggregating the outcomes of whole workshops – on internet. Internetization of whole IGF. Include true free broadband in Host Country Agreement, to make sure the RP works, and also free Internet is guaranteed during IGF. We don’t want video surveillance, let people to be able to feel free. Guarantee Freedom of Association. There are technical dimensions and institutional/planning dimensions for Remote participation, both are mutually conducive, but should be treated separately. Workshop selection Ask organizers to fill the new template to qualify for final selection. Specify speakers, clear information on what the purposes. Modality. Five basic questions before we make final selection. Let MAG members give more advices to the substance and organization of the workshops, ie include more from South, gender balance, etc. Explore and encourage innovative ones. Many are repetitive. Ask people to tag proposals. CSTD WG Improvements Report We support the substance of this Report and urge us/MAG/IGF community to work hard to implement collectively. Need for MAG – being driving engine, as well as facilitator/catalyst, not self-decision making body per se. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Mon May 14 14:57:34 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 03:57:34 +0900 Subject: [governance] Tomorrow morning 10:30 at ILO Coffee shop Message-ID: For those CS members (IGC or not) who are in town in Geneva going to attend IGF MAG consultation, we will meet around 10:30 am, for brief sharing of views and info. See you there, izumi -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon May 14 15:22:23 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 20:22:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] Aggregated Proposal for the Workshop In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 03:49:38 on Tue, 15 May 2012, Izumi AIZU writes >Hi, I like to share this PDF file including all workshop proposals, sent to MAG >for your convenience. Thanks for sharing that. There's nothing that isn't available a bite at a time from the IGF website, but having it as a single searchable file is very useful. -- 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 y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu Mon May 14 16:20:59 2012 From: y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu (Yuliya Morenets) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 20:20:59 +0000 Subject: [governance] WSIS Briefing session_15.05.12_13:30-14:00_Online course presentation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear all, During WSIS forum, TaC will organize a briefing session that will take place tomorrow (15.05) from 13:30 to 14:00, Room XI to present its Basic online course for local authorities representatives on the use of ICTs by people with migrant background for better mutual understanding. I would like to invite everyone to attend. Hope to see you tomorrow, Best regards, Yuliya Morenets TaC-Together against Cybercrime -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon May 14 17:01:05 2012 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 22:01:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] WSIS Briefing session_15.05.12_13:30-14:00_Online course presentation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Yuliya Seeking clarity - what would be "people with a migrant background"? Best regards, Rui On 14 May 2012 21:20, Yuliya Morenets wrote: > Dear all, > > During WSIS forum, TaC will organize a briefing session that will take > place tomorrow (15.05) from 13:30 to 14:00, Room XI to present its Basic > online course for local authorities representatives on the use of ICTs > by people with migrant background for better mutual understanding. > > I would like to invite everyone to attend. > > Hope to see you tomorrow, > > Best regards, Yuliya Morenets > TaC-Together against Cybercrime > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- _________________________ Mobile Number in Namibia +264 81 445 1308 Número de Telemóvel na Namíbia +264 81 445 1308 I am away from Johannesburg - you cannot contact me on my South African numbers Estou fora de Joanesburgo - não poderá entrar em contacto comigo através dos meus números sul-africanos Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant _______________ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 14 17:39:00 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 14:39:00 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [liberationtech] Why does Azerbaijan hate the Internet? Message-ID: <632385475A0C4F8A96ED18AC8E869AB6@UserVAIO> -----Original Message----- From: liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu [mailto:liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Katy P Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 6:53 PM To: liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu Subject: [liberationtech] Why does Azerbaijan hate the Internet? In a bit of self-promotion, Sarah Kendzior and I had an article in Slate on Friday on Azerbaijan and the Internet http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/05/11/azerbaijan_eurovision_son g_contest_and_keeping_activists_and_citizens_off_the_internet_.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From judyokite at gmail.com Tue May 15 03:44:46 2012 From: judyokite at gmail.com (Judy Okite) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 10:44:46 +0300 Subject: [governance] Draft "talking points" for MAG Consultation tomorrow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Izumi, All just a few comments (inset) *“Don't undertake a project unless it is manifestly important and nearly impossible” Edwin Land* On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear list, > > We have been discussing about the preparation for the MAG, here are > the talking points. > We may not do "formal statement" all the way, but plan to make > effective interventions > based on these points. > > Please give your responses we will try to accommodate as much as possible. > > > izumi > > > > Draft Talking points from IGC to the MAG Open Consultation > May 15 2012 > > MAG renewal > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is pleased to see some new > faces and bloods in the renewed MAG, as well as some old faces, and > appreciate the effort of the UN Secretariat for the selection of some > of our nominees. > We also like to point out some concerns, however: > > On MAG selection > We still feel that there is a room to improve the openness and > transparency of the selection process. We also note that timing of the > selection was too close to the May meeting so that some of our > colleagues have difficulty in getting the discount rate of air ticket > and hotel accommodations. > > Financial Support > We also like to point out that the though there has been some > financial assistance to the travel for MAG members from the developing > countries, civil society members in the non-developing countries, > people like myself, also do not have such financially allowance, and > need to make hard effort to support own cost of travels. > I think it would only be fair to request, if the Secretariat would say, they would be able to support certain number of people: from developing countries (number?) from developed countries (number?) those in need of support, send your request and it will be based on first come basis, that way we may see a number of rotational groups meeting physically, but does not mean that if you made the request for an earlier meeting you cannot make it for another. > Remote Participation > We are grateful to the past hosts of the IGF, especially recent ones > in Vilnius and Nairobi, for their attention to the Remote > Participation. We also urge the need for better preparation, financing > and implementation for the RP for Baku meeting and support the RP > Working Group (host country, Secretary, volunteers, moderators) > following our past best practices with more support and recognition. > Organization of remote hubs has been huge challenges. > > More support for remote moderators. Aggregating the outcomes of whole > workshops – on internet. Internetization of whole IGF. > > Include true free broadband in Host Country Agreement, to make sure > the RP works, and also free Internet is guaranteed during IGF. > > We don’t want video surveillance, let people to be able to feel free. > Guarantee Freedom of Association. > > I think this will be taking us back to the ages, we all know video surveillance makes physical security easier , even for the security personnel. I support video surveillance . There are technical dimensions and institutional/planning dimensions > for Remote participation, both are mutually conducive, but should be > treated separately. > > Workshop selection > Ask organizers to fill the new template to qualify for final selection. > Specify speakers, clear information on what the purposes. Modality. > Five basic questions before we make final selection. > Let MAG members give more advices to the substance and organization of > the workshops, ie include more from South, gender balance, etc. > Explore and encourage innovative ones. Many are repetitive. > Ask people to tag proposals. > > CSTD WG Improvements Report > We support the substance of this Report and urge us/MAG/IGF community > to work hard to implement collectively. Need for MAG – being driving > engine, as well as facilitator/catalyst, not self-decision making body > per se. > > Physical Accessibility it is imperative that all locations/ venue , transport,etc is accessible and usable for PWD . The registration Form Must collect full details of the delegates , Disability? Special diet? to even make the work for the organizers easier. Kind 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue May 15 04:33:40 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 04:33:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] Draft "talking points" for MAG Consultation tomorrow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Izumi, Under Remote Participation - Include true free broadband in Host Country Agreement, to make sure the RP works, and also free Internet is guaranteed during IGF. We don’t want video surveillance, let people to be able to feel free. Guarantee Freedom of Association. please ensure that 'free' is clearly defined - free as in without cost and free as without constraint. We need both. on the second point - a comment - where do you draw the line between remote participation with video and video surveillance? and given RP with video anyone who speaks can be both seen and heard by anyone so while we can ask for/insist that Azeri freedom of expression be guaranteed there will need to be some other mechanism as well, and I can't think what that could be. In which case it might be preferable to say nothing. Just a - rather unclear - thought. Got up for 9am meeting forgetting that it's at 11 - 4am here :-( Deirdre On 14 May 2012 14:55, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear list, > > We have been discussing about the preparation for the MAG, here are > the talking points. > We may not do "formal statement" all the way, but plan to make > effective interventions > based on these points. > > Please give your responses we will try to accommodate as much as possible. > > > izumi > > > > Draft Talking points from IGC to the MAG Open Consultation > May 15 2012 > > MAG renewal > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is pleased to see some new > faces and bloods in the renewed MAG, as well as some old faces, and > appreciate the effort of the UN Secretariat for the selection of some > of our nominees. > We also like to point out some concerns, however: > > On MAG selection > We still feel that there is a room to improve the openness and > transparency of the selection process. We also note that timing of the > selection was too close to the May meeting so that some of our > colleagues have difficulty in getting the discount rate of air ticket > and hotel accommodations. > > Financial Support > We also like to point out that the though there has been some > financial assistance to the travel for MAG members from the developing > countries, civil society members in the non-developing countries, > people like myself, also do not have such financially allowance, and > need to make hard effort to support own cost of travels. > > Remote Participation > We are grateful to the past hosts of the IGF, especially recent ones > in Vilnius and Nairobi, for their attention to the Remote > Participation. We also urge the need for better preparation, financing > and implementation for the RP for Baku meeting and support the RP > Working Group (host country, Secretary, volunteers, moderators) > following our past best practices with more support and recognition. > Organization of remote hubs has been huge challenges. > > More support for remote moderators. Aggregating the outcomes of whole > workshops – on internet. Internetization of whole IGF. > > Include true free broadband in Host Country Agreement, to make sure > the RP works, and also free Internet is guaranteed during IGF. > > We don’t want video surveillance, let people to be able to feel free. > Guarantee Freedom of Association. > > There are technical dimensions and institutional/planning dimensions > for Remote participation, both are mutually conducive, but should be > treated separately. > > Workshop selection > Ask organizers to fill the new template to qualify for final selection. > Specify speakers, clear information on what the purposes. Modality. > Five basic questions before we make final selection. > Let MAG members give more advices to the substance and organization of > the workshops, ie include more from South, gender balance, etc. > Explore and encourage innovative ones. Many are repetitive. > Ask people to tag proposals. > > CSTD WG Improvements Report > We support the substance of this Report and urge us/MAG/IGF community > to work hard to implement collectively. Need for MAG – being driving > engine, as well as facilitator/catalyst, not self-decision making body > per se. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Tue May 15 05:35:50 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 18:35:50 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation just began Message-ID: Here is the link to the live webcast: WSIS Forum page: http://www.itu.int/ibs/WSIS/201205forum/ Actual link: rtsp://ituconf.ilo.org/broadcast/II-now-en.rm UNDESA and Chair, making opening remarks. will report more as we proceed, izumi -- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From keishactaylor at gmail.com Tue May 15 05:59:42 2012 From: keishactaylor at gmail.com (Keisha Taylor) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 10:59:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation just began In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks. Clicked on it, but it does not appear to be working. Is there anything I should do? On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Here is the link to the live webcast: > WSIS Forum page: > http://www.itu.int/ibs/WSIS/201205forum/ > > Actual link: > rtsp://ituconf.ilo.org/broadcast/II-now-en.rm > > UNDESA and Chair, making opening remarks. > > will report more as we proceed, > > izumi > > > -- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Tue May 15 06:04:11 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 19:04:11 +0900 Subject: [governance] Draft "talking points" for MAG Consultation tomorrow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Just made point on Judy's comment on the Physical Accessibility: it is imperative that all locations/ venue , transport,etc is accessible and usable for PWD . For those IGC members in the Consultation room, please do not hesitate to bring issues of your concern. Myself being the coordinator but also the MAG like to make minimal intervention and let my colleagues speak up. izumi 2012/5/15 Judy Okite : > Hello Izumi, All > > just a few comments (inset) > > > “Don't undertake a project unless it is manifestly important and nearly > impossible” Edwin Land > > > > > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >> Dear list, >> >> We have been discussing about the preparation for the MAG, here are >> the talking points. >> We may not do "formal statement" all the way, but plan to make >> effective interventions >> based on these points. >> >> Please give your responses we will try to accommodate as much as possible. >> >> >> izumi >> >> >> >> Draft Talking points from IGC to the MAG Open Consultation >> May 15 2012 >> >> MAG renewal >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is pleased to see some new >> faces and bloods in the renewed MAG, as well as some old faces, and >> appreciate the effort of the UN Secretariat for the selection of some >> of our nominees. >> We also like to point out some concerns, however: >> >> On MAG selection >> We still feel that there is a room to improve the openness and >> transparency of the selection process. We also note that timing of the >> selection was too close to the May meeting so that some of our >> colleagues have difficulty in getting the discount rate of air ticket >> and hotel accommodations. >> >> Financial Support >> We also like to point out that the though there has been some >> financial assistance to the travel for MAG members from the developing >> countries, civil society members in the non-developing countries, >> people like myself, also do not have such financially allowance, and >> need to make hard effort to support own cost of travels. > > > I think it would only be fair to request, if the Secretariat would say, they > would be able to support certain number of people: > from developing countries (number?) > from developed countries (number?) > > those in need of support, send your request and it will be based on first > come basis, that way we may see a number of  rotational groups meeting > physically, but does not mean that if you made the request for an earlier > meeting you cannot make it for another. > >> >> Remote Participation >> We are grateful to the past hosts of the IGF, especially recent ones >> in Vilnius and Nairobi, for their attention to the Remote >> Participation. We also urge the need for better preparation, financing >> and implementation for the RP for Baku meeting and support the RP >> Working Group (host country, Secretary, volunteers, moderators) >> following our past best practices with more support and recognition. >> Organization of remote hubs has been huge challenges. >> >> More support for remote moderators. Aggregating the outcomes of whole >> workshops – on internet.  Internetization of whole IGF. >> >> Include true free broadband in Host Country Agreement, to make sure >> the RP works, and also free Internet is guaranteed during IGF. >> >> We don’t want video surveillance, let people to be able to feel free. >> Guarantee Freedom of Association. >> > I think this will be taking us back to the ages,  we all know video > surveillance makes physical security easier , even for the security > personnel.  I support video surveillance . > >> There are technical dimensions and institutional/planning dimensions >> for Remote participation, both are mutually conducive, but should be >> treated separately. >> >> Workshop selection >>  Ask organizers to fill the new template to qualify for final selection. >>  Specify speakers, clear information on what the purposes. Modality. >>  Five basic questions before we make final selection. >> Let MAG members give more advices to the substance and organization of >> the workshops, ie include more from South, gender balance, etc. >> Explore and encourage innovative ones. Many are repetitive. >> Ask people to tag proposals. >> >> CSTD WG Improvements Report >> We support the substance of this Report and urge us/MAG/IGF community >> to work hard to implement collectively.  Need for MAG – being driving >> engine, as well as facilitator/catalyst, not self-decision making body >> per se. >> > > Physical Accessibility > > it is imperative that all locations/ venue , transport,etc is  accessible > and usable for PWD . > > The  registration Form > Must collect full details of the delegates , Disability? Special diet? to > even make the work for the organizers easier. > > Kind 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 >> > --                      >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katycarvt at gmail.com Tue May 15 06:16:31 2012 From: katycarvt at gmail.com (Katy P) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 06:16:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation just began In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mine didn't work either. On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Keisha Taylor wrote: > Thanks. Clicked on it, but it does not appear to be working. Is there > anything I should do? > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> Here is the link to the live webcast: >> WSIS Forum page: >> http://www.itu.int/ibs/WSIS/201205forum/ >> >> Actual link: >> rtsp://ituconf.ilo.org/broadcast/II-now-en.rm >> >> UNDESA and Chair, making opening remarks. >> >> will report more as we proceed, >> >> izumi >> >> >> -- >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kabani.asif at gmail.com Tue May 15 06:19:54 2012 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 15:19:54 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation just began In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Izumi, The links are not working, Regards On 15 May 2012 14:35, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Here is the link to the live webcast: > WSIS Forum page: > http://www.itu.int/ibs/WSIS/201205forum/ > > Actual link: > rtsp://ituconf.ilo.org/broadcast/II-now-en.rm > > UNDESA and Chair, making opening remarks. > > will report more as we proceed, > > izumi > > > -- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- * **Before you print think about the** **ENVIRONMENT* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Tue May 15 06:35:52 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 19:35:52 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation just began In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, I faced the same problem, sorry, can't do much from this room. izumi 2012/5/15 Kabani : > Izumi, >Y > The links are not working, > > Regards > > On 15 May 2012 14:35, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >> Here is the link to the live webcast: >> WSIS Forum page: >> http://www.itu.int/ibs/WSIS/201205forum/ >> >> Actual link: >> rtsp://ituconf.ilo.org/broadcast/II-now-en.rm >> >> UNDESA and Chair, making opening remarks. >> >> will report more as we proceed, >> >> izumi >> >> >> -- >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- >  Before you print think about the ENVIRONMENT > > --                      >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From keishactaylor at gmail.com Tue May 15 06:28:02 2012 From: keishactaylor at gmail.com (Keisha Taylor) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 11:28:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation just began In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4132FB92-B68C-47B6-B189-B88BADC6C5E5@gmail.com> Hi Katy, It is working now. Make sure you have real player Sent from my iPhone On 15 May 2012, at 11:16, Katy P wrote: > Mine didn't work either. > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Keisha Taylor wrote: > Thanks. Clicked on it, but it does not appear to be working. Is there anything I should do? > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Here is the link to the live webcast: > WSIS Forum page: > http://www.itu.int/ibs/WSIS/201205forum/ > > Actual link: > rtsp://ituconf.ilo.org/broadcast/II-now-en.rm > > UNDESA and Chair, making opening remarks. > > will report more as we proceed, > > izumi > > > -- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hananeb at diplomacy.edu Tue May 15 07:18:30 2012 From: hananeb at diplomacy.edu (Hanane Boujemi) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 13:18:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation just began In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Please try the text stream, not sure if it will change for the afternoon session. http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=15May12IGFmorning Hanane On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Yes, I faced the same problem, sorry, can't do much from this room. > > izumi > > > 2012/5/15 Kabani : > > Izumi, > >Y > > The links are not working, > > > > Regards > > > > On 15 May 2012 14:35, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> > >> Here is the link to the live webcast: > >> WSIS Forum page: > >> http://www.itu.int/ibs/WSIS/201205forum/ > >> > >> Actual link: > >> rtsp://ituconf.ilo.org/broadcast/II-now-en.rm > >> > >> UNDESA and Chair, making opening remarks. > >> > >> will report more as we proceed, > >> > >> izumi > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Before you print think about the ENVIRONMENT > > > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Jasper.Schellekens at comnet.org.mt Tue May 15 07:01:03 2012 From: Jasper.Schellekens at comnet.org.mt (Jasper Schellekens) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 13:01:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation just began In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Another alternative would be to use the Adobe Connects and choose the room in which you want to participate: http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2012/Agenda/RemoteParticipationRooms.asp x Room II – will host the informal meeting of the IGF initiatives from 13.30 to 14.30 Regards, Jasper cid:image001.jpg at 01CB8C85.2DCB5370 Jasper Schellekens Project Officer m: (356) 996 09 522 | e: jasper.schellekens at comnet.org.mt w: www.comnet.org.mt | t: (356) 21 323393 ALFIR, Reggie Miller Street, Gzira, GZR 1541, MALTA From: Katy P [mailto:katycarvt at gmail.com] Sent: 15 May 2012 12:17 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Keisha Taylor Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Open Consultation just began Mine didn't work either. On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Keisha Taylor wrote: Thanks. Clicked on it, but it does not appear to be working. Is there anything I should do? On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: Here is the link to the live webcast: WSIS Forum page: http://www.itu.int/ibs/WSIS/201205forum/ Actual link: rtsp://ituconf.ilo.org/broadcast/II-now-en.rm UNDESA and Chair, making opening remarks. will report more as we proceed, izumi -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3940 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue May 15 07:20:20 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 07:20:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation just began In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Izumi, Which room are you in please? I tried II but there's nothing there at the ,moment Thanks De On 15 May 2012 05:35, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Here is the link to the live webcast: > WSIS Forum page: > http://www.itu.int/ibs/WSIS/201205forum/ > > Actual link: > rtsp://ituconf.ilo.org/broadcast/II-now-en.rm > > UNDESA and Chair, making opening remarks. > > will report more as we proceed, > > izumi > > > -- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “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 Tue May 15 07:29:55 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 07:29:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation just began In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Jasper, Which room please? Programme says Room 2 and I'm 'there' on Adobe but the meeting isn't. HELP! Thanks Deirdre On 15 May 2012 07:01, Jasper Schellekens wrote: > Another alternative would be to use the Adobe Connects and choose the room > in which you want to participate:**** > > ** ** > > http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2012/Agenda/RemoteParticipationRooms.aspx* > *** > > ** ** > > Room II – will host the informal meeting of the IGF initiatives from*13.30 to 14.30 > ***** > > ** ** > > Regards,**** > > Jasper**** > > ** ** > > [image: cid:image001.jpg at 01CB8C85.2DCB5370]**** > > *Jasper Schellekens*** > > *Project Officer* > *m: *(356) 996 09 522 | *e:* jasper.schellekens at comnet.org.mt > *w: *www.comnet.org.mt | *t: *(356) 21 323393 > > ALFIR, Reggie Miller Street, Gzira, GZR 1541, MALTA** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Katy P [mailto:katycarvt at gmail.com] > *Sent:* 15 May 2012 12:17 > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Keisha Taylor > *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGF Open Consultation just began**** > > ** ** > > Mine didn't work either.**** > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Keisha Taylor > wrote:**** > > Thanks. Clicked on it, but it does not appear to be working. Is there > anything I should do?**** > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:**** > > Here is the link to the live webcast: > WSIS Forum page: > http://www.itu.int/ibs/WSIS/201205forum/ > > Actual link: > rtsp://ituconf.ilo.org/broadcast/II-now-en.rm > > UNDESA and Chair, making opening remarks. > > will report more as we proceed, > > izumi > > > -- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t**** > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t**** > > ** ** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3940 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue May 15 07:33:45 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 07:33:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Draft "talking points" for MAG Consultation tomorrow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2 more points - - the need to encourage hubs and other local engagement to be active year round - need for facilitation point for remote participants who get 'lost' as i am at the moment. I'm 'in' geneva, 'in' room 2 - no meeting ??? De On 15 May 2012 06:04, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Just made point on Judy's comment on the Physical Accessibility: > it is imperative that all locations/ venue , transport,etc is > accessible and usable for PWD . > > For those IGC members in the Consultation room, please do not hesitate to > bring issues of your concern. Myself being the coordinator but also the MAG > like to make minimal intervention and let my colleagues speak up. > > izumi > > > 2012/5/15 Judy Okite : > > Hello Izumi, All > > > > just a few comments (inset) > > > > > > “Don't undertake a project unless it is manifestly important and nearly > > impossible” Edwin Land > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> > >> Dear list, > >> > >> We have been discussing about the preparation for the MAG, here are > >> the talking points. > >> We may not do "formal statement" all the way, but plan to make > >> effective interventions > >> based on these points. > >> > >> Please give your responses we will try to accommodate as much as > possible. > >> > >> > >> izumi > >> > >> > >> > >> Draft Talking points from IGC to the MAG Open Consultation > >> May 15 2012 > >> > >> MAG renewal > >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is pleased to see some new > >> faces and bloods in the renewed MAG, as well as some old faces, and > >> appreciate the effort of the UN Secretariat for the selection of some > >> of our nominees. > >> We also like to point out some concerns, however: > >> > >> On MAG selection > >> We still feel that there is a room to improve the openness and > >> transparency of the selection process. We also note that timing of the > >> selection was too close to the May meeting so that some of our > >> colleagues have difficulty in getting the discount rate of air ticket > >> and hotel accommodations. > >> > >> Financial Support > >> We also like to point out that the though there has been some > >> financial assistance to the travel for MAG members from the developing > >> countries, civil society members in the non-developing countries, > >> people like myself, also do not have such financially allowance, and > >> need to make hard effort to support own cost of travels. > > > > > > I think it would only be fair to request, if the Secretariat would say, > they > > would be able to support certain number of people: > > from developing countries (number?) > > from developed countries (number?) > > > > those in need of support, send your request and it will be based on first > > come basis, that way we may see a number of rotational groups meeting > > physically, but does not mean that if you made the request for an earlier > > meeting you cannot make it for another. > > > >> > >> Remote Participation > >> We are grateful to the past hosts of the IGF, especially recent ones > >> in Vilnius and Nairobi, for their attention to the Remote > >> Participation. We also urge the need for better preparation, financing > >> and implementation for the RP for Baku meeting and support the RP > >> Working Group (host country, Secretary, volunteers, moderators) > >> following our past best practices with more support and recognition. > >> Organization of remote hubs has been huge challenges. > >> > >> More support for remote moderators. Aggregating the outcomes of whole > >> workshops – on internet. Internetization of whole IGF. > >> > >> Include true free broadband in Host Country Agreement, to make sure > >> the RP works, and also free Internet is guaranteed during IGF. > >> > >> We don’t want video surveillance, let people to be able to feel free. > >> Guarantee Freedom of Association. > >> > > I think this will be taking us back to the ages, we all know video > > surveillance makes physical security easier , even for the security > > personnel. I support video surveillance . > > > >> There are technical dimensions and institutional/planning dimensions > >> for Remote participation, both are mutually conducive, but should be > >> treated separately. > >> > >> Workshop selection > >> Ask organizers to fill the new template to qualify for final selection. > >> Specify speakers, clear information on what the purposes. Modality. > >> Five basic questions before we make final selection. > >> Let MAG members give more advices to the substance and organization of > >> the workshops, ie include more from South, gender balance, etc. > >> Explore and encourage innovative ones. Many are repetitive. > >> Ask people to tag proposals. > >> > >> CSTD WG Improvements Report > >> We support the substance of this Report and urge us/MAG/IGF community > >> to work hard to implement collectively. Need for MAG – being driving > >> engine, as well as facilitator/catalyst, not self-decision making body > >> per se. > >> > > > > Physical Accessibility > > > > it is imperative that all locations/ venue , transport,etc is accessible > > and usable for PWD . > > > > The registration Form > > Must collect full details of the delegates , Disability? Special diet? to > > even make the work for the organizers easier. > > > > Kind 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 > >> > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue May 15 08:01:24 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 09:01:24 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation just began In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Izumi and others in Geneva, is there any news about the position of the Executive Coordinator? Was anything said about the implementation of the CSTD WG report? I mean, implementation on formal grounds, with time schedule, sharing of tasks, etc? I think this is something that the MAG could discuss tomorrow: the need for a plan for the implementation of the report that would take each suggestion for improvement, divide it into sub-actions, estimate costs, share tasks, estimate time. Marília Ps: De, maybe they are on lunch brake? Let's try again a little later. On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Jasper, > Which room please? > Programme says Room 2 and I'm 'there' on Adobe but the meeting isn't. > HELP! > Thanks Deirdre > > > On 15 May 2012 07:01, Jasper Schellekens > wrote: > >> Another alternative would be to use the Adobe Connects and choose the >> room in which you want to participate:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2012/Agenda/RemoteParticipationRooms.aspx >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Room II – will host the informal meeting of the IGF initiatives from*13.30 to 14.30 >> ***** >> >> ** ** >> >> Regards,**** >> >> Jasper**** >> >> ** ** >> >> [image: cid:image001.jpg at 01CB8C85.2DCB5370]**** >> >> *Jasper Schellekens*** >> >> *Project Officer* >> *m: *(356) 996 09 522 | *e:* jasper.schellekens at comnet.org.mt >> *w: *www.comnet.org.mt | *t: *(356) 21 323393 >> >> ALFIR, Reggie Miller Street, Gzira, GZR 1541, MALTA** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* Katy P [mailto:katycarvt at gmail.com] >> *Sent:* 15 May 2012 12:17 >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Keisha Taylor >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGF Open Consultation just began**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Mine didn't work either.**** >> >> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Keisha Taylor >> wrote:**** >> >> Thanks. Clicked on it, but it does not appear to be working. Is there >> anything I should do?**** >> >> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:**** >> >> Here is the link to the live webcast: >> WSIS Forum page: >> http://www.itu.int/ibs/WSIS/201205forum/ >> >> Actual link: >> rtsp://ituconf.ilo.org/broadcast/II-now-en.rm >> >> UNDESA and Chair, making opening remarks. >> >> will report more as we proceed, >> >> izumi >> >> >> -- >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t**** >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3940 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Tue May 15 08:24:15 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 14:24:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation just began In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1295fea9-67fd-465d-ac32-7868edd4272c@email.android.com> Marilia Maciel wrote: >Izumi and others in Geneva, is there any news about the position of the >Executive Coordinator? Yes. For now that position is closed and all 90 applicants have been informed they will not be hiring. The reason given was lack of sufficient funding. > >Was anything said about the implementation of the CSTD WG report? Not yet. I >mean, >implementation on formal grounds, with time schedule, sharing of tasks, >etc? I think this is something that the MAG could discuss tomorrow: the >need for a plan for the implementation of the report that would take >each >suggestion for improvement, divide it into sub-actions, estimate costs, >share tasks, estimate time. Good idea > >Marília >Ps: De, maybe they are on lunch brake? Let's try again a little later. > >On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Deirdre Williams < >williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Jasper, >> Which room please? >> Programme says Room 2 and I'm 'there' on Adobe but the meeting isn't. >> HELP! >> Thanks Deirdre >> >> >> On 15 May 2012 07:01, Jasper Schellekens >> > wrote: >> >>> Another alternative would be to use the Adobe Connects and choose >the >>> room in which you want to participate:**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> >http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2012/Agenda/RemoteParticipationRooms.aspx >>> **** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Room II – will host the informal meeting of the IGF initiatives >from*13.30 to 14.30 >>> ***** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Regards,**** >>> >>> Jasper**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> [image: cid:image001.jpg at 01CB8C85.2DCB5370]**** >>> >>> *Jasper Schellekens*** >>> >>> *Project Officer* >>> *m: *(356) 996 09 522 | *e:* >jasper.schellekens at comnet.org.mt >>> *w: *www.comnet.org.mt | *t: *(356) 21 323393 >>> >>> ALFIR, Reggie Miller Street, Gzira, GZR 1541, MALTA** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> *From:* Katy P [mailto:katycarvt at gmail.com] >>> *Sent:* 15 May 2012 12:17 >>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Keisha Taylor >>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGF Open Consultation just began**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Mine didn't work either.**** >>> >>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Keisha Taylor > >>> wrote:**** >>> >>> Thanks. Clicked on it, but it does not appear to be working. Is >there >>> anything I should do?**** >>> >>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Izumi AIZU >wrote:**** >>> >>> Here is the link to the live webcast: >>> WSIS Forum page: >>> http://www.itu.int/ibs/WSIS/201205forum/ >>> >>> Actual link: >>> rtsp://ituconf.ilo.org/broadcast/II-now-en.rm >>> >>> UNDESA and Chair, making opening remarks. >>> >>> will report more as we proceed, >>> >>> izumi >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t**** >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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 >> >> > > >-- >Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >FGV Direito Rio > >Center for Technology and Society >Getulio Vargas Foundation >Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 15 08:28:05 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 14:28:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation just began In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3DB26817-6A05-4D0D-9F4A-5FA57A741CC0@uzh.ch> Hi Marilia DESA says there can be no movement on hiring another EC due to budgetary issues and the constraints imposed by Member Governments. Best Bill On May 15, 2012, at 2:01 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Izumi and others in Geneva, is there any news about the position of the Executive Coordinator? > > Was anything said about the implementation of the CSTD WG report? I mean, implementation on formal grounds, with time schedule, sharing of tasks, etc? I think this is something that the MAG could discuss tomorrow: the need for a plan for the implementation of the report that would take each suggestion for improvement, divide it into sub-actions, estimate costs, share tasks, estimate time. > > Marília > Ps: De, maybe they are on lunch brake? Let's try again a little later. > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Dear Jasper, > Which room please? > Programme says Room 2 and I'm 'there' on Adobe but the meeting isn't. > HELP! > Thanks Deirdre > > > On 15 May 2012 07:01, Jasper Schellekens wrote: > Another alternative would be to use the Adobe Connects and choose the room in which you want to participate: > > > > http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2012/Agenda/RemoteParticipationRooms.aspx > > > > Room II – will host the informal meeting of the IGF initiatives from 13.30 to 14.30 > > > > Regards, > > Jasper > > > > > > Jasper Schellekens > > Project Officer > m: (356) 996 09 522 | e: jasper.schellekens at comnet.org.mt > w: www.comnet.org.mt | t: (356) 21 323393 > > ALFIR, Reggie Miller Street, Gzira, GZR 1541, MALTA > > > > > > From: Katy P [mailto:katycarvt at gmail.com] > Sent: 15 May 2012 12:17 > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Keisha Taylor > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Open Consultation just began > > > > Mine didn't work either. > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Keisha Taylor wrote: > > Thanks. Clicked on it, but it does not appear to be working. Is there anything I should do? > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > Here is the link to the live webcast: > WSIS Forum page: > http://www.itu.int/ibs/WSIS/201205forum/ > > Actual link: > rtsp://ituconf.ilo.org/broadcast/II-now-en.rm > > UNDESA and Chair, making opening remarks. > > will report more as we proceed, > > izumi > > > -- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 > > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue May 15 09:12:16 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 10:12:16 -0300 Subject: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <4FAD2F04.30004@apc.org> Message-ID: I have been invited to replace some speaker on the EC meeting that could not make it. Kind of last minute, but I am reading the thread and keeping track of discussions. Marília On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 7:25 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Yes, I think that would be the effective approach here... > > Again, what the OGP process has done is to create a consensus based > normative declaration among a community of the willing and are building an > institutional framework to support the on-going, broad based, and > collabortive implementations towards the realization of these norms. > > It seems to me that CS should be striving in this direction in the IG area > given that it's own involvement in IG is (or at least should be) based on > consensus based operational Internet norms (transparency, net neutrality, > inclusivity and so on). > > I don't expect to be in Baku so I'm hoping that should such a process be > initiated at the upcoming IGF that it be one inclusive of remote > participation. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 8:24 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the Enhanced > Cooperation Meeting in Geneva > > > dear michael > > i am too busy to respond in full.... but i like the idea of looking at the > OGP process a lot > > i had a good look at the declaration, and the section on 'measures' > > the idea this gave me is that what would be very useful for IG is a > consultative process that will build such a declaration on EC - a process > which is inclusive of a wide range of instutitions, constituencies, sectors > etc. > > so.. like the WGIG process.. but with its specific goal being agreement on > a 'Declaration on inclusive, multi-stakeholder international internet > governance' > > anriette > > > On 09/05/12 16:46, michael gurstein wrote: > > In this context, I think that the IGC should be paying extremely > > close attention to the Open Government Partnership > > which I pointed to earlier. > > > > The OGP has a formal "Declaration > > http://www.opengovpartnership.org/open-government-declaration>" > > (i.e. normative statement--"convention" if you will) to which > > Members need to formally commit themeselves. The Partner > > country's membership in the Partnership is initially accepted > > based on their adherence to the Charter and whose on-going > > performance is equally assessed (includng by CS) against their > > stated plan/committment concerning the implementation of the forward > > looking provisions of the Charter. > > > > Secondly, CS has a formally defined role as a full-fledged "partner" > > in the Partnership with certain designated rights and > > responsibilities including a co-Chairmanship of the overall > > Partnership. > > > > Although there are a number of elements still in the process of > > being worked out (not the least of which is the structuring of CS in > > the context of the OGP) to my mind this is a direction towards which > > EC/IG should be moving, towards which CS should be pushing IG, and > > which overall represents a potentially very positive post Atlantic > > Charter direction for the overall evolution of CS and Global > > Governance in the Age of the Internet. > > > > Best, > > > > Mike > > > > -----Original Message----- > > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of > *parminder > > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 09, 2012 6:41 AM > > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the > > Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva > > > > On Tuesday 08 May 2012 08:40 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> It seems to me that the basic issues of Enhanced Cooperation from > >> a CS perspective are twofold: > >> > > We, as a set of civil society players, have tried to present > > concrete possibilities for both, but with no engagement from the > > larger CS involved with IG. > > > >> 1. what is the normative framework within which EC should take > >> place--my strong suggestion would be that it is that of transparency, > accountability, democracy and inclusiveness (and of course there is the > WSIS declaration etc. to support this). And that this should be presented > as a declaration and within a framing document. > >> > > > > A framework convention on the Internet was proposed, but found no > > traction among the CS actors in IG. Yes, it needs to be informed by > > the values that you mention. > > > >> 2. that having agreed on such a normative framework the question > >> is what is the most appropriate institutional arrangement for achieving > these within the context of Internet governance. > >> > > > > UN CIRP proposal has as multistakeholder a structure as OECD's > > Internet policy making mechanism (which is the default global > > Internet policy making system at present), plus seeking strong > > linkages with a rather empowered multistakeholder IGF (India IGF > > proposal). If something else/more is needed and possible that it > > must be spelt out. > > > > Still, we believe that even a CIRP kind of body should be an interim > > arrangement, doing stop-gap work, but focussing on the activity of > > being the nodal point for developing a suitable framework convention > > on the Internet, which 'framework convention' then proposes the > > right body for global governance of the global internet, which is > > fully adequate and appropriate to the phenomenon, context etc. > > > > If someone has a different/ better roadmap, lets discuss it. > > > > Non engagement with and non-proposal of clear concrete road-maps is > > simply an acceptance of the status quo in global Internet > > governance, and we think that the staus quo is hugely problematic, > > involves ever greater concentration of power, and is thus not > > acceptable. > > > > parminder > > > >> Mike > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen > >> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 1:08 AM > >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the > >> Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva > >> > >> > >> Dear Bill, Adam and all > >> > >> The agenda is very basic. I will post it below. Parminder and I > >> have both been asked to speak. APC will post our basic input here as > >> soon as we have had a chance to present it to members first. > >> > >> Basically my idea is to shift the discussion towards the > >> involvement of civil society in EC and rather than just the usual > >> involvement of governments. My gut reaction to EC is that there is > >> all this dispute about the involvements from States and while this is > >> kind of going nowhere, there appears to be less cooperation and more > >> concentration of power among large companies, rich country > >> governments, and established IG 'institutions'. > >> > >> I hope this will complement Parminder's input which I hope will > >> focus on the imbalances in governmental involvement from governments > >> in the north (who tend to say they don't want control, but they > >> already have it) and governments in the south (who say they want more > >> control and who don't have much at global level, and who are not > >> demonstrating, consistently, good use of the control they do have at > >> national level - in my view). > >> > >> A serious discussion on what governments responsibilities are and > >> of WHAT they need to be involved in would be useful in my view. > >> > >> And then finally, and I would appreciate IGC input on this.. > >> among APC staff we have had a discussion of the parameters of EC. Is > >> EC just something we should be talking about at global level, or also > >> at national level. > >> > >> I feel stongly that we need to take the discussion to EC in IG at > >> national level. And this should touch on global IG issues (how > >> countries engage, whether there is capacity building, consultation, > >> etc. around involvement in global issues/process) as well as on > >> national IG issues. > >> > >> Anriette > >> > >> 11:00- > >> 13:00 > >> Welcoming remarks by the Chair of the CSTD, Mr. Fortunato de la > Peña ■ Address by: Dr. Hamadoun Touré, Secretary-General of the > International Telecommunication Union (ITU) ■ Address by: Mr. Nigel > Hickson, Vice President for Europe, ICANN ■ Address by: Mr. Markus Kummer, > Vice President Public Policy, Internet Society ■ Address by: Mr. Jimson > Olufuye, Vice-Chairman, Africa Region, World Information Technology and > Services Alliance ■ Address by: Mr. Parminder Singh, Executive Director, IT > for Change ■ Address by: Ms. Marilyn Cade, CEO, mCADE LLC ■ Address by: Ms. > Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director, Association for Progressive > Communications > >> 15:00- > >> 18:00 > >> General discussion > >> > >> On 08/05/12 09:06, Adam Peake wrote: > >> > >>> Could you give a pointer to the agenda. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> Adam > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 3:55 PM, William Drake < > william.drake at uzh.ch > >>> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi > >>> > >>> Just wondering if we want to do anything about this? The draft > >>> program has a couple of IGCers as speakers but no clarity on > rules > >>> of engagement for other attendees…? > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> Bill > >>> > >>> > >>> On Apr 18, 2012, at 11:05 AM, William Drake wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> Hello, > >>>> > >>>> As you know, there will be an enhanced cooperation > consultation on > >>>> 18 May in Geneva, following the IGF consultations and MAG > >>>> meeting. > >>>> http://archive.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=6227&lang=1 < > http://archive.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=6227&lang=1> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> It would be very important that all stakeholders are able to > >>>> intervene and contribute freely (but strategically) during > this > >>>> consultation, rather than have to sit silently on the > sidelines or > >>>> be relegated to collective brief interventions at the end of > each > >>>> session. I imagine that ICC (business) and ISOC (TC) will be > >>>> contacting the CSTD secretariat to make such a request. On > behalf > >>>> of civil society, the IGC should do the same. > >>>> > >>>> Assuming people agree with the proposition, may I suggest > that the > >>>> co-coordinators take a crack at drafting a one or two > paragraph > >>>> letter to Mongi to this effect? Probably it would be better > to do > >>>> it sooner than later, as the secretariat would then need to > pass > >>>> the request along to governments etc… > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> > >>>> Bill > >>>> > >>>> *************************************************** > >>>> William J. Drake > >>>> International Fellow & Lecturer > >>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > >>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland > >>>> william.drake at uzh.ch william.drake at uzh.ch> > >>>> www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake < > http://www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake> > >>>> > >>>> www.williamdrake.org < > http://www.williamdrake.org> > >>>> **************************************************** > >>>> > >>>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.orgpo box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 > 11 726 1692 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Tue May 15 09:30:56 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 22:30:56 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation memo, Morning, May 15 Message-ID: The morning meeting ended around 1300, here is my rough memo. Annotated, as it is Open consultation, but all are very sketchy. izumi May 15, 2012 11:25 Open Consultation starts UNDESA rep – Opening remarks over 100 workshops proposed for IGF 2012 greater transparency, more information, contribute for better governance MR Elmir Valizda, Chair of MAG Robert Guerra Citizen Lab Update for Preparation, logistics, venue and other issues scarecity of details a problem – Chengetai Will have update, yes, just now. Constance, ISOC ISCO reception Question of participation of indigenes people rather than access to Internet, they need food, closing, shelters I need free and active participation from indigenes people Azerbaijan host to report: IGF Nov 6-9 Nov 5 – ministerial meeting info on Baku/Azerbaijan All hotels (90) with reduced corporate rates, without 18% VAT 46 hotels will be provided with shuttles 17 hotels – no shuttles Izumi read Judy’s comment: Physical Accessibility it is imperative that all locations/ venue , transport,etc is accessible and usable for PWD . Mervi, Finland Question on Ministerial Meeting who can participate? agenda? who are the organizer? Chair Mostly, ministers, but can consider to invite head of delegates Robert Guerra Make sure in the Host Country Agreement, for participants to feel free out of fear. Chair As Deputy minister, I will try to answer Registration will be happen on the IGF Website, not our own website, therefore, anyperson have possibility to register, After this information will be provide to our governmental bodies to issue visas and others About some controls; free usage of Internet through fix, mobile and other We have some restrictions and all persons tha live and work inAzerbaijan and if you come – can be used these technologies – suchs possibilitew will be provided during IGF Balu. Peter Major On accessibility said by Izumi mostly Judia Okite from Kenya adding to accessibility, add that, ^ host country to check out hotel if they are accessible with PWD for making booking Host Our staff checked all the hotels, but did not put info on this, will update the hotel list with this issue as well. Felix Samakande, new MAG, Zimbabwe reaction to Video – recollection of Lithuania experience restriction of time to speak but speak slowly for interpreter Chair Translation will be provided only in Main Session – not in workshops Constance, ISOC Mervi’s question – add invitation to CEOs, Civil society members Chair >From Kenya, we will keep this tradtion of inviting CEO (of ICANN), Civil Society Aysha Comment on Ministerial, participated in Kenyan Ministerial important to have dialogue among all stakeholders AZ Foreign Minisry Visa issue – in due course Participation of all organizations – take seriously, treat every singe delegation in a non-discriminatory soverigh- IF not paritcpate from soverign countries – it’s their choice Linkage between of hosting event and allegation of freedom of expression and mediu, it is institutional nor, insure the norm and contineus to do so mis-reprsented by some media- is very infortunate that we are taking this time to address to verenate the situation clear – emotiona accests do not add credit to the authority of the organizations or rpresentatives Anna, Portugal Question about Ministerial meeting What is man objective of this Ministerial which countries are invited? which Ministry? we are in Multi-stakeholder event – cannot be put apart MSH is not about big companies, but small companies, civil society, etc what is the purpose of this Ministerial? Chair Kenya, it was the first time to have Ministerial Alice – explained the Kenyan Ministerial agenda – came as bottom up, discussed at East Africa IGF AZ rep There is discussion on how to model ministerial meeting we want to hear to MAG members – which model? all countries participated in ITU members – ITU has list of ministries – who is resposbile on Telecom, ICT InfoSoc -sent invitation letter to those countries Involving private sector – big companies but we can invite others we want to modelize and find best figure – useful Address the your country will be responsible and delegate your officials to that meeting. ITU will channel this Wolfgang Question to DESA Nitin and Markus stepped down more than 2 years ago Can we expect that two positions will be filled at IGF in Baku? DESA Situation on Executive Coordinator and Special Advisor It was funded by IGF Trust fund, voluntary contributions, but regrettably, current voluntary contributions do not allow the recruitment of EC we are concerned about the absence of EC once new project document approved 1 year ago, received from Controller, 90 applicants applied for the EC Due to the financial balance project, we still have strong negative balance – not able to recruit the EC Go to IGC Website, you can see the balance of the project document We just canceled the announcement of the EC, not able to continue the recruitment, Special Advisor – prerogative of the SG, no influence to force him to make the decision Anriette from APC On Minsterial – I think it is very useful mechanism, appreciated in Kenya – but IGF is different from ITU, complement each other IGF could take broader government and other stakeholders – on policy Not rely on ITU database, but to be more creative about which minister to invite Thematic focus on Ministerial – to define – then which CS and minister ON human rights, -good hear to the reassurance – ask Host country to make documents and ask DESA to reflect them into Host Country agreement Chair according to the procedure, the host country must sign agreement with UN DESA, and all issues are indicated in this agreement Issues on transportation, visa, equipmet, computers are fulle include toths agreement And now this is agreement – w can publish them in our website. Anna Neves, Portugal It is up to the host country to invite which Minister, yes. If it is ITU event, then invite telecom ministers. but if it is IGF, then not only telecom ministers. If you use ITU Detabase, please do not call as “IGF”. On EC, puzzled. Strange. There is voluntary funding. Chair We can consider all of your proposal. During this event, you have possibility of contact from our delegation, you can provide some info on some ministries, please inform us, and we will invite these ministries. Please provide these. Bertrand de La Chappell On Visa, related to citizens of countries who may have political tensions and who may have difficulty – can you ensure that there will be no restriction. On EC, situation is extremely troublesome, painfully. It might be intentional – I don’t believe that. Choice- wrong intensions or inefficiency – both are bad. Current situation is weakening the IGF. Chicken and Egg –we cannot hire because of funding, funding not coming because of uncertainty canceling the process – re-launching – take months MAG could, in due time, to designate its own Chair – as an option A voluntary desire to solve this problem DESA Communicated to donor community – we are not limiting them, trying hard recent situation with Google – working with lawyers, beyond control hope to solve this situation as soon as possible Recruitment process for EC we stay with one rule approved by member states no other way. Chengetai HCA – treated equal as UN Qusai Ministerial meeting – not IGF event, right? AZ’s liberty – to organize LINCH Break Adam How many workshops are possible to be organized – how many rooms? Chengetai 128 Workshop proposals – highest number submitted The venue can fit all workshops Do we want to have 12 workshops at the same time? Grading – above 12 - green below 12 – orange SOP 49 Access 19 EI, IG4D CIR 10% TS, WF 6% Others - Cade - how about dynamic coalitions and Open Forum? Chengetai - we need to consider them 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue May 15 09:42:00 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 09:42:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation memo, Morning, May 15 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Izumi Very helpful Deirdre On 15 May 2012 09:30, Izumi AIZU wrote: > The morning meeting ended around 1300, here is my rough memo. > Annotated, as it is Open consultation, but all are very sketchy. > > izumi > > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue May 15 09:48:57 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 10:48:57 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation memo, Morning, May 15 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Just an observation to remote participants. The link to the "English" feed from the OC meeting takes us to another room. The feed from "floor" is working fine. But freezes frequently. I am using vlc. Marília On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you Izumi > Very helpful > Deirdre > > > On 15 May 2012 09:30, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> The morning meeting ended around 1300, here is my rough memo. >> Annotated, as it is Open consultation, but all are very sketchy. >> >> izumi >> >> >> -- > “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 > > -- 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 May 15 09:59:01 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 10:59:01 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation memo, Morning, May 15 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FB26125.4030102@cafonso.ca> Hi Izumi & all, interesting to know how the proposed (decided?) ministerial meeting was questioned on the grounds of the purpose of the IGF as a MSH initiative. I wonder about the role of the so-called "special advisors". Who are they? Are they considered "volunteer staff"? Since there is no replacement for Nitin & Markus (I understand Chengetai is playing Markus's role in the meantime?), who decides on the "special advisors" and other staff? I wonder about their role, again recalling this is a MSH initiative. fraternal regards --c.a. On 05/15/2012 10:30 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > The morning meeting ended around 1300, here is my rough memo. > Annotated, as it is Open consultation, but all are very sketchy. > > izumi > > > May 15, 2012 11:25 Open Consultation starts > > UNDESA rep – > Opening remarks > over 100 workshops proposed for IGF 2012 > greater transparency, more information, contribute for better governance > > MR Elmir Valizda, Chair of MAG > > Robert Guerra > Citizen Lab > Update for Preparation, logistics, venue and other issues > scarecity of details a problem – > > Chengetai > Will have update, yes, just now. > > Constance, ISOC > ISCO reception > > Question of participation of indigenes people > rather than access to Internet, they need food, closing, shelters > I need free and active participation from indigenes people > > Azerbaijan host to report: > IGF Nov 6-9 > Nov 5 – ministerial meeting > info on Baku/Azerbaijan > > All hotels (90) with reduced corporate rates, without 18% VAT > 46 hotels will be provided with shuttles > 17 hotels – no shuttles > > Izumi read Judy’s comment: > Physical Accessibility > it is imperative that all locations/ venue , transport,etc is > accessible and usable for PWD . > > Mervi, Finland > Question on Ministerial Meeting > who can participate? > agenda? > who are the organizer? > > Chair > Mostly, ministers, but can consider to invite head of delegates > > Robert Guerra > Make sure in the Host Country Agreement, for participants to feel free > out of fear. > > Chair > As Deputy minister, I will try to answer > Registration will be happen on the IGF Website, not our own website, > therefore, anyperson have possibility to register, > After this information will be provide to our governmental bodies to > issue visas and others > About some controls; free usage of Internet > through fix, mobile and other > We have some restrictions and all persons tha live and work > inAzerbaijan and if you come – can be used these technologies – suchs > possibilitew will be provided during IGF Balu. > > Peter Major > On accessibility said by Izumi mostly > > Judia Okite from Kenya > adding to accessibility, add that, ^ host country to check out hotel > if they are accessible with PWD for making booking > > Host > Our staff checked all the hotels, but did not put info on this, will > update the hotel list with this issue as well. > > Felix Samakande, new MAG, Zimbabwe > reaction to Video – recollection of Lithuania experience > restriction of time to speak but speak slowly for interpreter > > Chair > Translation will be provided only in Main Session – not in workshops > > Constance, ISOC > Mervi’s question – add invitation to CEOs, Civil society members > > Chair >>From Kenya, we will keep this tradtion of inviting CEO (of ICANN), Civil Society > > Aysha > Comment on Ministerial, participated in Kenyan Ministerial > important to have dialogue among all stakeholders > > AZ Foreign Minisry > Visa issue – in due course > > Participation of all organizations – take seriously, treat every singe > delegation in a non-discriminatory soverigh- > IF not paritcpate from soverign countries – it’s their choice > Linkage between of hosting event and allegation of freedom of > expression and mediu, > it is institutional nor, insure the norm and contineus to do so > mis-reprsented by some media- > is very infortunate that we are taking this time to address to > verenate the situation > clear – emotiona accests do not add credit to the authority of the > organizations or rpresentatives > > Anna, Portugal > > Question about Ministerial meeting > What is man objective of this Ministerial which countries are invited? > which Ministry? > we are in Multi-stakeholder event – cannot be put apart > MSH is not about big companies, but small companies, civil society, etc > what is the purpose of this Ministerial? > > Chair > Kenya, it was the first time to have Ministerial > > Alice – explained the Kenyan Ministerial > agenda – came as bottom up, discussed at East Africa IGF > > AZ rep > There is discussion on how to model ministerial meeting > we want to hear to MAG members – which model? > all countries participated in ITU members – ITU has list of > ministries – who is resposbile on Telecom, ICT InfoSoc -sent > invitation letter to those countries > Involving private sector – big companies but we can invite others > we want to modelize and find best figure – useful > > Address the > your country will be responsible and delegate your officials to that meeting. > ITU will channel this > > Wolfgang > Question to DESA > Nitin and Markus stepped down more than 2 years ago > Can we expect that two positions will be filled at IGF in Baku? > > DESA > Situation on Executive Coordinator and Special Advisor > It was funded by IGF Trust fund, voluntary contributions, but > regrettably, current voluntary contributions do not allow the > recruitment of EC > we are concerned about the absence of EC > once new project document approved 1 year ago, received from Controller, > 90 applicants applied for the EC > Due to the financial balance project, we still have strong negative > balance – not able to recruit the EC > Go to IGC Website, you can see the balance of the project document > We just canceled the announcement of the EC, not able to continue the > recruitment, > > Special Advisor – prerogative of the SG, no influence to force him to > make the decision > > Anriette from APC > On Minsterial – I think it is very useful mechanism, appreciated in Kenya – > but IGF is different from ITU, complement each other > IGF could take broader government and other stakeholders – on policy > Not rely on ITU database, but to be more creative about which minister to invite > Thematic focus on Ministerial – to define – then which CS and minister > > ON human rights, -good hear to the reassurance – ask Host country to > make documents and ask DESA to reflect them into Host Country > agreement > > Chair > according to the procedure, the host country must sign agreement with > UN DESA, and all issues are indicated in this agreement > Issues on transportation, visa, equipmet, computers are fulle include > toths agreement > And now this is agreement – w can publish them in our website. > > Anna Neves, Portugal > It is up to the host country to invite which Minister, yes. If it is > ITU event, then invite telecom ministers. but if it is IGF, then not > only telecom ministers. > If you use ITU Detabase, please do not call as “IGF”. > On EC, puzzled. Strange. There is voluntary funding. > > Chair > We can consider all of your proposal. During this event, you have > possibility of contact from our delegation, you can provide some info > on some ministries, please inform us, and we will invite these > ministries. Please provide these. > > Bertrand de La Chappell > On Visa, related to citizens of countries who may have political > tensions and who may have difficulty – can you ensure that there will > be no restriction. > On EC, situation is extremely troublesome, painfully. > It might be intentional – I don’t believe that. Choice- wrong > intensions or inefficiency – both are bad. Current situation is > weakening the IGF. > Chicken and Egg –we cannot hire because of funding, funding not coming > because of uncertainty > canceling the process – re-launching – take months > > MAG could, in due time, to designate its own Chair – as an option > A voluntary desire to solve this problem > > DESA > Communicated to donor community – > we are not limiting them, trying hard > recent situation with Google – working with lawyers, beyond control > hope to solve this situation as soon as possible > Recruitment process for EC > we stay with one rule approved by member states > no other way. > > Chengetai > HCA – treated equal as UN > > Qusai > Ministerial meeting – not IGF event, right? > AZ’s liberty – to organize > > > LINCH Break > > Adam > How many workshops are possible to be organized – how many rooms? > > Chengetai > 128 Workshop proposals – highest number submitted > The venue can fit all workshops > Do we want to have 12 workshops at the same time? > > Grading – > above 12 - green > below 12 – orange > > SOP 49 > Access 19 > EI, IG4D > CIR 10% > TS, WF 6% > Others - > > Cade - how about dynamic coalitions and Open Forum? > > Chengetai - we need to consider them 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue May 15 10:19:23 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 15:19:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation memo, Morning, May 15 In-Reply-To: <4FB26125.4030102@cafonso.ca> References: <4FB26125.4030102@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: In message <4FB26125.4030102 at cafonso.ca>, at 10:59:01 on Tue, 15 May 2012, Carlos A. Afonso writes >Hi Izumi & all, interesting to know how the proposed (decided?) >ministerial meeting was questioned on the grounds of the purpose of the >IGF as a MSH initiative. Does that mean that Civil Society, Internet Technical Community etc can't have pre-meets either? Do such pre-meets have to allow observers from the other stakeholders. -- 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Tue May 15 10:33:13 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 07:33:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation memo, Morning, May 15 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1337092393.25695.YahooMailNeo@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Thanks Izumi, indeed its a very good coverage of the event while we could not get in to listen intime. Regards Imran Ahmed Shah From: Deirdre Williams >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Izumi AIZU >Sent: Tuesday, 15 May 2012, 18:42 >Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Open Consultation memo, Morning, May 15 > > >Thank you Izumi >Very helpful >Deirdre > > >On 15 May 2012 09:30, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >The morning meeting ended around 1300, here is my rough memo. >>Annotated, as it is Open consultation, but all are very sketchy. >> >>izumi >> >> >>-- >“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 avri at acm.org Tue May 15 10:44:49 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 16:44:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation memo, Morning, May 15 In-Reply-To: <4FB26125.4030102@cafonso.ca> References: <4FB26125.4030102@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Hi, Are there special advisors? While I have heard speculation etc on some being named at some point, I have not seen any evidence of any having been named. I am sure that if they are named, the will contribute to the MSH mix. avri "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: >Hi Izumi & all, interesting to know how the proposed (decided?) >ministerial meeting was questioned on the grounds of the purpose of the >IGF as a MSH initiative. > >I wonder about the role of the so-called "special advisors". Who are >they? Are they considered "volunteer staff"? Since there is no >replacement for Nitin & Markus (I understand Chengetai is playing >Markus's role in the meantime?), who decides on the "special advisors" >and other staff? I wonder about their role, again recalling this is a >MSH initiative. > >fraternal regards > >--c.a. > >On 05/15/2012 10:30 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> The morning meeting ended around 1300, here is my rough memo. >> Annotated, as it is Open consultation, but all are very sketchy. >> >> izumi >> >> >> May 15, 2012 11:25 Open Consultation starts >> >> UNDESA rep – >> Opening remarks >> over 100 workshops proposed for IGF 2012 >> greater transparency, more information, contribute for better >governance >> >> MR Elmir Valizda, Chair of MAG >> >> Robert Guerra >> Citizen Lab >> Update for Preparation, logistics, venue and other issues >> scarecity of details a problem – >> >> Chengetai >> Will have update, yes, just now. >> >> Constance, ISOC >> ISCO reception >> >> Question of participation of indigenes people >> rather than access to Internet, they need food, closing, shelters >> I need free and active participation from indigenes people >> >> Azerbaijan host to report: >> IGF Nov 6-9 >> Nov 5 – ministerial meeting >> info on Baku/Azerbaijan >> >> All hotels (90) with reduced corporate rates, without 18% VAT >> 46 hotels will be provided with shuttles >> 17 hotels – no shuttles >> >> Izumi read Judy’s comment: >> Physical Accessibility >> it is imperative that all locations/ venue , transport,etc is >> accessible and usable for PWD . >> >> Mervi, Finland >> Question on Ministerial Meeting >> who can participate? >> agenda? >> who are the organizer? >> >> Chair >> Mostly, ministers, but can consider to invite head of delegates >> >> Robert Guerra >> Make sure in the Host Country Agreement, for participants to feel >free >> out of fear. >> >> Chair >> As Deputy minister, I will try to answer >> Registration will be happen on the IGF Website, not our own website, >> therefore, anyperson have possibility to register, >> After this information will be provide to our governmental bodies to >> issue visas and others >> About some controls; free usage of Internet >> through fix, mobile and other >> We have some restrictions and all persons tha live and work >> inAzerbaijan and if you come – can be used these technologies – suchs >> possibilitew will be provided during IGF Balu. >> >> Peter Major >> On accessibility said by Izumi mostly >> >> Judia Okite from Kenya >> adding to accessibility, add that, ^ host country to check out hotel >> if they are accessible with PWD for making booking >> >> Host >> Our staff checked all the hotels, but did not put info on this, will >> update the hotel list with this issue as well. >> >> Felix Samakande, new MAG, Zimbabwe >> reaction to Video – recollection of Lithuania experience >> restriction of time to speak but speak slowly for interpreter >> >> Chair >> Translation will be provided only in Main Session – not in workshops >> >> Constance, ISOC >> Mervi’s question – add invitation to CEOs, Civil society members >> >> Chair >>>From Kenya, we will keep this tradtion of inviting CEO (of ICANN), >Civil Society >> >> Aysha >> Comment on Ministerial, participated in Kenyan Ministerial >> important to have dialogue among all stakeholders >> >> AZ Foreign Minisry >> Visa issue – in due course >> >> Participation of all organizations – take seriously, treat every >singe >> delegation in a non-discriminatory soverigh- >> IF not paritcpate from soverign countries – it’s their choice >> Linkage between of hosting event and allegation of freedom of >> expression and mediu, >> it is institutional nor, insure the norm and contineus to do so >> mis-reprsented by some media- >> is very infortunate that we are taking this time to address to >> verenate the situation >> clear – emotiona accests do not add credit to the authority of the >> organizations or rpresentatives >> >> Anna, Portugal >> >> Question about Ministerial meeting >> What is man objective of this Ministerial which countries are >invited? >> which Ministry? >> we are in Multi-stakeholder event – cannot be put apart >> MSH is not about big companies, but small companies, civil society, >etc >> what is the purpose of this Ministerial? >> >> Chair >> Kenya, it was the first time to have Ministerial >> >> Alice – explained the Kenyan Ministerial >> agenda – came as bottom up, discussed at East Africa IGF >> >> AZ rep >> There is discussion on how to model ministerial meeting >> we want to hear to MAG members – which model? >> all countries participated in ITU members – ITU has list of >> ministries – who is resposbile on Telecom, ICT InfoSoc -sent >> invitation letter to those countries >> Involving private sector – big companies but we can invite others >> we want to modelize and find best figure – useful >> >> Address the >> your country will be responsible and delegate your officials to that >meeting. >> ITU will channel this >> >> Wolfgang >> Question to DESA >> Nitin and Markus stepped down more than 2 years ago >> Can we expect that two positions will be filled at IGF in Baku? >> >> DESA >> Situation on Executive Coordinator and Special Advisor >> It was funded by IGF Trust fund, voluntary contributions, but >> regrettably, current voluntary contributions do not allow the >> recruitment of EC >> we are concerned about the absence of EC >> once new project document approved 1 year ago, received from >Controller, >> 90 applicants applied for the EC >> Due to the financial balance project, we still have strong negative >> balance – not able to recruit the EC >> Go to IGC Website, you can see the balance of the project document >> We just canceled the announcement of the EC, not able to continue the >> recruitment, >> >> Special Advisor – prerogative of the SG, no influence to force him to >> make the decision >> >> Anriette from APC >> On Minsterial – I think it is very useful mechanism, appreciated in >Kenya – >> but IGF is different from ITU, complement each other >> IGF could take broader government and other stakeholders – on policy >> Not rely on ITU database, but to be more creative about which >minister to invite >> Thematic focus on Ministerial – to define – then which CS and >minister >> >> ON human rights, -good hear to the reassurance – ask Host country to >> make documents and ask DESA to reflect them into Host Country >> agreement >> >> Chair >> according to the procedure, the host country must sign agreement with >> UN DESA, and all issues are indicated in this agreement >> Issues on transportation, visa, equipmet, computers are fulle include >> toths agreement >> And now this is agreement – w can publish them in our website. >> >> Anna Neves, Portugal >> It is up to the host country to invite which Minister, yes. If it is >> ITU event, then invite telecom ministers. but if it is IGF, then not >> only telecom ministers. >> If you use ITU Detabase, please do not call as “IGF”. >> On EC, puzzled. Strange. There is voluntary funding. >> >> Chair >> We can consider all of your proposal. During this event, you have >> possibility of contact from our delegation, you can provide some info >> on some ministries, please inform us, and we will invite these >> ministries. Please provide these. >> >> Bertrand de La Chappell >> On Visa, related to citizens of countries who may have political >> tensions and who may have difficulty – can you ensure that there will >> be no restriction. >> On EC, situation is extremely troublesome, painfully. >> It might be intentional – I don’t believe that. Choice- wrong >> intensions or inefficiency – both are bad. Current situation is >> weakening the IGF. >> Chicken and Egg –we cannot hire because of funding, funding not >coming >> because of uncertainty >> canceling the process – re-launching – take months >> >> MAG could, in due time, to designate its own Chair – as an option >> A voluntary desire to solve this problem >> >> DESA >> Communicated to donor community – >> we are not limiting them, trying hard >> recent situation with Google – working with lawyers, beyond control >> hope to solve this situation as soon as possible >> Recruitment process for EC >> we stay with one rule approved by member states >> no other way. >> >> Chengetai >> HCA – treated equal as UN >> >> Qusai >> Ministerial meeting – not IGF event, right? >> AZ’s liberty – to organize >> >> >> LINCH Break >> >> Adam >> How many workshops are possible to be organized – how many rooms? >> >> Chengetai >> 128 Workshop proposals – highest number submitted >> The venue can fit all workshops >> Do we want to have 12 workshops at the same time? >> >> Grading – >> above 12 - green >> below 12 – orange >> >> SOP 49 >> Access 19 >> EI, IG4D >> CIR 10% >> TS, WF 6% >> Others - >> >> Cade - how about dynamic coalitions and Open Forum? >> >> Chengetai - we need to consider them 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 iza at anr.org Tue May 15 10:45:36 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 23:45:36 +0900 Subject: [governance] Key words of Meeting of organizers for Regional and National IGF Message-ID: During lunch time, there was an INFORMAL meeting of organizers for Regional and National IGF. Here follows is the key words I put into my iPhone notebad. Just to show what subjects we discussed. Names and words contain many typos. izumi --------- Chengetai, Do we need minimum guidance for national and regional IGF? Website Participants: Marylin Cade Katih Egypt, Arab Nominet, Laura. UK UK. MAG Ricardo. Columbia Wolf euroDIG. Thomas. swiss Gove Paul. RIPE NCC Izabel Italy Carolina. LAC Anna. Portugal Izumi, Tokyo Cable. Commonwealth IGF Iliana. cOe Valeria. APC Paul Wilson, Pacific & AP IGF ANriette. APC How to integrate regional IGFs to global Cade National n regional IGF to integrate? US IGF AP and JP Europe.   Euro DIG How many from Govs?  CS biz? Multistakeholder and Open As criteria Better to spell out and publish Thematic IGF Some conf Organized by HIV but MSH Youth IGF. to bring messages from youth to IGF Egypt.  Manual for new comers on nat'l IGF ALL IGF be MSH and Open to put website Cade I have day job, need minimalistic one need for Reports  be submitted By June Remote participation Youth IGF be treated in same way as others? Need to identify issues Thomas on reporting - have hook Concentrate on Messages No need to wait for June Report is  one direction - some expect feed-back ANriette not over burden Mark. Keep it simple Cade no commercial, told, but? Wolf. EuroDIG. Started small, but now with 500 attendance, need Secretariat.  CFP?  70+ proposals. More sophisticated process. No charge for attendees Trademark ? IGFs Chengetai: No attempt made for trademark Thomas: Who has the right to call IGF? Deliberately called as EuroDIG Need support of community Short sessions.  Flashes. 30 min sessions More flexible, innovations -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 15 11:00:44 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 12:00:44 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation memo, Morning, May 15 In-Reply-To: <4FB26125.4030102@cafonso.ca> References: <4FB26125.4030102@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Streaming is really crappy for me, so it has been hard to follow. But has anyone raised the topic of the specific things that maybe need to be changed on the methodology in order to be able to reach the "more concrete policy options" suggested on the CSTD WG? eg. type of "policy question", need for pre-assigned rapporteurs, role of rapporteurs, thematic roudtables to bring together outcomes from workshops, format that these outcomes should be communicated to "other relevant organizations".. If so, what was said about it? Marília On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi Izumi & all, interesting to know how the proposed (decided?) > ministerial meeting was questioned on the grounds of the purpose of the > IGF as a MSH initiative. > > I wonder about the role of the so-called "special advisors". Who are > they? Are they considered "volunteer staff"? Since there is no > replacement for Nitin & Markus (I understand Chengetai is playing > Markus's role in the meantime?), who decides on the "special advisors" > and other staff? I wonder about their role, again recalling this is a > MSH initiative. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 05/15/2012 10:30 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > The morning meeting ended around 1300, here is my rough memo. > > Annotated, as it is Open consultation, but all are very sketchy. > > > > izumi > > > > > > May 15, 2012 11:25 Open Consultation starts > > > > UNDESA rep – > > Opening remarks > > over 100 workshops proposed for IGF 2012 > > greater transparency, more information, contribute for better governance > > > > MR Elmir Valizda, Chair of MAG > > > > Robert Guerra > > Citizen Lab > > Update for Preparation, logistics, venue and other issues > > scarecity of details a problem – > > > > Chengetai > > Will have update, yes, just now. > > > > Constance, ISOC > > ISCO reception > > > > Question of participation of indigenes people > > rather than access to Internet, they need food, closing, shelters > > I need free and active participation from indigenes people > > > > Azerbaijan host to report: > > IGF Nov 6-9 > > Nov 5 – ministerial meeting > > info on Baku/Azerbaijan > > > > All hotels (90) with reduced corporate rates, without 18% VAT > > 46 hotels will be provided with shuttles > > 17 hotels – no shuttles > > > > Izumi read Judy’s comment: > > Physical Accessibility > > it is imperative that all locations/ venue , transport,etc is > > accessible and usable for PWD . > > > > Mervi, Finland > > Question on Ministerial Meeting > > who can participate? > > agenda? > > who are the organizer? > > > > Chair > > Mostly, ministers, but can consider to invite head of delegates > > > > Robert Guerra > > Make sure in the Host Country Agreement, for participants to feel free > > out of fear. > > > > Chair > > As Deputy minister, I will try to answer > > Registration will be happen on the IGF Website, not our own website, > > therefore, anyperson have possibility to register, > > After this information will be provide to our governmental bodies to > > issue visas and others > > About some controls; free usage of Internet > > through fix, mobile and other > > We have some restrictions and all persons tha live and work > > inAzerbaijan and if you come – can be used these technologies – suchs > > possibilitew will be provided during IGF Balu. > > > > Peter Major > > On accessibility said by Izumi mostly > > > > Judia Okite from Kenya > > adding to accessibility, add that, ^ host country to check out hotel > > if they are accessible with PWD for making booking > > > > Host > > Our staff checked all the hotels, but did not put info on this, will > > update the hotel list with this issue as well. > > > > Felix Samakande, new MAG, Zimbabwe > > reaction to Video – recollection of Lithuania experience > > restriction of time to speak but speak slowly for interpreter > > > > Chair > > Translation will be provided only in Main Session – not in workshops > > > > Constance, ISOC > > Mervi’s question – add invitation to CEOs, Civil society members > > > > Chair > >>From Kenya, we will keep this tradtion of inviting CEO (of ICANN), Civil > Society > > > > Aysha > > Comment on Ministerial, participated in Kenyan Ministerial > > important to have dialogue among all stakeholders > > > > AZ Foreign Minisry > > Visa issue – in due course > > > > Participation of all organizations – take seriously, treat every singe > > delegation in a non-discriminatory soverigh- > > IF not paritcpate from soverign countries – it’s their choice > > Linkage between of hosting event and allegation of freedom of > > expression and mediu, > > it is institutional nor, insure the norm and contineus to do so > > mis-reprsented by some media- > > is very infortunate that we are taking this time to address to > > verenate the situation > > clear – emotiona accests do not add credit to the authority of the > > organizations or rpresentatives > > > > Anna, Portugal > > > > Question about Ministerial meeting > > What is man objective of this Ministerial which countries are invited? > > which Ministry? > > we are in Multi-stakeholder event – cannot be put apart > > MSH is not about big companies, but small companies, civil society, etc > > what is the purpose of this Ministerial? > > > > Chair > > Kenya, it was the first time to have Ministerial > > > > Alice – explained the Kenyan Ministerial > > agenda – came as bottom up, discussed at East Africa IGF > > > > AZ rep > > There is discussion on how to model ministerial meeting > > we want to hear to MAG members – which model? > > all countries participated in ITU members – ITU has list of > > ministries – who is resposbile on Telecom, ICT InfoSoc -sent > > invitation letter to those countries > > Involving private sector – big companies but we can invite others > > we want to modelize and find best figure – useful > > > > Address the > > your country will be responsible and delegate your officials to that > meeting. > > ITU will channel this > > > > Wolfgang > > Question to DESA > > Nitin and Markus stepped down more than 2 years ago > > Can we expect that two positions will be filled at IGF in Baku? > > > > DESA > > Situation on Executive Coordinator and Special Advisor > > It was funded by IGF Trust fund, voluntary contributions, but > > regrettably, current voluntary contributions do not allow the > > recruitment of EC > > we are concerned about the absence of EC > > once new project document approved 1 year ago, received from Controller, > > 90 applicants applied for the EC > > Due to the financial balance project, we still have strong negative > > balance – not able to recruit the EC > > Go to IGC Website, you can see the balance of the project document > > We just canceled the announcement of the EC, not able to continue the > > recruitment, > > > > Special Advisor – prerogative of the SG, no influence to force him to > > make the decision > > > > Anriette from APC > > On Minsterial – I think it is very useful mechanism, appreciated in > Kenya – > > but IGF is different from ITU, complement each other > > IGF could take broader government and other stakeholders – on policy > > Not rely on ITU database, but to be more creative about which minister > to invite > > Thematic focus on Ministerial – to define – then which CS and minister > > > > ON human rights, -good hear to the reassurance – ask Host country to > > make documents and ask DESA to reflect them into Host Country > > agreement > > > > Chair > > according to the procedure, the host country must sign agreement with > > UN DESA, and all issues are indicated in this agreement > > Issues on transportation, visa, equipmet, computers are fulle include > > toths agreement > > And now this is agreement – w can publish them in our website. > > > > Anna Neves, Portugal > > It is up to the host country to invite which Minister, yes. If it is > > ITU event, then invite telecom ministers. but if it is IGF, then not > > only telecom ministers. > > If you use ITU Detabase, please do not call as “IGF”. > > On EC, puzzled. Strange. There is voluntary funding. > > > > Chair > > We can consider all of your proposal. During this event, you have > > possibility of contact from our delegation, you can provide some info > > on some ministries, please inform us, and we will invite these > > ministries. Please provide these. > > > > Bertrand de La Chappell > > On Visa, related to citizens of countries who may have political > > tensions and who may have difficulty – can you ensure that there will > > be no restriction. > > On EC, situation is extremely troublesome, painfully. > > It might be intentional – I don’t believe that. Choice- wrong > > intensions or inefficiency – both are bad. Current situation is > > weakening the IGF. > > Chicken and Egg –we cannot hire because of funding, funding not coming > > because of uncertainty > > canceling the process – re-launching – take months > > > > MAG could, in due time, to designate its own Chair – as an option > > A voluntary desire to solve this problem > > > > DESA > > Communicated to donor community – > > we are not limiting them, trying hard > > recent situation with Google – working with lawyers, beyond control > > hope to solve this situation as soon as possible > > Recruitment process for EC > > we stay with one rule approved by member states > > no other way. > > > > Chengetai > > HCA – treated equal as UN > > > > Qusai > > Ministerial meeting – not IGF event, right? > > AZ’s liberty – to organize > > > > > > LINCH Break > > > > Adam > > How many workshops are possible to be organized – how many rooms? > > > > Chengetai > > 128 Workshop proposals – highest number submitted > > The venue can fit all workshops > > Do we want to have 12 workshops at the same time? > > > > Grading – > > above 12 - green > > below 12 – orange > > > > SOP 49 > > Access 19 > > EI, IG4D > > CIR 10% > > TS, WF 6% > > Others - > > > > Cade - how about dynamic coalitions and Open Forum? > > > > Chengetai - we need to consider them 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 > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Tue May 15 11:09:37 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 00:09:37 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation memo, Morning, May 15 In-Reply-To: References: <4FB26125.4030102@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: No, not yet. is the simple answer. CSTD WG Report did not get into the agenda, nor its substance, it is put into the third day's agenda, somehow. izumi 2012/5/16 Marilia Maciel : > Streaming is really crappy for me, so it has been hard to follow. > But has anyone raised the topic of the specific things that maybe need to be > changed on the methodology in order to be able to reach the "more concrete > policy options" suggested on the CSTD WG? eg. type of "policy question", > need for pre-assigned rapporteurs, role of rapporteurs, thematic roudtables > to bring together outcomes from workshops, format that these outcomes should > be communicated to "other relevant organizations"..  If so, what was said > about it? > > Marília > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >> Hi Izumi & all, interesting to know how the proposed (decided?) >> ministerial meeting was questioned on the grounds of the purpose of the >> IGF as a MSH initiative. >> >> I wonder about the role of the so-called "special advisors". Who are >> they? Are they considered "volunteer staff"? Since there is no >> replacement for Nitin & Markus (I understand Chengetai is playing >> Markus's role in the meantime?), who decides on the "special advisors" >> and other staff? I wonder about their role, again recalling this is a >> MSH initiative. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 05/15/2012 10:30 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> > The morning meeting ended around 1300, here is my rough memo. >> > Annotated, as it is Open consultation, but all are very sketchy. >> > >> > izumi >> > >> > >> > May 15, 2012 11:25 Open Consultation starts >> > >> > UNDESA rep – >> > Opening remarks >> > over 100 workshops proposed for IGF 2012 >> > greater transparency, more information, contribute for better governance >> > >> > MR Elmir Valizda, Chair of MAG >> > >> > Robert Guerra >> > Citizen Lab >> > Update for Preparation, logistics, venue and other issues >> > scarecity of details a problem – >> > >> > Chengetai >> > Will have update, yes, just now. >> > >> > Constance, ISOC >> > ISCO reception >> > >> > Question of participation of indigenes people >> > rather than access to Internet, they need food, closing, shelters >> > I need free and active participation from indigenes people >> > >> > Azerbaijan host to report: >> > IGF Nov 6-9 >> > Nov 5 – ministerial meeting >> > info on Baku/Azerbaijan >> > >> > All hotels (90) with reduced corporate rates, without 18% VAT >> > 46 hotels will be provided with shuttles >> > 17 hotels – no shuttles >> > >> > Izumi read Judy’s comment: >> > Physical Accessibility >> > it is imperative that all locations/ venue , transport,etc is >> > accessible and usable for PWD . >> > >> > Mervi, Finland >> > Question on Ministerial Meeting >> > who can participate? >> > agenda? >> > who are the organizer? >> > >> > Chair >> > Mostly, ministers, but can consider to invite head of delegates >> > >> > Robert Guerra >> > Make sure in the Host Country Agreement, for participants to feel free >> > out of fear. >> > >> > Chair >> > As Deputy minister, I will try to answer >> > Registration will be happen on the IGF Website, not our own website, >> > therefore, anyperson have possibility to register, >> > After this information will be provide to our governmental bodies to >> > issue visas and others >> > About some controls; free usage of Internet >> >  through fix, mobile and other >> > We have some restrictions and all persons tha live and work >> > inAzerbaijan and if you come – can be used these technologies – suchs >> > possibilitew will be provided during IGF Balu. >> > >> > Peter Major >> > On accessibility said by Izumi mostly >> > >> > Judia Okite from Kenya >> > adding to accessibility, add that, ^ host country to check out hotel >> > if they are accessible with PWD for making booking >> > >> > Host >> > Our staff checked all the hotels, but did not put info on this, will >> > update the hotel list with this issue as well. >> > >> > Felix  Samakande, new MAG, Zimbabwe >> > reaction to Video – recollection of Lithuania experience >> > restriction of time to speak but speak slowly for interpreter >> > >> > Chair >> > Translation will be provided only in Main Session – not in workshops >> > >> > Constance, ISOC >> > Mervi’s question – add invitation to CEOs, Civil society members >> > >> > Chair >> >>From Kenya, we will keep this tradtion of inviting CEO (of ICANN), Civil >> > Society >> > >> > Aysha >> > Comment on Ministerial, participated in Kenyan Ministerial >> > important to have dialogue among all stakeholders >> > >> > AZ Foreign Minisry >> > Visa issue – in due course >> > >> > Participation of all organizations – take seriously, treat every singe >> > delegation in a non-discriminatory soverigh- >> > IF not paritcpate from soverign countries – it’s their choice >> > Linkage between of hosting event and allegation of freedom of >> > expression and mediu, >> >  it is institutional nor, insure the norm and contineus to do so >> > mis-reprsented by some media- >> > is very infortunate that we are taking this time to address to >> > verenate the situation >> > clear – emotiona accests do not add credit to the authority of the >> > organizations or rpresentatives >> > >> > Anna, Portugal >> > >> > Question about Ministerial meeting >> > What is man objective of this Ministerial which countries are invited? >> > which Ministry? >> > we are in Multi-stakeholder event – cannot be put apart >> > MSH is not about big companies, but small companies, civil society, etc >> > what is the purpose of this Ministerial? >> > >> > Chair >> > Kenya, it was the first time to have Ministerial >> > >> > Alice – explained the Kenyan Ministerial >> >  agenda – came as bottom up, discussed at East Africa IGF >> > >> > AZ rep >> > There is discussion on how to model ministerial meeting >> >  we want to hear to MAG members – which model? >> >  all countries participated in ITU members – ITU has list of >> > ministries – who is resposbile on Telecom, ICT InfoSoc  -sent >> > invitation letter to those countries >> > Involving private sector – big companies but we can invite others >> > we want to modelize and find best figure – useful >> > >> > Address the >> > your country will be responsible and delegate your officials to that >> > meeting. >> > ITU will channel this >> > >> > Wolfgang >> > Question to DESA >> > Nitin and Markus stepped down more than 2 years ago >> > Can we expect that two positions will be filled at IGF in Baku? >> > >> > DESA >> > Situation on Executive Coordinator and Special Advisor >> > It was funded by IGF Trust fund, voluntary contributions, but >> > regrettably, current voluntary contributions do not allow the >> > recruitment of EC >> > we are concerned about the absence of EC >> > once new project document approved 1 year ago, received from Controller, >> > 90 applicants applied for the EC >> > Due to the financial balance project, we still have strong negative >> > balance – not able to recruit the EC >> > Go to IGC Website, you can see the balance of the project document >> > We just canceled the announcement of the EC, not able to continue the >> > recruitment, >> > >> > Special Advisor – prerogative of the SG, no influence to force him to >> > make the decision >> > >> > Anriette from APC >> > On Minsterial – I think it is very useful mechanism, appreciated in >> > Kenya – >> > but IGF is different from ITU, complement each other >> > IGF could take broader government and other stakeholders – on policy >> > Not rely on ITU database, but to be more creative about which minister >> > to invite >> > Thematic focus on Ministerial – to define – then which CS and minister >> > >> > ON human rights, -good hear to the reassurance – ask Host country to >> > make documents and ask DESA to reflect them into Host Country >> > agreement >> > >> > Chair >> > according to the procedure, the host country must sign agreement with >> > UN DESA, and all issues are indicated in this agreement >> > Issues on transportation, visa, equipmet, computers are fulle include >> > toths agreement >> > And now this is agreement – w can publish them in our website. >> > >> > Anna Neves, Portugal >> > It is up to the host country to invite which Minister, yes. If it is >> > ITU event, then invite telecom ministers. but if it is IGF, then not >> > only telecom ministers. >> > If you use ITU Detabase, please do not call as “IGF”. >> > On EC, puzzled. Strange. There is voluntary funding. >> > >> > Chair >> > We can consider all of your proposal. During this event, you have >> > possibility of contact from our delegation, you can provide some info >> > on some ministries, please inform us, and we will invite these >> > ministries. Please provide these. >> > >> > Bertrand de La Chappell >> > On Visa, related to citizens of countries who may have political >> > tensions and who may have difficulty – can you ensure that there will >> > be no restriction. >> > On EC, situation is extremely troublesome, painfully. >> > It might be intentional – I don’t believe that. Choice- wrong >> > intensions or inefficiency – both are bad. Current situation is >> > weakening the IGF. >> > Chicken and Egg –we cannot hire because of funding, funding not coming >> > because of uncertainty >> > canceling the process – re-launching – take months >> > >> > MAG could, in due time, to designate its own Chair – as an option >> > A voluntary desire to solve this problem >> > >> > DESA >> > Communicated to donor community – >> > we are not limiting them, trying hard >> > recent situation with Google – working with lawyers, beyond control >> > hope to solve this situation as soon as possible >> > Recruitment process for EC >> > we stay with one rule approved by member states >> > no other way. >> > >> > Chengetai >> > HCA – treated equal as UN >> > >> > Qusai >> > Ministerial meeting – not IGF event, right? >> > AZ’s liberty – to organize >> > >> > >> > LINCH Break >> > >> > Adam >> > How many workshops are possible to be organized – how many rooms? >> > >> > Chengetai >> > 128 Workshop proposals – highest number submitted >> > The venue can fit all workshops >> > Do we want to have 12 workshops at the same time? >> > >> > Grading – >> > above 12 - green >> > below 12 – orange >> > >> > SOP  49 >> > Access 19 >> > EI, IG4D >> > CIR 10% >> > TS, WF  6% >> > Others - >> > >> > Cade - how about dynamic coalitions and Open Forum? >> > >> > Chengetai - we need to consider them 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 >> > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil --                      >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Tue May 15 11:13:12 2012 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 00:13:12 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation memo, Morning, May 15 In-Reply-To: References: <4FB26125.4030102@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: There was no clear conclusion on the Ministerial meeting. Concerns or requests were made that it be Multi-stakeholder, as much as possible, The Chair, Azerbaijan host, replied that they will take these into consideration. No conclusion if the "side Event" by the host government be part of IGF or not. Strictly speaking, it is not, but from the wider view, it is, is my personal view. izumi 2012/5/15 Roland Perry : > In message <4FB26125.4030102 at cafonso.ca>, at 10:59:01 on Tue, 15 May 2012, > Carlos A. Afonso writes > >> Hi Izumi & all, interesting to know how the proposed (decided?) >> ministerial meeting was questioned on the grounds of the purpose of the >> IGF as a MSH initiative. > > > Does that mean that Civil Society, Internet Technical Community etc can't > have pre-meets either? Do such pre-meets have to allow observers from the > other stakeholders. > -- > Roland Perry > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue May 15 11:15:50 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 12:15:50 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation memo, Morning, May 15 In-Reply-To: References: <4FB26125.4030102@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Such a pitty. I believed that there was a commitment from all stakeholder groups that participated on the WG that, as far as possible, the next IGF should incorporate suggestions for improvement. There are points of the report that address several of the aspects that have been mentioned all along this afternoon, such as diversifying participation, criteria for sponsoring speakers, methodology. Hard to understand why it has been ignored. Marília On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > No, not yet. is the simple answer. > CSTD WG Report did not get into the agenda, nor its substance, > it is put into the third day's agenda, somehow. > > izumi > > 2012/5/16 Marilia Maciel : > > Streaming is really crappy for me, so it has been hard to follow. > > But has anyone raised the topic of the specific things that maybe need > to be > > changed on the methodology in order to be able to reach the "more > concrete > > policy options" suggested on the CSTD WG? eg. type of "policy question", > > need for pre-assigned rapporteurs, role of rapporteurs, thematic > roudtables > > to bring together outcomes from workshops, format that these outcomes > should > > be communicated to "other relevant organizations".. If so, what was said > > about it? > > > > Marília > > > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Carlos A. Afonso > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Izumi & all, interesting to know how the proposed (decided?) > >> ministerial meeting was questioned on the grounds of the purpose of the > >> IGF as a MSH initiative. > >> > >> I wonder about the role of the so-called "special advisors". Who are > >> they? Are they considered "volunteer staff"? Since there is no > >> replacement for Nitin & Markus (I understand Chengetai is playing > >> Markus's role in the meantime?), who decides on the "special advisors" > >> and other staff? I wonder about their role, again recalling this is a > >> MSH initiative. > >> > >> fraternal regards > >> > >> --c.a. > >> > >> On 05/15/2012 10:30 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> > The morning meeting ended around 1300, here is my rough memo. > >> > Annotated, as it is Open consultation, but all are very sketchy. > >> > > >> > izumi > >> > > >> > > >> > May 15, 2012 11:25 Open Consultation starts > >> > > >> > UNDESA rep – > >> > Opening remarks > >> > over 100 workshops proposed for IGF 2012 > >> > greater transparency, more information, contribute for better > governance > >> > > >> > MR Elmir Valizda, Chair of MAG > >> > > >> > Robert Guerra > >> > Citizen Lab > >> > Update for Preparation, logistics, venue and other issues > >> > scarecity of details a problem – > >> > > >> > Chengetai > >> > Will have update, yes, just now. > >> > > >> > Constance, ISOC > >> > ISCO reception > >> > > >> > Question of participation of indigenes people > >> > rather than access to Internet, they need food, closing, shelters > >> > I need free and active participation from indigenes people > >> > > >> > Azerbaijan host to report: > >> > IGF Nov 6-9 > >> > Nov 5 – ministerial meeting > >> > info on Baku/Azerbaijan > >> > > >> > All hotels (90) with reduced corporate rates, without 18% VAT > >> > 46 hotels will be provided with shuttles > >> > 17 hotels – no shuttles > >> > > >> > Izumi read Judy’s comment: > >> > Physical Accessibility > >> > it is imperative that all locations/ venue , transport,etc is > >> > accessible and usable for PWD . > >> > > >> > Mervi, Finland > >> > Question on Ministerial Meeting > >> > who can participate? > >> > agenda? > >> > who are the organizer? > >> > > >> > Chair > >> > Mostly, ministers, but can consider to invite head of delegates > >> > > >> > Robert Guerra > >> > Make sure in the Host Country Agreement, for participants to feel free > >> > out of fear. > >> > > >> > Chair > >> > As Deputy minister, I will try to answer > >> > Registration will be happen on the IGF Website, not our own website, > >> > therefore, anyperson have possibility to register, > >> > After this information will be provide to our governmental bodies to > >> > issue visas and others > >> > About some controls; free usage of Internet > >> > through fix, mobile and other > >> > We have some restrictions and all persons tha live and work > >> > inAzerbaijan and if you come – can be used these technologies – suchs > >> > possibilitew will be provided during IGF Balu. > >> > > >> > Peter Major > >> > On accessibility said by Izumi mostly > >> > > >> > Judia Okite from Kenya > >> > adding to accessibility, add that, ^ host country to check out hotel > >> > if they are accessible with PWD for making booking > >> > > >> > Host > >> > Our staff checked all the hotels, but did not put info on this, will > >> > update the hotel list with this issue as well. > >> > > >> > Felix Samakande, new MAG, Zimbabwe > >> > reaction to Video – recollection of Lithuania experience > >> > restriction of time to speak but speak slowly for interpreter > >> > > >> > Chair > >> > Translation will be provided only in Main Session – not in workshops > >> > > >> > Constance, ISOC > >> > Mervi’s question – add invitation to CEOs, Civil society members > >> > > >> > Chair > >> >>From Kenya, we will keep this tradtion of inviting CEO (of ICANN), > Civil > >> > Society > >> > > >> > Aysha > >> > Comment on Ministerial, participated in Kenyan Ministerial > >> > important to have dialogue among all stakeholders > >> > > >> > AZ Foreign Minisry > >> > Visa issue – in due course > >> > > >> > Participation of all organizations – take seriously, treat every singe > >> > delegation in a non-discriminatory soverigh- > >> > IF not paritcpate from soverign countries – it’s their choice > >> > Linkage between of hosting event and allegation of freedom of > >> > expression and mediu, > >> > it is institutional nor, insure the norm and contineus to do so > >> > mis-reprsented by some media- > >> > is very infortunate that we are taking this time to address to > >> > verenate the situation > >> > clear – emotiona accests do not add credit to the authority of the > >> > organizations or rpresentatives > >> > > >> > Anna, Portugal > >> > > >> > Question about Ministerial meeting > >> > What is man objective of this Ministerial which countries are invited? > >> > which Ministry? > >> > we are in Multi-stakeholder event – cannot be put apart > >> > MSH is not about big companies, but small companies, civil society, > etc > >> > what is the purpose of this Ministerial? > >> > > >> > Chair > >> > Kenya, it was the first time to have Ministerial > >> > > >> > Alice – explained the Kenyan Ministerial > >> > agenda – came as bottom up, discussed at East Africa IGF > >> > > >> > AZ rep > >> > There is discussion on how to model ministerial meeting > >> > we want to hear to MAG members – which model? > >> > all countries participated in ITU members – ITU has list of > >> > ministries – who is resposbile on Telecom, ICT InfoSoc -sent > >> > invitation letter to those countries > >> > Involving private sector – big companies but we can invite others > >> > we want to modelize and find best figure – useful > >> > > >> > Address the > >> > your country will be responsible and delegate your officials to that > >> > meeting. > >> > ITU will channel this > >> > > >> > Wolfgang > >> > Question to DESA > >> > Nitin and Markus stepped down more than 2 years ago > >> > Can we expect that two positions will be filled at IGF in Baku? > >> > > >> > DESA > >> > Situation on Executive Coordinator and Special Advisor > >> > It was funded by IGF Trust fund, voluntary contributions, but > >> > regrettably, current voluntary contributions do not allow the > >> > recruitment of EC > >> > we are concerned about the absence of EC > >> > once new project document approved 1 year ago, received from > Controller, > >> > 90 applicants applied for the EC > >> > Due to the financial balance project, we still have strong negative > >> > balance – not able to recruit the EC > >> > Go to IGC Website, you can see the balance of the project document > >> > We just canceled the announcement of the EC, not able to continue the > >> > recruitment, > >> > > >> > Special Advisor – prerogative of the SG, no influence to force him to > >> > make the decision > >> > > >> > Anriette from APC > >> > On Minsterial – I think it is very useful mechanism, appreciated in > >> > Kenya – > >> > but IGF is different from ITU, complement each other > >> > IGF could take broader government and other stakeholders – on policy > >> > Not rely on ITU database, but to be more creative about which minister > >> > to invite > >> > Thematic focus on Ministerial – to define – then which CS and minister > >> > > >> > ON human rights, -good hear to the reassurance – ask Host country to > >> > make documents and ask DESA to reflect them into Host Country > >> > agreement > >> > > >> > Chair > >> > according to the procedure, the host country must sign agreement with > >> > UN DESA, and all issues are indicated in this agreement > >> > Issues on transportation, visa, equipmet, computers are fulle include > >> > toths agreement > >> > And now this is agreement – w can publish them in our website. > >> > > >> > Anna Neves, Portugal > >> > It is up to the host country to invite which Minister, yes. If it is > >> > ITU event, then invite telecom ministers. but if it is IGF, then not > >> > only telecom ministers. > >> > If you use ITU Detabase, please do not call as “IGF”. > >> > On EC, puzzled. Strange. There is voluntary funding. > >> > > >> > Chair > >> > We can consider all of your proposal. During this event, you have > >> > possibility of contact from our delegation, you can provide some info > >> > on some ministries, please inform us, and we will invite these > >> > ministries. Please provide these. > >> > > >> > Bertrand de La Chappell > >> > On Visa, related to citizens of countries who may have political > >> > tensions and who may have difficulty – can you ensure that there will > >> > be no restriction. > >> > On EC, situation is extremely troublesome, painfully. > >> > It might be intentional – I don’t believe that. Choice- wrong > >> > intensions or inefficiency – both are bad. Current situation is > >> > weakening the IGF. > >> > Chicken and Egg –we cannot hire because of funding, funding not coming > >> > because of uncertainty > >> > canceling the process – re-launching – take months > >> > > >> > MAG could, in due time, to designate its own Chair – as an option > >> > A voluntary desire to solve this problem > >> > > >> > DESA > >> > Communicated to donor community – > >> > we are not limiting them, trying hard > >> > recent situation with Google – working with lawyers, beyond control > >> > hope to solve this situation as soon as possible > >> > Recruitment process for EC > >> > we stay with one rule approved by member states > >> > no other way. > >> > > >> > Chengetai > >> > HCA – treated equal as UN > >> > > >> > Qusai > >> > Ministerial meeting – not IGF event, right? > >> > AZ’s liberty – to organize > >> > > >> > > >> > LINCH Break > >> > > >> > Adam > >> > How many workshops are possible to be organized – how many rooms? > >> > > >> > Chengetai > >> > 128 Workshop proposals – highest number submitted > >> > The venue can fit all workshops > >> > Do we want to have 12 workshops at the same time? > >> > > >> > Grading – > >> > above 12 - green > >> > below 12 – orange > >> > > >> > SOP 49 > >> > Access 19 > >> > EI, IG4D > >> > CIR 10% > >> > TS, WF 6% > >> > Others - > >> > > >> > Cade - how about dynamic coalitions and Open Forum? > >> > > >> > Chengetai - we need to consider them 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 > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > > FGV Direito Rio > > > > Center for Technology and Society > > Getulio Vargas Foundation > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Tue May 15 11:20:56 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 00:20:56 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation memo, Morning, May 15 In-Reply-To: References: <4FB26125.4030102@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Ah, Marilia, don't get me wrong, I mean some of the points will be discussed in the MAG meeting tomorrow, I am sure. BUT we are sort of mostly tasked to discuss about the workshop, and is difficult to broaden the scope. I might be wrong, so correct me, by other members here. izumi 2012/5/16 Marilia Maciel : > Such a pitty. I believed that there was a commitment from all stakeholder > groups that participated on the WG that, as far as possible, the next IGF > should incorporate suggestions for improvement. There are points of the > report that address several of the aspects that have been mentioned all > along this afternoon, such as diversifying participation, criteria for > sponsoring speakers, methodology. > > Hard to understand why it has been ignored. > Marília > > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >> No, not yet. is the simple answer. >> CSTD WG Report did not get into the agenda, nor its substance, >> it is put into the third day's agenda, somehow. >> >> izumi >> >> 2012/5/16 Marilia Maciel : >> > Streaming is really crappy for me, so it has been hard to follow. >> > But has anyone raised the topic of the specific things that maybe need >> > to be >> > changed on the methodology in order to be able to reach the "more >> > concrete >> > policy options" suggested on the CSTD WG? eg. type of "policy question", >> > need for pre-assigned rapporteurs, role of rapporteurs, thematic >> > roudtables >> > to bring together outcomes from workshops, format that these outcomes >> > should >> > be communicated to "other relevant organizations"..  If so, what was >> > said >> > about it? >> > >> > Marília >> > >> > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Carlos A. Afonso >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Izumi & all, interesting to know how the proposed (decided?) >> >> ministerial meeting was questioned on the grounds of the purpose of the >> >> IGF as a MSH initiative. >> >> >> >> I wonder about the role of the so-called "special advisors". Who are >> >> they? Are they considered "volunteer staff"? Since there is no >> >> replacement for Nitin & Markus (I understand Chengetai is playing >> >> Markus's role in the meantime?), who decides on the "special advisors" >> >> and other staff? I wonder about their role, again recalling this is a >> >> MSH initiative. >> >> >> >> fraternal regards >> >> >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> >> On 05/15/2012 10:30 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >> > The morning meeting ended around 1300, here is my rough memo. >> >> > Annotated, as it is Open consultation, but all are very sketchy. >> >> > >> >> > izumi >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > May 15, 2012 11:25 Open Consultation starts >> >> > >> >> > UNDESA rep – >> >> > Opening remarks >> >> > over 100 workshops proposed for IGF 2012 >> >> > greater transparency, more information, contribute for better >> >> > governance >> >> > >> >> > MR Elmir Valizda, Chair of MAG >> >> > >> >> > Robert Guerra >> >> > Citizen Lab >> >> > Update for Preparation, logistics, venue and other issues >> >> > scarecity of details a problem – >> >> > >> >> > Chengetai >> >> > Will have update, yes, just now. >> >> > >> >> > Constance, ISOC >> >> > ISCO reception >> >> > >> >> > Question of participation of indigenes people >> >> > rather than access to Internet, they need food, closing, shelters >> >> > I need free and active participation from indigenes people >> >> > >> >> > Azerbaijan host to report: >> >> > IGF Nov 6-9 >> >> > Nov 5 – ministerial meeting >> >> > info on Baku/Azerbaijan >> >> > >> >> > All hotels (90) with reduced corporate rates, without 18% VAT >> >> > 46 hotels will be provided with shuttles >> >> > 17 hotels – no shuttles >> >> > >> >> > Izumi read Judy’s comment: >> >> > Physical Accessibility >> >> > it is imperative that all locations/ venue , transport,etc is >> >> > accessible and usable for PWD . >> >> > >> >> > Mervi, Finland >> >> > Question on Ministerial Meeting >> >> > who can participate? >> >> > agenda? >> >> > who are the organizer? >> >> > >> >> > Chair >> >> > Mostly, ministers, but can consider to invite head of delegates >> >> > >> >> > Robert Guerra >> >> > Make sure in the Host Country Agreement, for participants to feel >> >> > free >> >> > out of fear. >> >> > >> >> > Chair >> >> > As Deputy minister, I will try to answer >> >> > Registration will be happen on the IGF Website, not our own website, >> >> > therefore, anyperson have possibility to register, >> >> > After this information will be provide to our governmental bodies to >> >> > issue visas and others >> >> > About some controls; free usage of Internet >> >> >  through fix, mobile and other >> >> > We have some restrictions and all persons tha live and work >> >> > inAzerbaijan and if you come – can be used these technologies – suchs >> >> > possibilitew will be provided during IGF Balu. >> >> > >> >> > Peter Major >> >> > On accessibility said by Izumi mostly >> >> > >> >> > Judia Okite from Kenya >> >> > adding to accessibility, add that, ^ host country to check out hotel >> >> > if they are accessible with PWD for making booking >> >> > >> >> > Host >> >> > Our staff checked all the hotels, but did not put info on this, will >> >> > update the hotel list with this issue as well. >> >> > >> >> > Felix  Samakande, new MAG, Zimbabwe >> >> > reaction to Video – recollection of Lithuania experience >> >> > restriction of time to speak but speak slowly for interpreter >> >> > >> >> > Chair >> >> > Translation will be provided only in Main Session – not in workshops >> >> > >> >> > Constance, ISOC >> >> > Mervi’s question – add invitation to CEOs, Civil society members >> >> > >> >> > Chair >> >> >>From Kenya, we will keep this tradtion of inviting CEO (of ICANN), >> >> > Civil >> >> > Society >> >> > >> >> > Aysha >> >> > Comment on Ministerial, participated in Kenyan Ministerial >> >> > important to have dialogue among all stakeholders >> >> > >> >> > AZ Foreign Minisry >> >> > Visa issue – in due course >> >> > >> >> > Participation of all organizations – take seriously, treat every >> >> > singe >> >> > delegation in a non-discriminatory soverigh- >> >> > IF not paritcpate from soverign countries – it’s their choice >> >> > Linkage between of hosting event and allegation of freedom of >> >> > expression and mediu, >> >> >  it is institutional nor, insure the norm and contineus to do so >> >> > mis-reprsented by some media- >> >> > is very infortunate that we are taking this time to address to >> >> > verenate the situation >> >> > clear – emotiona accests do not add credit to the authority of the >> >> > organizations or rpresentatives >> >> > >> >> > Anna, Portugal >> >> > >> >> > Question about Ministerial meeting >> >> > What is man objective of this Ministerial which countries are >> >> > invited? >> >> > which Ministry? >> >> > we are in Multi-stakeholder event – cannot be put apart >> >> > MSH is not about big companies, but small companies, civil society, >> >> > etc >> >> > what is the purpose of this Ministerial? >> >> > >> >> > Chair >> >> > Kenya, it was the first time to have Ministerial >> >> > >> >> > Alice – explained the Kenyan Ministerial >> >> >  agenda – came as bottom up, discussed at East Africa IGF >> >> > >> >> > AZ rep >> >> > There is discussion on how to model ministerial meeting >> >> >  we want to hear to MAG members – which model? >> >> >  all countries participated in ITU members – ITU has list of >> >> > ministries – who is resposbile on Telecom, ICT InfoSoc  -sent >> >> > invitation letter to those countries >> >> > Involving private sector – big companies but we can invite others >> >> > we want to modelize and find best figure – useful >> >> > >> >> > Address the >> >> > your country will be responsible and delegate your officials to that >> >> > meeting. >> >> > ITU will channel this >> >> > >> >> > Wolfgang >> >> > Question to DESA >> >> > Nitin and Markus stepped down more than 2 years ago >> >> > Can we expect that two positions will be filled at IGF in Baku? >> >> > >> >> > DESA >> >> > Situation on Executive Coordinator and Special Advisor >> >> > It was funded by IGF Trust fund, voluntary contributions, but >> >> > regrettably, current voluntary contributions do not allow the >> >> > recruitment of EC >> >> > we are concerned about the absence of EC >> >> > once new project document approved 1 year ago, received from >> >> > Controller, >> >> > 90 applicants applied for the EC >> >> > Due to the financial balance project, we still have strong negative >> >> > balance – not able to recruit the EC >> >> > Go to IGC Website, you can see the balance of the project document >> >> > We just canceled the announcement of the EC, not able to continue the >> >> > recruitment, >> >> > >> >> > Special Advisor – prerogative of the SG, no influence to force him to >> >> > make the decision >> >> > >> >> > Anriette from APC >> >> > On Minsterial – I think it is very useful mechanism, appreciated in >> >> > Kenya – >> >> > but IGF is different from ITU, complement each other >> >> > IGF could take broader government and other stakeholders – on policy >> >> > Not rely on ITU database, but to be more creative about which >> >> > minister >> >> > to invite >> >> > Thematic focus on Ministerial – to define – then which CS and >> >> > minister >> >> > >> >> > ON human rights, -good hear to the reassurance – ask Host country to >> >> > make documents and ask DESA to reflect them into Host Country >> >> > agreement >> >> > >> >> > Chair >> >> > according to the procedure, the host country must sign agreement with >> >> > UN DESA, and all issues are indicated in this agreement >> >> > Issues on transportation, visa, equipmet, computers are fulle include >> >> > toths agreement >> >> > And now this is agreement – w can publish them in our website. >> >> > >> >> > Anna Neves, Portugal >> >> > It is up to the host country to invite which Minister, yes. If it is >> >> > ITU event, then invite telecom ministers. but if it is IGF, then not >> >> > only telecom ministers. >> >> > If you use ITU Detabase, please do not call as “IGF”. >> >> > On EC, puzzled. Strange. There is voluntary funding. >> >> > >> >> > Chair >> >> > We can consider all of your proposal. During this event, you have >> >> > possibility of contact from our delegation, you can provide some info >> >> > on some ministries, please inform us, and we will invite these >> >> > ministries. Please provide these. >> >> > >> >> > Bertrand de La Chappell >> >> > On Visa, related to citizens of countries who may have political >> >> > tensions and who may have difficulty – can you ensure that there will >> >> > be no restriction. >> >> > On EC, situation is extremely troublesome, painfully. >> >> > It might be intentional – I don’t believe that. Choice- wrong >> >> > intensions or inefficiency – both are bad. Current situation is >> >> > weakening the IGF. >> >> > Chicken and Egg –we cannot hire because of funding, funding not >> >> > coming >> >> > because of uncertainty >> >> > canceling the process – re-launching – take months >> >> > >> >> > MAG could, in due time, to designate its own Chair – as an option >> >> > A voluntary desire to solve this problem >> >> > >> >> > DESA >> >> > Communicated to donor community – >> >> > we are not limiting them, trying hard >> >> > recent situation with Google – working with lawyers, beyond control >> >> > hope to solve this situation as soon as possible >> >> > Recruitment process for EC >> >> > we stay with one rule approved by member states >> >> > no other way. >> >> > >> >> > Chengetai >> >> > HCA – treated equal as UN >> >> > >> >> > Qusai >> >> > Ministerial meeting – not IGF event, right? >> >> > AZ’s liberty – to organize >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > LINCH Break >> >> > >> >> > Adam >> >> > How many workshops are possible to be organized – how many rooms? >> >> > >> >> > Chengetai >> >> > 128 Workshop proposals – highest number submitted >> >> > The venue can fit all workshops >> >> > Do we want to have 12 workshops at the same time? >> >> > >> >> > Grading – >> >> > above 12 - green >> >> > below 12 – orange >> >> > >> >> > SOP  49 >> >> > Access 19 >> >> > EI, IG4D >> >> > CIR 10% >> >> > TS, WF  6% >> >> > Others - >> >> > >> >> > Cade - how about dynamic coalitions and Open Forum? >> >> > >> >> > Chengetai - we need to consider them 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 >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >> > FGV Direito Rio >> > >> > Center for Technology and Society >> > Getulio Vargas Foundation >> > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil >> >> >> >> -- >>                      >> Izumi Aizu << >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> Japan >> www.anr.org > > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil --                      >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue May 15 11:35:56 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 12:35:56 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation memo, Morning, May 15 In-Reply-To: References: <4FB26125.4030102@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Thanks for the clarification, Izumi. I just felt that the bits and pieces I could hear in the streaming were very connected with the report. Sorry for any misunderstanding. M On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Ah, Marilia, don't get me wrong, I mean some of the points will be > discussed > in the MAG meeting tomorrow, I am sure. BUT we are sort of mostly tasked > to discuss about the workshop, and is difficult to broaden the scope. > > I might be wrong, so correct me, by other members here. > > izumi > > > 2012/5/16 Marilia Maciel : > > Such a pitty. I believed that there was a commitment from all stakeholder > > groups that participated on the WG that, as far as possible, the next IGF > > should incorporate suggestions for improvement. There are points of the > > report that address several of the aspects that have been mentioned all > > along this afternoon, such as diversifying participation, criteria for > > sponsoring speakers, methodology. > > > > Hard to understand why it has been ignored. > > Marília > > > > > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> > >> No, not yet. is the simple answer. > >> CSTD WG Report did not get into the agenda, nor its substance, > >> it is put into the third day's agenda, somehow. > >> > >> izumi > >> > >> 2012/5/16 Marilia Maciel : > >> > Streaming is really crappy for me, so it has been hard to follow. > >> > But has anyone raised the topic of the specific things that maybe need > >> > to be > >> > changed on the methodology in order to be able to reach the "more > >> > concrete > >> > policy options" suggested on the CSTD WG? eg. type of "policy > question", > >> > need for pre-assigned rapporteurs, role of rapporteurs, thematic > >> > roudtables > >> > to bring together outcomes from workshops, format that these outcomes > >> > should > >> > be communicated to "other relevant organizations".. If so, what was > >> > said > >> > about it? > >> > > >> > Marília > >> > > >> > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Carlos A. Afonso > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Hi Izumi & all, interesting to know how the proposed (decided?) > >> >> ministerial meeting was questioned on the grounds of the purpose of > the > >> >> IGF as a MSH initiative. > >> >> > >> >> I wonder about the role of the so-called "special advisors". Who are > >> >> they? Are they considered "volunteer staff"? Since there is no > >> >> replacement for Nitin & Markus (I understand Chengetai is playing > >> >> Markus's role in the meantime?), who decides on the "special > advisors" > >> >> and other staff? I wonder about their role, again recalling this is a > >> >> MSH initiative. > >> >> > >> >> fraternal regards > >> >> > >> >> --c.a. > >> >> > >> >> On 05/15/2012 10:30 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> >> > The morning meeting ended around 1300, here is my rough memo. > >> >> > Annotated, as it is Open consultation, but all are very sketchy. > >> >> > > >> >> > izumi > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > May 15, 2012 11:25 Open Consultation starts > >> >> > > >> >> > UNDESA rep – > >> >> > Opening remarks > >> >> > over 100 workshops proposed for IGF 2012 > >> >> > greater transparency, more information, contribute for better > >> >> > governance > >> >> > > >> >> > MR Elmir Valizda, Chair of MAG > >> >> > > >> >> > Robert Guerra > >> >> > Citizen Lab > >> >> > Update for Preparation, logistics, venue and other issues > >> >> > scarecity of details a problem – > >> >> > > >> >> > Chengetai > >> >> > Will have update, yes, just now. > >> >> > > >> >> > Constance, ISOC > >> >> > ISCO reception > >> >> > > >> >> > Question of participation of indigenes people > >> >> > rather than access to Internet, they need food, closing, shelters > >> >> > I need free and active participation from indigenes people > >> >> > > >> >> > Azerbaijan host to report: > >> >> > IGF Nov 6-9 > >> >> > Nov 5 – ministerial meeting > >> >> > info on Baku/Azerbaijan > >> >> > > >> >> > All hotels (90) with reduced corporate rates, without 18% VAT > >> >> > 46 hotels will be provided with shuttles > >> >> > 17 hotels – no shuttles > >> >> > > >> >> > Izumi read Judy’s comment: > >> >> > Physical Accessibility > >> >> > it is imperative that all locations/ venue , transport,etc is > >> >> > accessible and usable for PWD . > >> >> > > >> >> > Mervi, Finland > >> >> > Question on Ministerial Meeting > >> >> > who can participate? > >> >> > agenda? > >> >> > who are the organizer? > >> >> > > >> >> > Chair > >> >> > Mostly, ministers, but can consider to invite head of delegates > >> >> > > >> >> > Robert Guerra > >> >> > Make sure in the Host Country Agreement, for participants to feel > >> >> > free > >> >> > out of fear. > >> >> > > >> >> > Chair > >> >> > As Deputy minister, I will try to answer > >> >> > Registration will be happen on the IGF Website, not our own > website, > >> >> > therefore, anyperson have possibility to register, > >> >> > After this information will be provide to our governmental bodies > to > >> >> > issue visas and others > >> >> > About some controls; free usage of Internet > >> >> > through fix, mobile and other > >> >> > We have some restrictions and all persons tha live and work > >> >> > inAzerbaijan and if you come – can be used these technologies – > suchs > >> >> > possibilitew will be provided during IGF Balu. > >> >> > > >> >> > Peter Major > >> >> > On accessibility said by Izumi mostly > >> >> > > >> >> > Judia Okite from Kenya > >> >> > adding to accessibility, add that, ^ host country to check out > hotel > >> >> > if they are accessible with PWD for making booking > >> >> > > >> >> > Host > >> >> > Our staff checked all the hotels, but did not put info on this, > will > >> >> > update the hotel list with this issue as well. > >> >> > > >> >> > Felix Samakande, new MAG, Zimbabwe > >> >> > reaction to Video – recollection of Lithuania experience > >> >> > restriction of time to speak but speak slowly for interpreter > >> >> > > >> >> > Chair > >> >> > Translation will be provided only in Main Session – not in > workshops > >> >> > > >> >> > Constance, ISOC > >> >> > Mervi’s question – add invitation to CEOs, Civil society members > >> >> > > >> >> > Chair > >> >> >>From Kenya, we will keep this tradtion of inviting CEO (of ICANN), > >> >> > Civil > >> >> > Society > >> >> > > >> >> > Aysha > >> >> > Comment on Ministerial, participated in Kenyan Ministerial > >> >> > important to have dialogue among all stakeholders > >> >> > > >> >> > AZ Foreign Minisry > >> >> > Visa issue – in due course > >> >> > > >> >> > Participation of all organizations – take seriously, treat every > >> >> > singe > >> >> > delegation in a non-discriminatory soverigh- > >> >> > IF not paritcpate from soverign countries – it’s their choice > >> >> > Linkage between of hosting event and allegation of freedom of > >> >> > expression and mediu, > >> >> > it is institutional nor, insure the norm and contineus to do so > >> >> > mis-reprsented by some media- > >> >> > is very infortunate that we are taking this time to address to > >> >> > verenate the situation > >> >> > clear – emotiona accests do not add credit to the authority of the > >> >> > organizations or rpresentatives > >> >> > > >> >> > Anna, Portugal > >> >> > > >> >> > Question about Ministerial meeting > >> >> > What is man objective of this Ministerial which countries are > >> >> > invited? > >> >> > which Ministry? > >> >> > we are in Multi-stakeholder event – cannot be put apart > >> >> > MSH is not about big companies, but small companies, civil society, > >> >> > etc > >> >> > what is the purpose of this Ministerial? > >> >> > > >> >> > Chair > >> >> > Kenya, it was the first time to have Ministerial > >> >> > > >> >> > Alice – explained the Kenyan Ministerial > >> >> > agenda – came as bottom up, discussed at East Africa IGF > >> >> > > >> >> > AZ rep > >> >> > There is discussion on how to model ministerial meeting > >> >> > we want to hear to MAG members – which model? > >> >> > all countries participated in ITU members – ITU has list of > >> >> > ministries – who is resposbile on Telecom, ICT InfoSoc -sent > >> >> > invitation letter to those countries > >> >> > Involving private sector – big companies but we can invite others > >> >> > we want to modelize and find best figure – useful > >> >> > > >> >> > Address the > >> >> > your country will be responsible and delegate your officials to > that > >> >> > meeting. > >> >> > ITU will channel this > >> >> > > >> >> > Wolfgang > >> >> > Question to DESA > >> >> > Nitin and Markus stepped down more than 2 years ago > >> >> > Can we expect that two positions will be filled at IGF in Baku? > >> >> > > >> >> > DESA > >> >> > Situation on Executive Coordinator and Special Advisor > >> >> > It was funded by IGF Trust fund, voluntary contributions, but > >> >> > regrettably, current voluntary contributions do not allow the > >> >> > recruitment of EC > >> >> > we are concerned about the absence of EC > >> >> > once new project document approved 1 year ago, received from > >> >> > Controller, > >> >> > 90 applicants applied for the EC > >> >> > Due to the financial balance project, we still have strong negative > >> >> > balance – not able to recruit the EC > >> >> > Go to IGC Website, you can see the balance of the project document > >> >> > We just canceled the announcement of the EC, not able to continue > the > >> >> > recruitment, > >> >> > > >> >> > Special Advisor – prerogative of the SG, no influence to force him > to > >> >> > make the decision > >> >> > > >> >> > Anriette from APC > >> >> > On Minsterial – I think it is very useful mechanism, appreciated in > >> >> > Kenya – > >> >> > but IGF is different from ITU, complement each other > >> >> > IGF could take broader government and other stakeholders – on > policy > >> >> > Not rely on ITU database, but to be more creative about which > >> >> > minister > >> >> > to invite > >> >> > Thematic focus on Ministerial – to define – then which CS and > >> >> > minister > >> >> > > >> >> > ON human rights, -good hear to the reassurance – ask Host country > to > >> >> > make documents and ask DESA to reflect them into Host Country > >> >> > agreement > >> >> > > >> >> > Chair > >> >> > according to the procedure, the host country must sign agreement > with > >> >> > UN DESA, and all issues are indicated in this agreement > >> >> > Issues on transportation, visa, equipmet, computers are fulle > include > >> >> > toths agreement > >> >> > And now this is agreement – w can publish them in our website. > >> >> > > >> >> > Anna Neves, Portugal > >> >> > It is up to the host country to invite which Minister, yes. If it > is > >> >> > ITU event, then invite telecom ministers. but if it is IGF, then > not > >> >> > only telecom ministers. > >> >> > If you use ITU Detabase, please do not call as “IGF”. > >> >> > On EC, puzzled. Strange. There is voluntary funding. > >> >> > > >> >> > Chair > >> >> > We can consider all of your proposal. During this event, you have > >> >> > possibility of contact from our delegation, you can provide some > info > >> >> > on some ministries, please inform us, and we will invite these > >> >> > ministries. Please provide these. > >> >> > > >> >> > Bertrand de La Chappell > >> >> > On Visa, related to citizens of countries who may have political > >> >> > tensions and who may have difficulty – can you ensure that there > will > >> >> > be no restriction. > >> >> > On EC, situation is extremely troublesome, painfully. > >> >> > It might be intentional – I don’t believe that. Choice- wrong > >> >> > intensions or inefficiency – both are bad. Current situation is > >> >> > weakening the IGF. > >> >> > Chicken and Egg –we cannot hire because of funding, funding not > >> >> > coming > >> >> > because of uncertainty > >> >> > canceling the process – re-launching – take months > >> >> > > >> >> > MAG could, in due time, to designate its own Chair – as an option > >> >> > A voluntary desire to solve this problem > >> >> > > >> >> > DESA > >> >> > Communicated to donor community – > >> >> > we are not limiting them, trying hard > >> >> > recent situation with Google – working with lawyers, beyond control > >> >> > hope to solve this situation as soon as possible > >> >> > Recruitment process for EC > >> >> > we stay with one rule approved by member states > >> >> > no other way. > >> >> > > >> >> > Chengetai > >> >> > HCA – treated equal as UN > >> >> > > >> >> > Qusai > >> >> > Ministerial meeting – not IGF event, right? > >> >> > AZ’s liberty – to organize > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > LINCH Break > >> >> > > >> >> > Adam > >> >> > How many workshops are possible to be organized – how many rooms? > >> >> > > >> >> > Chengetai > >> >> > 128 Workshop proposals – highest number submitted > >> >> > The venue can fit all workshops > >> >> > Do we want to have 12 workshops at the same time? > >> >> > > >> >> > Grading – > >> >> > above 12 - green > >> >> > below 12 – orange > >> >> > > >> >> > SOP 49 > >> >> > Access 19 > >> >> > EI, IG4D > >> >> > CIR 10% > >> >> > TS, WF 6% > >> >> > Others - > >> >> > > >> >> > Cade - how about dynamic coalitions and Open Forum? > >> >> > > >> >> > Chengetai - we need to consider them 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 > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > >> > FGV Direito Rio > >> > > >> > Center for Technology and Society > >> > Getulio Vargas Foundation > >> > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> >> Izumi Aizu << > >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > >> Japan > >> www.anr.org > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > > FGV Direito Rio > > > > Center for Technology and Society > > Getulio Vargas Foundation > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Tue May 15 11:38:03 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 00:38:03 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation memo, Morning, May 15 In-Reply-To: References: <4FB26125.4030102@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: No Marilia, your concern is very legitimate, and also sorry for the bad audio quality. Some people inside the room cannot access to the Internet, technically, and thus cannot join this mailing list or Skype chat. It's not IGF Secretariat problem, but WSIS Forum/ILO building. Just to explain. izumi 2012/5/16 Marilia Maciel : > Thanks for the clarification, Izumi. I just felt that the bits and pieces I > could hear in the streaming were very connected with the report. > Sorry for any misunderstanding. > M > > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >> Ah, Marilia, don't get me wrong, I mean some of the points will be >> discussed >> in the MAG meeting tomorrow, I am sure. BUT we are sort of mostly tasked >> to discuss about the workshop, and is difficult to broaden the scope. >> >> I might be wrong, so correct me, by other members here. >> >> izumi >> >> >> 2012/5/16 Marilia Maciel : >> > Such a pitty. I believed that there was a commitment from all >> > stakeholder >> > groups that participated on the WG that, as far as possible, the next >> > IGF >> > should incorporate suggestions for improvement. There are points of the >> > report that address several of the aspects that have been mentioned all >> > along this afternoon, such as diversifying participation, criteria for >> > sponsoring speakers, methodology. >> > >> > Hard to understand why it has been ignored. >> > Marília >> > >> > >> > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >> >> >> No, not yet. is the simple answer. >> >> CSTD WG Report did not get into the agenda, nor its substance, >> >> it is put into the third day's agenda, somehow. >> >> >> >> izumi >> >> >> >> 2012/5/16 Marilia Maciel : >> >> > Streaming is really crappy for me, so it has been hard to follow. >> >> > But has anyone raised the topic of the specific things that maybe >> >> > need >> >> > to be >> >> > changed on the methodology in order to be able to reach the "more >> >> > concrete >> >> > policy options" suggested on the CSTD WG? eg. type of "policy >> >> > question", >> >> > need for pre-assigned rapporteurs, role of rapporteurs, thematic >> >> > roudtables >> >> > to bring together outcomes from workshops, format that these outcomes >> >> > should >> >> > be communicated to "other relevant organizations"..  If so, what was >> >> > said >> >> > about it? >> >> > >> >> > Marília >> >> > >> >> > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Carlos A. Afonso >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Izumi & all, interesting to know how the proposed (decided?) >> >> >> ministerial meeting was questioned on the grounds of the purpose of >> >> >> the >> >> >> IGF as a MSH initiative. >> >> >> >> >> >> I wonder about the role of the so-called "special advisors". Who are >> >> >> they? Are they considered "volunteer staff"? Since there is no >> >> >> replacement for Nitin & Markus (I understand Chengetai is playing >> >> >> Markus's role in the meantime?), who decides on the "special >> >> >> advisors" >> >> >> and other staff? I wonder about their role, again recalling this is >> >> >> a >> >> >> MSH initiative. >> >> >> >> >> >> fraternal regards >> >> >> >> >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 05/15/2012 10:30 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >> >> > The morning meeting ended around 1300, here is my rough memo. >> >> >> > Annotated, as it is Open consultation, but all are very sketchy. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > izumi >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > May 15, 2012 11:25 Open Consultation starts >> >> >> > >> >> >> > UNDESA rep – >> >> >> > Opening remarks >> >> >> > over 100 workshops proposed for IGF 2012 >> >> >> > greater transparency, more information, contribute for better >> >> >> > governance >> >> >> > >> >> >> > MR Elmir Valizda, Chair of MAG >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Robert Guerra >> >> >> > Citizen Lab >> >> >> > Update for Preparation, logistics, venue and other issues >> >> >> > scarecity of details a problem – >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Chengetai >> >> >> > Will have update, yes, just now. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Constance, ISOC >> >> >> > ISCO reception >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Question of participation of indigenes people >> >> >> > rather than access to Internet, they need food, closing, shelters >> >> >> > I need free and active participation from indigenes people >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Azerbaijan host to report: >> >> >> > IGF Nov 6-9 >> >> >> > Nov 5 – ministerial meeting >> >> >> > info on Baku/Azerbaijan >> >> >> > >> >> >> > All hotels (90) with reduced corporate rates, without 18% VAT >> >> >> > 46 hotels will be provided with shuttles >> >> >> > 17 hotels – no shuttles >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Izumi read Judy’s comment: >> >> >> > Physical Accessibility >> >> >> > it is imperative that all locations/ venue , transport,etc is >> >> >> > accessible and usable for PWD . >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Mervi, Finland >> >> >> > Question on Ministerial Meeting >> >> >> > who can participate? >> >> >> > agenda? >> >> >> > who are the organizer? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Chair >> >> >> > Mostly, ministers, but can consider to invite head of delegates >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Robert Guerra >> >> >> > Make sure in the Host Country Agreement, for participants to feel >> >> >> > free >> >> >> > out of fear. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Chair >> >> >> > As Deputy minister, I will try to answer >> >> >> > Registration will be happen on the IGF Website, not our own >> >> >> > website, >> >> >> > therefore, anyperson have possibility to register, >> >> >> > After this information will be provide to our governmental bodies >> >> >> > to >> >> >> > issue visas and others >> >> >> > About some controls; free usage of Internet >> >> >> >  through fix, mobile and other >> >> >> > We have some restrictions and all persons tha live and work >> >> >> > inAzerbaijan and if you come – can be used these technologies – >> >> >> > suchs >> >> >> > possibilitew will be provided during IGF Balu. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Peter Major >> >> >> > On accessibility said by Izumi mostly >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Judia Okite from Kenya >> >> >> > adding to accessibility, add that, ^ host country to check out >> >> >> > hotel >> >> >> > if they are accessible with PWD for making booking >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Host >> >> >> > Our staff checked all the hotels, but did not put info on this, >> >> >> > will >> >> >> > update the hotel list with this issue as well. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Felix  Samakande, new MAG, Zimbabwe >> >> >> > reaction to Video – recollection of Lithuania experience >> >> >> > restriction of time to speak but speak slowly for interpreter >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Chair >> >> >> > Translation will be provided only in Main Session – not in >> >> >> > workshops >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Constance, ISOC >> >> >> > Mervi’s question – add invitation to CEOs, Civil society members >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Chair >> >> >> >>From Kenya, we will keep this tradtion of inviting CEO (of ICANN), >> >> >> > Civil >> >> >> > Society >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Aysha >> >> >> > Comment on Ministerial, participated in Kenyan Ministerial >> >> >> > important to have dialogue among all stakeholders >> >> >> > >> >> >> > AZ Foreign Minisry >> >> >> > Visa issue – in due course >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Participation of all organizations – take seriously, treat every >> >> >> > singe >> >> >> > delegation in a non-discriminatory soverigh- >> >> >> > IF not paritcpate from soverign countries – it’s their choice >> >> >> > Linkage between of hosting event and allegation of freedom of >> >> >> > expression and mediu, >> >> >> >  it is institutional nor, insure the norm and contineus to do so >> >> >> > mis-reprsented by some media- >> >> >> > is very infortunate that we are taking this time to address to >> >> >> > verenate the situation >> >> >> > clear – emotiona accests do not add credit to the authority of the >> >> >> > organizations or rpresentatives >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Anna, Portugal >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Question about Ministerial meeting >> >> >> > What is man objective of this Ministerial which countries are >> >> >> > invited? >> >> >> > which Ministry? >> >> >> > we are in Multi-stakeholder event – cannot be put apart >> >> >> > MSH is not about big companies, but small companies, civil >> >> >> > society, >> >> >> > etc >> >> >> > what is the purpose of this Ministerial? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Chair >> >> >> > Kenya, it was the first time to have Ministerial >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Alice – explained the Kenyan Ministerial >> >> >> >  agenda – came as bottom up, discussed at East Africa IGF >> >> >> > >> >> >> > AZ rep >> >> >> > There is discussion on how to model ministerial meeting >> >> >> >  we want to hear to MAG members – which model? >> >> >> >  all countries participated in ITU members – ITU has list of >> >> >> > ministries – who is resposbile on Telecom, ICT InfoSoc  -sent >> >> >> > invitation letter to those countries >> >> >> > Involving private sector – big companies but we can invite others >> >> >> > we want to modelize and find best figure – useful >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Address the >> >> >> > your country will be responsible and delegate your officials to >> >> >> > that >> >> >> > meeting. >> >> >> > ITU will channel this >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Wolfgang >> >> >> > Question to DESA >> >> >> > Nitin and Markus stepped down more than 2 years ago >> >> >> > Can we expect that two positions will be filled at IGF in Baku? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > DESA >> >> >> > Situation on Executive Coordinator and Special Advisor >> >> >> > It was funded by IGF Trust fund, voluntary contributions, but >> >> >> > regrettably, current voluntary contributions do not allow the >> >> >> > recruitment of EC >> >> >> > we are concerned about the absence of EC >> >> >> > once new project document approved 1 year ago, received from >> >> >> > Controller, >> >> >> > 90 applicants applied for the EC >> >> >> > Due to the financial balance project, we still have strong >> >> >> > negative >> >> >> > balance – not able to recruit the EC >> >> >> > Go to IGC Website, you can see the balance of the project document >> >> >> > We just canceled the announcement of the EC, not able to continue >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > recruitment, >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Special Advisor – prerogative of the SG, no influence to force him >> >> >> > to >> >> >> > make the decision >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Anriette from APC >> >> >> > On Minsterial – I think it is very useful mechanism, appreciated >> >> >> > in >> >> >> > Kenya – >> >> >> > but IGF is different from ITU, complement each other >> >> >> > IGF could take broader government and other stakeholders – on >> >> >> > policy >> >> >> > Not rely on ITU database, but to be more creative about which >> >> >> > minister >> >> >> > to invite >> >> >> > Thematic focus on Ministerial – to define – then which CS and >> >> >> > minister >> >> >> > >> >> >> > ON human rights, -good hear to the reassurance – ask Host country >> >> >> > to >> >> >> > make documents and ask DESA to reflect them into Host Country >> >> >> > agreement >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Chair >> >> >> > according to the procedure, the host country must sign agreement >> >> >> > with >> >> >> > UN DESA, and all issues are indicated in this agreement >> >> >> > Issues on transportation, visa, equipmet, computers are fulle >> >> >> > include >> >> >> > toths agreement >> >> >> > And now this is agreement – w can publish them in our website. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Anna Neves, Portugal >> >> >> > It is up to the host country to invite which Minister, yes. If it >> >> >> > is >> >> >> > ITU event, then invite telecom ministers. but if it is IGF, then >> >> >> > not >> >> >> > only telecom ministers. >> >> >> > If you use ITU Detabase, please do not call as “IGF”. >> >> >> > On EC, puzzled. Strange. There is voluntary funding. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Chair >> >> >> > We can consider all of your proposal. During this event, you have >> >> >> > possibility of contact from our delegation, you can provide some >> >> >> > info >> >> >> > on some ministries, please inform us, and we will invite these >> >> >> > ministries. Please provide these. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Bertrand de La Chappell >> >> >> > On Visa, related to citizens of countries who may have political >> >> >> > tensions and who may have difficulty – can you ensure that there >> >> >> > will >> >> >> > be no restriction. >> >> >> > On EC, situation is extremely troublesome, painfully. >> >> >> > It might be intentional – I don’t believe that. Choice- wrong >> >> >> > intensions or inefficiency – both are bad. Current situation is >> >> >> > weakening the IGF. >> >> >> > Chicken and Egg –we cannot hire because of funding, funding not >> >> >> > coming >> >> >> > because of uncertainty >> >> >> > canceling the process – re-launching – take months >> >> >> > >> >> >> > MAG could, in due time, to designate its own Chair – as an option >> >> >> > A voluntary desire to solve this problem >> >> >> > >> >> >> > DESA >> >> >> > Communicated to donor community – >> >> >> > we are not limiting them, trying hard >> >> >> > recent situation with Google – working with lawyers, beyond >> >> >> > control >> >> >> > hope to solve this situation as soon as possible >> >> >> > Recruitment process for EC >> >> >> > we stay with one rule approved by member states >> >> >> > no other way. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Chengetai >> >> >> > HCA – treated equal as UN >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Qusai >> >> >> > Ministerial meeting – not IGF event, right? >> >> >> > AZ’s liberty – to organize >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > LINCH Break >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Adam >> >> >> > How many workshops are possible to be organized – how many rooms? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Chengetai >> >> >> > 128 Workshop proposals – highest number submitted >> >> >> > The venue can fit all workshops >> >> >> > Do we want to have 12 workshops at the same time? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Grading – >> >> >> > above 12 - green >> >> >> > below 12 – orange >> >> >> > >> >> >> > SOP  49 >> >> >> > Access 19 >> >> >> > EI, IG4D >> >> >> > CIR 10% >> >> >> > TS, WF  6% >> >> >> > Others - >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Cade - how about dynamic coalitions and Open Forum? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Chengetai - we need to consider them 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 >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >> >> > FGV Direito Rio >> >> > >> >> > Center for Technology and Society >> >> > Getulio Vargas Foundation >> >> > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >>                      >> Izumi Aizu << >> >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> >> Japan >> >> www.anr.org >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >> > FGV Direito Rio >> > >> > Center for Technology and Society >> > Getulio Vargas Foundation >> > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil >> >> >> >> -- >>                      >> Izumi Aizu << >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> Japan >> www.anr.org > > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil --                      >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue May 15 11:41:28 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 12:41:28 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation memo, Morning, May 15 In-Reply-To: References: <4FB26125.4030102@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Oh my. I remember that last year we had to skip lunch to be able to check e-mails with some workable bandwidth. Thought it would be better this year, but I think ILO facilities are just not prepared... Maybe that's reflecting on the streaming... On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > No Marilia, your concern is very legitimate, and also sorry for the > bad audio quality. Some people inside the room cannot access to the > Internet, technically, and thus > cannot join this mailing list or Skype chat. It's not IGF Secretariat > problem, but > WSIS Forum/ILO building. Just to explain. > > izumi > > 2012/5/16 Marilia Maciel : > > Thanks for the clarification, Izumi. I just felt that the bits and > pieces I > > could hear in the streaming were very connected with the report. > > Sorry for any misunderstanding. > > M > > > > > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> > >> Ah, Marilia, don't get me wrong, I mean some of the points will be > >> discussed > >> in the MAG meeting tomorrow, I am sure. BUT we are sort of mostly tasked > >> to discuss about the workshop, and is difficult to broaden the scope. > >> > >> I might be wrong, so correct me, by other members here. > >> > >> izumi > >> > >> > >> 2012/5/16 Marilia Maciel : > >> > Such a pitty. I believed that there was a commitment from all > >> > stakeholder > >> > groups that participated on the WG that, as far as possible, the next > >> > IGF > >> > should incorporate suggestions for improvement. There are points of > the > >> > report that address several of the aspects that have been mentioned > all > >> > along this afternoon, such as diversifying participation, criteria for > >> > sponsoring speakers, methodology. > >> > > >> > Hard to understand why it has been ignored. > >> > Marília > >> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> >> > >> >> No, not yet. is the simple answer. > >> >> CSTD WG Report did not get into the agenda, nor its substance, > >> >> it is put into the third day's agenda, somehow. > >> >> > >> >> izumi > >> >> > >> >> 2012/5/16 Marilia Maciel : > >> >> > Streaming is really crappy for me, so it has been hard to follow. > >> >> > But has anyone raised the topic of the specific things that maybe > >> >> > need > >> >> > to be > >> >> > changed on the methodology in order to be able to reach the "more > >> >> > concrete > >> >> > policy options" suggested on the CSTD WG? eg. type of "policy > >> >> > question", > >> >> > need for pre-assigned rapporteurs, role of rapporteurs, thematic > >> >> > roudtables > >> >> > to bring together outcomes from workshops, format that these > outcomes > >> >> > should > >> >> > be communicated to "other relevant organizations".. If so, what > was > >> >> > said > >> >> > about it? > >> >> > > >> >> > Marília > >> >> > > >> >> > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Carlos A. Afonso > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Hi Izumi & all, interesting to know how the proposed (decided?) > >> >> >> ministerial meeting was questioned on the grounds of the purpose > of > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> IGF as a MSH initiative. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I wonder about the role of the so-called "special advisors". Who > are > >> >> >> they? Are they considered "volunteer staff"? Since there is no > >> >> >> replacement for Nitin & Markus (I understand Chengetai is playing > >> >> >> Markus's role in the meantime?), who decides on the "special > >> >> >> advisors" > >> >> >> and other staff? I wonder about their role, again recalling this > is > >> >> >> a > >> >> >> MSH initiative. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> fraternal regards > >> >> >> > >> >> >> --c.a. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On 05/15/2012 10:30 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> >> >> > The morning meeting ended around 1300, here is my rough memo. > >> >> >> > Annotated, as it is Open consultation, but all are very sketchy. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > izumi > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > May 15, 2012 11:25 Open Consultation starts > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > UNDESA rep – > >> >> >> > Opening remarks > >> >> >> > over 100 workshops proposed for IGF 2012 > >> >> >> > greater transparency, more information, contribute for better > >> >> >> > governance > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > MR Elmir Valizda, Chair of MAG > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Robert Guerra > >> >> >> > Citizen Lab > >> >> >> > Update for Preparation, logistics, venue and other issues > >> >> >> > scarecity of details a problem – > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Chengetai > >> >> >> > Will have update, yes, just now. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Constance, ISOC > >> >> >> > ISCO reception > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Question of participation of indigenes people > >> >> >> > rather than access to Internet, they need food, closing, > shelters > >> >> >> > I need free and active participation from indigenes people > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Azerbaijan host to report: > >> >> >> > IGF Nov 6-9 > >> >> >> > Nov 5 – ministerial meeting > >> >> >> > info on Baku/Azerbaijan > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > All hotels (90) with reduced corporate rates, without 18% VAT > >> >> >> > 46 hotels will be provided with shuttles > >> >> >> > 17 hotels – no shuttles > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Izumi read Judy’s comment: > >> >> >> > Physical Accessibility > >> >> >> > it is imperative that all locations/ venue , transport,etc is > >> >> >> > accessible and usable for PWD . > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Mervi, Finland > >> >> >> > Question on Ministerial Meeting > >> >> >> > who can participate? > >> >> >> > agenda? > >> >> >> > who are the organizer? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Chair > >> >> >> > Mostly, ministers, but can consider to invite head of delegates > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Robert Guerra > >> >> >> > Make sure in the Host Country Agreement, for participants to > feel > >> >> >> > free > >> >> >> > out of fear. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Chair > >> >> >> > As Deputy minister, I will try to answer > >> >> >> > Registration will be happen on the IGF Website, not our own > >> >> >> > website, > >> >> >> > therefore, anyperson have possibility to register, > >> >> >> > After this information will be provide to our governmental > bodies > >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> > issue visas and others > >> >> >> > About some controls; free usage of Internet > >> >> >> > through fix, mobile and other > >> >> >> > We have some restrictions and all persons tha live and work > >> >> >> > inAzerbaijan and if you come – can be used these technologies – > >> >> >> > suchs > >> >> >> > possibilitew will be provided during IGF Balu. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Peter Major > >> >> >> > On accessibility said by Izumi mostly > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Judia Okite from Kenya > >> >> >> > adding to accessibility, add that, ^ host country to check out > >> >> >> > hotel > >> >> >> > if they are accessible with PWD for making booking > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Host > >> >> >> > Our staff checked all the hotels, but did not put info on this, > >> >> >> > will > >> >> >> > update the hotel list with this issue as well. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Felix Samakande, new MAG, Zimbabwe > >> >> >> > reaction to Video – recollection of Lithuania experience > >> >> >> > restriction of time to speak but speak slowly for interpreter > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Chair > >> >> >> > Translation will be provided only in Main Session – not in > >> >> >> > workshops > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Constance, ISOC > >> >> >> > Mervi’s question – add invitation to CEOs, Civil society members > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Chair > >> >> >> >>From Kenya, we will keep this tradtion of inviting CEO (of > ICANN), > >> >> >> > Civil > >> >> >> > Society > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Aysha > >> >> >> > Comment on Ministerial, participated in Kenyan Ministerial > >> >> >> > important to have dialogue among all stakeholders > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > AZ Foreign Minisry > >> >> >> > Visa issue – in due course > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Participation of all organizations – take seriously, treat every > >> >> >> > singe > >> >> >> > delegation in a non-discriminatory soverigh- > >> >> >> > IF not paritcpate from soverign countries – it’s their choice > >> >> >> > Linkage between of hosting event and allegation of freedom of > >> >> >> > expression and mediu, > >> >> >> > it is institutional nor, insure the norm and contineus to do so > >> >> >> > mis-reprsented by some media- > >> >> >> > is very infortunate that we are taking this time to address to > >> >> >> > verenate the situation > >> >> >> > clear – emotiona accests do not add credit to the authority of > the > >> >> >> > organizations or rpresentatives > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Anna, Portugal > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Question about Ministerial meeting > >> >> >> > What is man objective of this Ministerial which countries are > >> >> >> > invited? > >> >> >> > which Ministry? > >> >> >> > we are in Multi-stakeholder event – cannot be put apart > >> >> >> > MSH is not about big companies, but small companies, civil > >> >> >> > society, > >> >> >> > etc > >> >> >> > what is the purpose of this Ministerial? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Chair > >> >> >> > Kenya, it was the first time to have Ministerial > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Alice – explained the Kenyan Ministerial > >> >> >> > agenda – came as bottom up, discussed at East Africa IGF > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > AZ rep > >> >> >> > There is discussion on how to model ministerial meeting > >> >> >> > we want to hear to MAG members – which model? > >> >> >> > all countries participated in ITU members – ITU has list of > >> >> >> > ministries – who is resposbile on Telecom, ICT InfoSoc -sent > >> >> >> > invitation letter to those countries > >> >> >> > Involving private sector – big companies but we can invite > others > >> >> >> > we want to modelize and find best figure – useful > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Address the > >> >> >> > your country will be responsible and delegate your officials to > >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> > meeting. > >> >> >> > ITU will channel this > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Wolfgang > >> >> >> > Question to DESA > >> >> >> > Nitin and Markus stepped down more than 2 years ago > >> >> >> > Can we expect that two positions will be filled at IGF in Baku? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > DESA > >> >> >> > Situation on Executive Coordinator and Special Advisor > >> >> >> > It was funded by IGF Trust fund, voluntary contributions, but > >> >> >> > regrettably, current voluntary contributions do not allow the > >> >> >> > recruitment of EC > >> >> >> > we are concerned about the absence of EC > >> >> >> > once new project document approved 1 year ago, received from > >> >> >> > Controller, > >> >> >> > 90 applicants applied for the EC > >> >> >> > Due to the financial balance project, we still have strong > >> >> >> > negative > >> >> >> > balance – not able to recruit the EC > >> >> >> > Go to IGC Website, you can see the balance of the project > document > >> >> >> > We just canceled the announcement of the EC, not able to > continue > >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> > recruitment, > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Special Advisor – prerogative of the SG, no influence to force > him > >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> > make the decision > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Anriette from APC > >> >> >> > On Minsterial – I think it is very useful mechanism, appreciated > >> >> >> > in > >> >> >> > Kenya – > >> >> >> > but IGF is different from ITU, complement each other > >> >> >> > IGF could take broader government and other stakeholders – on > >> >> >> > policy > >> >> >> > Not rely on ITU database, but to be more creative about which > >> >> >> > minister > >> >> >> > to invite > >> >> >> > Thematic focus on Ministerial – to define – then which CS and > >> >> >> > minister > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > ON human rights, -good hear to the reassurance – ask Host > country > >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> > make documents and ask DESA to reflect them into Host Country > >> >> >> > agreement > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Chair > >> >> >> > according to the procedure, the host country must sign agreement > >> >> >> > with > >> >> >> > UN DESA, and all issues are indicated in this agreement > >> >> >> > Issues on transportation, visa, equipmet, computers are fulle > >> >> >> > include > >> >> >> > toths agreement > >> >> >> > And now this is agreement – w can publish them in our website. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Anna Neves, Portugal > >> >> >> > It is up to the host country to invite which Minister, yes. If > it > >> >> >> > is > >> >> >> > ITU event, then invite telecom ministers. but if it is IGF, then > >> >> >> > not > >> >> >> > only telecom ministers. > >> >> >> > If you use ITU Detabase, please do not call as “IGF”. > >> >> >> > On EC, puzzled. Strange. There is voluntary funding. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Chair > >> >> >> > We can consider all of your proposal. During this event, you > have > >> >> >> > possibility of contact from our delegation, you can provide some > >> >> >> > info > >> >> >> > on some ministries, please inform us, and we will invite these > >> >> >> > ministries. Please provide these. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Bertrand de La Chappell > >> >> >> > On Visa, related to citizens of countries who may have political > >> >> >> > tensions and who may have difficulty – can you ensure that there > >> >> >> > will > >> >> >> > be no restriction. > >> >> >> > On EC, situation is extremely troublesome, painfully. > >> >> >> > It might be intentional – I don’t believe that. Choice- wrong > >> >> >> > intensions or inefficiency – both are bad. Current situation is > >> >> >> > weakening the IGF. > >> >> >> > Chicken and Egg –we cannot hire because of funding, funding not > >> >> >> > coming > >> >> >> > because of uncertainty > >> >> >> > canceling the process – re-launching – take months > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > MAG could, in due time, to designate its own Chair – as an > option > >> >> >> > A voluntary desire to solve this problem > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > DESA > >> >> >> > Communicated to donor community – > >> >> >> > we are not limiting them, trying hard > >> >> >> > recent situation with Google – working with lawyers, beyond > >> >> >> > control > >> >> >> > hope to solve this situation as soon as possible > >> >> >> > Recruitment process for EC > >> >> >> > we stay with one rule approved by member states > >> >> >> > no other way. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Chengetai > >> >> >> > HCA – treated equal as UN > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Qusai > >> >> >> > Ministerial meeting – not IGF event, right? > >> >> >> > AZ’s liberty – to organize > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > LINCH Break > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Adam > >> >> >> > How many workshops are possible to be organized – how many > rooms? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Chengetai > >> >> >> > 128 Workshop proposals – highest number submitted > >> >> >> > The venue can fit all workshops > >> >> >> > Do we want to have 12 workshops at the same time? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Grading – > >> >> >> > above 12 - green > >> >> >> > below 12 – orange > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > SOP 49 > >> >> >> > Access 19 > >> >> >> > EI, IG4D > >> >> >> > CIR 10% > >> >> >> > TS, WF 6% > >> >> >> > Others - > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Cade - how about dynamic coalitions and Open Forum? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Chengetai - we need to consider them 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 > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > -- > >> >> > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > >> >> > FGV Direito Rio > >> >> > > >> >> > Center for Technology and Society > >> >> > Getulio Vargas Foundation > >> >> > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> >> Izumi Aizu << > >> >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > >> >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > >> >> Japan > >> >> www.anr.org > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > >> > FGV Direito Rio > >> > > >> > Center for Technology and Society > >> > Getulio Vargas Foundation > >> > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> >> Izumi Aizu << > >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > >> Japan > >> www.anr.org > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > > FGV Direito Rio > > > > Center for Technology and Society > > Getulio Vargas Foundation > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > -- 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue May 15 11:54:46 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 11:54:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation memo, Morning, May 15 In-Reply-To: References: <4FB26125.4030102@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Good idea. Perhaps press for a "pre" civil society meeting? :-) Deirdre On 15 May 2012 10:19, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4FB26125.4030102 at cafonso.ca>, at 10:59:01 on Tue, 15 May > 2012, Carlos A. Afonso writes > > Hi Izumi & all, interesting to know how the proposed (decided?) >> ministerial meeting was questioned on the grounds of the purpose of the >> IGF as a MSH initiative. >> > > Does that mean that Civil Society, Internet Technical Community etc can't > have pre-meets either? Do such pre-meets have to allow observers from the > other stakeholders. > -- > Roland Perry > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Tue May 15 12:05:41 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 01:05:41 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation Memo, Afternoon, May 15 Message-ID: Hi, here is the my crude not of the Afternoon Session. It just finished two minutes ago. ----------- Izumi Want to ask nonMAG members in the room – as to how much do you expect MAG members to intervene the quality of the workshops? liaise with less represented stakeholder, etc? Do you like to let MAG members give more advices to the substance and organization of the workshops, ie include more from South, gender balance, etc. Explore and encourage innovative ones. Many are repetitive from previous IGFs. Keep diversity – having many is not bad – rather, good But raise quality of each workshops. Janis Karlins How to increase the relevance of the IGF without chaging the nature of the IGF, place for dialogue? World Forum - Davos meeting and Clinton’s global dialogue – two similar events. Council of Europe – upport Aysha’s proposal of ICC to be focal point EuroDIG be organized, with European Commission ECA Makane Faye Support Izumi’s proposal like to go further – make sure that workshops are co-organized by other key organizers of other regions feel free to contact us – to provide resource persons Jeff, AT&T and ICC support comment by Janis Capture National and Regional IGFs throughout the year Tijani Quality of diversity, etc I agree best way to insure of quality if to assess the quality of speech, takes too much Anna Neves analyze the impact of IGF in national and public policy, this impact has never been studied re: Izumi’s point – to raise quality support – to the workshop be discussed this afternoon Anriette, APC support many comments made 1) send reminder of criteria be useful send a few specific questions to workshop organizers purpose of workshops, what do you want to achieve? some proposals do not articulate these 2) MAG to invite volunteers who are not MAG members to participate in the workshops under main theme re: Izumi/Anna/ Tijani MAG – to identify – addresses topical issue, but not well-developed, reach out these organizers, don’t have be too formal Coffee break 16:35: reopening the session Mervi, Finland Andorea, Russia CS on report, by scientific Aysha to reduce/consolidate number of workshops main session, hope strong participation in Baku emphasis on capacity building some focus are on ICT, ask them to add Internet governance angle Tijani assessment of workshops assessment of report is not good way on the attendance and interactivity of workshop indicator – can show the success of workshop Workshops must be co-organized – I don’t understand this Robert Guerra ad hoc session, successful session – favorable innovation – how sessions are facilitated, instead of set numbers go round, proven to be quite well Izumi Asian countries are not accustomed to free, round-table discussion style, rather more orderly style. We have different standards of measuring the quality. Could we also have evaluation from the participants? Vladmir, Diplo We miss participants from small island countries, Pacific, Caribbean etc. we need more workshops with controversies – feeling of controversies within workshops Same panelists appearing many times Encourage people to apply, as resource persons – Ask organizers to fill the new template to qualify for final selection. Specify speakers, clear information on what the purposes. Modality of the session etc – interactive. Five basic questions before we make final selection. Ask people to tag proposals. Different types of workshops – level of maturity of topics can dictate format - expert presentation - free roundtable - we can tag the proposals – it will enable easier reporting later how do we assess the quality? - usage, usability of workshops Mark Fear of over-managing the IGF? I do wonder if we might be going down the road – too many criteria, etc? Chris Dissipain Individual MAG members have done and will do – contacting WS organizers, but not MAG as a whole. MAG should not do I am concerned if MAG to attempt to influence. Freedom House Concern to interfere the substance of workshops. on controversial subject, etc. Main message – to be helpful, but stay away from managing individual workshops. Robert Guerra Echo Sanja’s concerns. Izumi To clarify – with my earlier question on quality - I note the concerns of Chris, Sanja and Robert among others, not attempt to influence the substantive part of Workshop, etc. We should not judge the values etc. The final decisions should be made by the WS organizers, not by MAG etc. at all. Felix, Clarify - suggested to make the platform, not to dictate. Chengetai How many numbers of MAG do you want to hold? Chris How many can we? Chengetai All of them! Kieren McCarthy It’s number of tracks, not number of workshops, concurrently. More than five tracks will be bad. Avri Disagree with Kieren. Heather Dryden, Canada, retired MAG member Do not go into details of workshops. The Netherlands Do not try to reduce the number of workshops. Mark Carvell, UK gov It’s not “conference” – to Kieren’s concern It’s forum, dialogue, not quite conference. We do have to cut back. Bertrand, In favor of keeping as many Workshops as possible, provided there are appropriate along the criteria. There are many conflicting workshops, instead of forcing people to merge, identify clusters of workshops dealing with similar topics, insert the round tables, before plenary ideally. Chair We will take all into consideration. Invite MAG members, but I want to give floor (to non MAG members) Open Consultation Meeting adjourned. [some applause] 18:01 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 15 12:08:31 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 13:08:31 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation memo, Morning, May 15 In-Reply-To: References: <4FB26125.4030102@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4FB27F7F.5000300@cafonso.ca> Why not? We did just that in the Rio IGF -- organized by the APC. --c.a. On 05/15/2012 12:54 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Good idea. Perhaps press for a "pre" civil society meeting? :-) > Deirdre > > On 15 May 2012 10:19, Roland Perry wrote: > >> In message <4FB26125.4030102 at cafonso.ca>, at 10:59:01 on Tue, 15 May >> 2012, Carlos A. Afonso writes >> >> Hi Izumi & all, interesting to know how the proposed (decided?) >>> ministerial meeting was questioned on the grounds of the purpose of the >>> IGF as a MSH initiative. >>> >> >> Does that mean that Civil Society, Internet Technical Community etc can't >> have pre-meets either? Do such pre-meets have to allow observers from the >> other stakeholders. >> -- >> 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue May 15 12:10:43 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 12:10:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation Memo, Afternoon, May 15 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Izumi - you are the greatest! Thanks a million Deirdre On 15 May 2012 12:05, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Hi, here is the my crude not of the Afternoon Session. It just > finished two minutes ago. > > ----------- > > Izumi > Want to ask nonMAG members in the room – as to how much do you expect > MAG members to intervene the quality of the workshops? > liaise with less represented stakeholder, etc? > > Do you like to let MAG members give more advices to the substance and > organization of the workshops, ie include more from South, gender > balance, etc. > Explore and encourage innovative ones. Many are repetitive from previous > IGFs. > Keep diversity – having many is not bad – rather, good > But raise quality of each workshops. > > > Janis Karlins > How to increase the relevance of the IGF without chaging the nature of > the IGF, place for dialogue? > World Forum - Davos meeting and Clinton’s global dialogue – two similar > events. > > > Council of Europe – > upport Aysha’s proposal of ICC to be focal point > EuroDIG be organized, with European Commission > > ECA > Makane Faye > Support Izumi’s proposal > like to go further – make sure that workshops are co-organized by > other key organizers of other regions > feel free to contact us – to provide resource persons > > Jeff, AT&T and ICC > support comment by Janis > Capture National and Regional IGFs throughout the year > > Tijani > Quality of diversity, etc I agree > best way to insure of quality > if to assess the quality of speech, takes too much > > > Anna Neves > analyze the impact of IGF in national and public policy, > this impact has never been studied > re: Izumi’s point – to raise quality support – to the workshop be > discussed this afternoon > > Anriette, APC > support many comments made > 1) send reminder of criteria be useful > send a few specific questions to workshop organizers > purpose of workshops, what do you want to achieve? > some proposals do not articulate these > 2) MAG to invite volunteers who are not MAG members to participate in > the workshops under main theme > > re: Izumi/Anna/ Tijani > MAG – to identify – addresses topical issue, but not well-developed, > reach out these organizers, don’t have be too formal > > Coffee break > > 16:35: reopening the session > > Mervi, Finland > > Andorea, Russia CS > on report, by scientific > > > Aysha > to reduce/consolidate number of workshops > main session, hope strong participation in Baku > emphasis on capacity building > some focus are on ICT, ask them to add Internet governance angle > > Tijani > assessment of workshops > assessment of report is not good way > on the attendance and interactivity of workshop > indicator – can show the success of workshop > Workshops must be co-organized – I don’t understand this > > Robert Guerra > ad hoc session, successful session – favorable > innovation – how sessions are facilitated, instead of set numbers go > round, proven to be quite well > > Izumi > Asian countries are not accustomed to free, round-table discussion > style, rather more orderly style. > We have different standards of measuring the quality. > Could we also have evaluation from the participants? > > Vladmir, Diplo > We miss participants from small island countries, Pacific, Caribbean etc. > we need more workshops with controversies – feeling of controversies > within workshops > Same panelists appearing many times > Encourage people to apply, as resource persons – > > > > Ask organizers to fill the new template to qualify for final selection. > Specify speakers, clear information on what the purposes. > Modality of the session etc – interactive. > Five basic questions before we make final selection. > Ask people to tag proposals. > Different types of workshops – level of maturity of topics can dictate > format > - expert presentation > - free roundtable > - > we can tag the proposals – > it will enable easier reporting later > how do we assess the quality? - usage, usability of workshops > > Mark > Fear of over-managing the IGF? > I do wonder if we might be going down the road – too many criteria, etc? > > > Chris Dissipain > Individual MAG members have done and will do – contacting WS > organizers, but not MAG as a whole. MAG should not do > I am concerned if MAG to attempt to influence. > > Freedom House > Concern to interfere the substance of workshops. > on controversial subject, etc. > Main message – to be helpful, but stay away from managing individual > workshops. > > Robert Guerra > Echo Sanja’s concerns. > > Izumi > To clarify – with my earlier question on quality - > I note the concerns of Chris, Sanja and Robert among others, not > attempt to influence the substantive part of Workshop, etc. We should > not judge the values etc. The final decisions should be made by the WS > organizers, not by MAG etc. at all. > > Felix, > Clarify - suggested to make the platform, not to dictate. > > > Chengetai > How many numbers of MAG do you want to hold? > > Chris > How many can we? > > Chengetai > All of them! > > Kieren McCarthy > It’s number of tracks, not number of workshops, concurrently. > More than five tracks will be bad. > > Avri > Disagree with Kieren. > > Heather Dryden, Canada, retired MAG member > Do not go into details of workshops. > > The Netherlands > Do not try to reduce the number of workshops. > > Mark Carvell, UK gov > It’s not “conference” – to Kieren’s concern > It’s forum, dialogue, not quite conference. > We do have to cut back. > > > Bertrand, > In favor of keeping as many Workshops as possible, provided there are > appropriate along the criteria. There are many conflicting workshops, > instead of forcing people to merge, identify clusters of workshops > dealing with similar topics, insert the round tables, before plenary > ideally. > > Chair > We will take all into consideration. > Invite MAG members, but I want to give floor (to non MAG members) > > Open Consultation Meeting adjourned. > > [some applause] > 18:01 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 Tue May 15 12:21:50 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 17:21:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation memo, Morning, May 15 In-Reply-To: References: <4FB26125.4030102@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <8HgGDhYeKosPFAQY@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 11:54:46 on Tue, 15 May 2012, Deirdre Williams writes >Good idea. Perhaps press for a "pre" civil society meeting? :-) >Deirdre I assume these exist already. Like ICANN meetings, everyone seems to gather in their own clans the day before. >On 15 May 2012 10:19, Roland Perry >wrote: >In message <4FB26125.4030102 at cafonso.ca>, at 10:59:01 on Tue, 15 May >2012, Carlos A. Afonso writes > >Hi Izumi & all, interesting to know how the proposed (decided?) >ministerial meeting was questioned on the grounds of the purpose of the >IGF as a MSH initiative. > >Does that mean that Civil Society, Internet Technical Community etc >can't have pre-meets either? Do such pre-meets have to allow observers >from the other stakeholders -- 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 Tue May 15 12:35:57 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 17:35:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation memo, Morning, May 15 In-Reply-To: <4FB27F7F.5000300@cafonso.ca> References: <4FB26125.4030102@cafonso.ca> <4FB27F7F.5000300@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: In message <4FB27F7F.5000300 at cafonso.ca>, at 13:08:31 on Tue, 15 May 2012, Carlos A. Afonso writes >Why not? We did just that in the Rio IGF -- organized by the APC. Exactly. All stakeholders are entitled to have pre-meets; and if they wish, for them to be private. >On 05/15/2012 12:54 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> Good idea. Perhaps press for a "pre" civil society meeting? :-) >> Deirdre >> >> On 15 May 2012 10:19, Roland Perry wrote: >> >>> In message <4FB26125.4030102 at cafonso.ca>, at 10:59:01 on Tue, 15 May >>> 2012, Carlos A. Afonso writes >>> >>> Hi Izumi & all, interesting to know how the proposed (decided?) >>>> ministerial meeting was questioned on the grounds of the purpose of the >>>> IGF as a MSH initiative. >>>> >>> >>> Does that mean that Civil Society, Internet Technical Community etc can't >>> have pre-meets either? Do such pre-meets have to allow observers from the >>> other stakeholders. >>> -- >>> Roland Perry >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hakik at hakik.org Tue May 15 13:16:13 2012 From: hakik at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 18:16:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation Memo, Afternoon, May 15 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree. We do feel connected and updated with all latest happenings! Thanks, Hakikur At 17:10 15-05-2012, Deirdre Williams wrote: >Izumi - you are the greatest! >Thanks a million >Deirdre > >On 15 May 2012 12:05, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote: >Hi, here is the my crude not of the Afternoon Session. It just >finished two minutes ago. > >----------- > >Izumi >Want to ask nonMAG members in the room – as to how much do you expect >MAG members to intervene the quality of the workshops? >liaise with less represented stakeholder, etc? > >Do you like to let MAG members give more advices to the substance and >organization of the workshops, ie include more from South, gender >balance, etc. >Explore and encourage innovative ones. Many are repetitive from previous IGFs. >Keep diversity – having many is not bad – rather, good >But raise quality of each workshops. > > >Janis Karlins >How to increase the relevance of the IGF without chaging the nature of >the IGF, place for dialogue? >World Forum - Davos meeting and Clinton’s global >dialogue – two similar events. > > >Council of Europe – >upport Aysha’s proposal of ICC to be focal point >EuroDIG be organized, with European Commission > >ECA >Makane Faye >Support Izumi’s proposal >like to go further – make sure that workshops are co-organized by >other key organizers of other regions >feel free to contact us – to provide resource persons > >Jeff, AT&T and ICC >support comment by Janis >Capture National and Regional IGFs throughout the year > >Tijani >Quality of diversity, etc I agree >best way to insure of quality >if to assess the quality of speech, takes too much > > >Anna Neves >analyze the impact of IGF in national and public policy, >this impact has never been studied >re: Izumi’s point – to raise quality support – to the workshop be >discussed this afternoon > >Anriette, APC >support many comments made >1) send reminder of criteria be useful >send a few specific questions to workshop organizers > purpose of workshops, what do you want to achieve? > some proposals do not articulate these >2) MAG to invite volunteers who are not MAG members to participate in >the workshops under main theme > >re: Izumi/Anna/ Tijani > MAG – to identify – addresses topical issue, but not well-developed, >reach out these organizers, don’t have be too formal > >Coffee break > >16:35: reopening the session > >Mervi, Finland > >Andorea, Russia CS >on report, by scientific > > >Aysha >to reduce/consolidate number of workshops >main session, hope strong participation in Baku >emphasis on capacity building >some focus are on ICT, ask them to add Internet governance angle > >Tijani >assessment of workshops > assessment of report is not good way > on the attendance and interactivity of workshop > indicator – can show the success of workshop >Workshops must be co-organized – I don’t understand this > >Robert Guerra >ad hoc session, successful session – favorable >innovation – how sessions are facilitated, instead of set numbers go >round, proven to be quite well > >Izumi >Asian countries are not accustomed to free, round-table discussion >style, rather more orderly style. >We have different standards of measuring the quality. >Could we also have evaluation from the participants? > >Vladmir, Diplo >We miss participants from small island countries, Pacific, Caribbean etc. >we need more workshops with controversies – feeling of controversies >within workshops >Same panelists appearing many times >Encourage people to apply, as resource persons – > > > >Ask organizers to fill the new template to qualify for final selection. >Specify speakers, clear information on what the purposes. >Modality of the session etc – interactive. >Five basic questions before we make final selection. >Ask people to tag proposals. >Different types of workshops – level of maturity of topics can dictate format >- expert presentation >- free roundtable >- >we can tag the proposals – > it will enable easier reporting later >how do we assess the quality? - usage, usability of workshops > >Mark >Fear of over-managing the IGF? >I do wonder if we might be going down the road – too many criteria, etc? > > >Chris Dissipain >Individual MAG members have done and will do – contacting WS >organizers, but not MAG as a whole. MAG should not do >I am concerned if MAG to attempt to influence. > >Freedom House >Concern to interfere the substance of workshops. >on controversial subject, etc. >Main message – to be helpful, but stay away from >managing individual workshops. > >Robert Guerra >Echo Sanja’s concerns. > >Izumi >To clarify – with my earlier question on quality - >I note the concerns of Chris, Sanja and Robert among others, not >attempt to influence the substantive part of Workshop, etc. We should >not judge the values etc. The final decisions should be made by the WS >organizers, not by MAG etc. at all. > >Felix, >Clarify - suggested to make the platform, not to dictate. > > >Chengetai >How many numbers of MAG do you want to hold? > >Chris >How many can we? > >Chengetai >All of them! > >Kieren McCarthy >It’s number of tracks, not number of workshops, concurrently. >More than five tracks will be bad. > >Avri >Disagree with Kieren. > >Heather Dryden, Canada, retired MAG member >Do not go into details of workshops. > >The Netherlands >Do not try to reduce the number of workshops. > >Mark Carvell, UK gov >It’s not “conference” – to Kieren’s concern >It’s forum, dialogue, not quite conference. >We do have to cut back. > > >Bertrand, >In favor of keeping as many Workshops as possible, provided there are >appropriate along the criteria. There are many conflicting workshops, >instead of forcing people to merge, identify clusters of workshops >dealing with similar topics, insert the round tables, before plenary >ideally. > >Chair >We will take all into consideration. >Invite MAG members, but I want to give floor (to non MAG members) > >Open Consultation Meeting adjourned. > >[some applause] >18:01 > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > >http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > >http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To 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 stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it Tue May 15 14:47:18 2012 From: stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it (Ing. Stefano Trumpy) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 20:47:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation memo, Morning, May 15 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >The morning meeting ended around 1300, here is my rough memo. >Annotated, as it is Open consultation, but all are very sketchy. > >izumi thanks Izuni, you succeed to let us (especially those that attended at least one of these meetings) feel as we are present; I add a consideration below concerning the so called "ministerial meeting in the next IGF" > >May 15, 2012 11:25 Open Consultation starts > >UNDESA rep - >Opening remarks >over 100 workshops proposed for IGF 2012 >greater transparency, more information, contribute for better governance > >MR Elmir Valizda, Chair of MAG > >Robert Guerra >Citizen Lab >Update for Preparation, logistics, venue and other issues >scarecity of details a problem - > >Chengetai >Will have update, yes, just now. > >Constance, ISOC >ISCO reception > >Question of participation of indigenes people >rather than access to Internet, they need food, closing, shelters >I need free and active participation from indigenes people > >Azerbaijan host to report: >IGF Nov 6-9 >Nov 5 - ministerial meeting >info on Baku/Azerbaijan > >All hotels (90) with reduced corporate rates, without 18% VAT >46 hotels will be provided with shuttles >17 hotels - no shuttles > >Izumi read Judy's comment: >Physical Accessibility >it is imperative that all locations/ venue , transport,etc is >accessible and usable for PWD . > >Mervi, Finland >Question on Ministerial Meeting >who can participate? >agenda? >who are the organizer? > >Chair >Mostly, ministers, but can consider to invite head of delegates let me here to comment on this, starting from the experience in Nairobi; the Kenyan government decided to organize this pre-IGF meeting and invited ministers in a non homogeneous faction; it was not clear if the meeting was for governments at the top level; in the end the meeting has been a success and private sector and Internet organizations had the floor; concerning non ministerial government delegations, being part of Italian delegation headed by a head of department, I had the chance to meet the Kenyan minister that I knew from before and he said that of course our delegation was more than welcomed to attend having the floor. Since it appears that in Baku we sholud have a second experience in this direction, this meeting should be organized in a clear way by clarifying the following points: 1 is this event part of the IGF or not: if not, specify the relation with IGF and give a purpose to attract high level officials from around the world; 2 provide an agenda and clarify possibly the multistakeholder approach; 3 define that time slot for interventions from private sector and NGos involved in Internet governence, etc. I realize that I am suggesting what the local government should do and this is inappropriate but, at least, the MAG and others should at least make suggestioms. Stefano > >Robert Guerra >Make sure in the Host Country Agreement, for participants to feel free >out of fear. > >Chair >As Deputy minister, I will try to answer >Registration will be happen on the IGF Website, not our own website, >therefore, anyperson have possibility to register, >After this information will be provide to our governmental bodies to >issue visas and others >About some controls; free usage of Internet > through fix, mobile and other >We have some restrictions and all persons tha live and work >inAzerbaijan and if you come - can be used these technologies - suchs >possibilitew will be provided during IGF Balu. > >Peter Major >On accessibility said by Izumi mostly > >Judia Okite from Kenya >adding to accessibility, add that, ^ host country to check out hotel >if they are accessible with PWD for making booking > >Host >Our staff checked all the hotels, but did not put info on this, will >update the hotel list with this issue as well. > >Felix Samakande, new MAG, Zimbabwe >reaction to Video - recollection of Lithuania experience >restriction of time to speak but speak slowly for interpreter > >Chair >Translation will be provided only in Main Session - not in workshops > >Constance, ISOC >Mervi's question - add invitation to CEOs, Civil society members > >Chair >>From Kenya, we will keep this tradtion of inviting CEO (of ICANN), >>Civil Society > >Aysha >Comment on Ministerial, participated in Kenyan Ministerial >important to have dialogue among all stakeholders > >AZ Foreign Minisry >Visa issue - in due course > >Participation of all organizations - take seriously, treat every singe >delegation in a non-discriminatory soverigh- >IF not paritcpate from soverign countries - it's their choice >Linkage between of hosting event and allegation of freedom of >expression and mediu, > it is institutional nor, insure the norm and contineus to do so >mis-reprsented by some media- >is very infortunate that we are taking this time to address to >verenate the situation >clear - emotiona accests do not add credit to the authority of the >organizations or rpresentatives > >Anna, Portugal > >Question about Ministerial meeting >What is man objective of this Ministerial which countries are invited? >which Ministry? >we are in Multi-stakeholder event - cannot be put apart >MSH is not about big companies, but small companies, civil society, etc >what is the purpose of this Ministerial? > >Chair >Kenya, it was the first time to have Ministerial > >Alice - explained the Kenyan Ministerial > agenda - came as bottom up, discussed at East Africa IGF > >AZ rep >There is discussion on how to model ministerial meeting > we want to hear to MAG members - which model? > all countries participated in ITU members - ITU has list of >ministries - who is resposbile on Telecom, ICT InfoSoc -sent >invitation letter to those countries >Involving private sector - big companies but we can invite others >we want to modelize and find best figure - useful > >Address the >your country will be responsible and delegate your officials to that meeting. >ITU will channel this > >Wolfgang >Question to DESA >Nitin and Markus stepped down more than 2 years ago >Can we expect that two positions will be filled at IGF in Baku? > >DESA >Situation on Executive Coordinator and Special Advisor >It was funded by IGF Trust fund, voluntary contributions, but >regrettably, current voluntary contributions do not allow the >recruitment of EC >we are concerned about the absence of EC >once new project document approved 1 year ago, received from Controller, >90 applicants applied for the EC >Due to the financial balance project, we still have strong negative >balance - not able to recruit the EC >Go to IGC Website, you can see the balance of the project document >We just canceled the announcement of the EC, not able to continue the >recruitment, > >Special Advisor - prerogative of the SG, no influence to force him to >make the decision > >Anriette from APC >On Minsterial - I think it is very useful mechanism, appreciated in Kenya - >but IGF is different from ITU, complement each other >IGF could take broader government and other stakeholders - on policy >Not rely on ITU database, but to be more creative about which >minister to invite >Thematic focus on Ministerial - to define - then which CS and minister > >ON human rights, -good hear to the reassurance - ask Host country to >make documents and ask DESA to reflect them into Host Country >agreement > >Chair >according to the procedure, the host country must sign agreement with >UN DESA, and all issues are indicated in this agreement >Issues on transportation, visa, equipmet, computers are fulle include >toths agreement >And now this is agreement - w can publish them in our website. > >Anna Neves, Portugal >It is up to the host country to invite which Minister, yes. If it is >ITU event, then invite telecom ministers. but if it is IGF, then not >only telecom ministers. >If you use ITU Detabase, please do not call as "IGF". >On EC, puzzled. Strange. There is voluntary funding. > >Chair >We can consider all of your proposal. During this event, you have >possibility of contact from our delegation, you can provide some info >on some ministries, please inform us, and we will invite these >ministries. Please provide these. > >Bertrand de La Chappell >On Visa, related to citizens of countries who may have political >tensions and who may have difficulty - can you ensure that there will >be no restriction. >On EC, situation is extremely troublesome, painfully. >It might be intentional - I don't believe that. Choice- wrong >intensions or inefficiency - both are bad. Current situation is >weakening the IGF. >Chicken and Egg -we cannot hire because of funding, funding not coming >because of uncertainty >canceling the process - re-launching - take months > >MAG could, in due time, to designate its own Chair - as an option >A voluntary desire to solve this problem > >DESA >Communicated to donor community - >we are not limiting them, trying hard >recent situation with Google - working with lawyers, beyond control >hope to solve this situation as soon as possible >Recruitment process for EC >we stay with one rule approved by member states >no other way. > >Chengetai >HCA - treated equal as UN > >Qusai >Ministerial meeting - not IGF event, right? >AZ's liberty - to organize > > >LINCH Break > >Adam >How many workshops are possible to be organized - how many rooms? > >Chengetai >128 Workshop proposals - highest number submitted >The venue can fit all workshops >Do we want to have 12 workshops at the same time? > >Grading - >above 12 - green >below 12 - orange > >SOP 49 >Access 19 >EI, IG4D >CIR 10% >TS, WF 6% >Others - > >Cade - how about dynamic coalitions and Open Forum? > >Chengetai - we need to consider them 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 -- _________________________________________________________ Ing. Stefano TRUMPY CNR - Istituto di Informatica e Telematica Phone: +39 050 3152634 Mobile: +39 348 8218618 E-mail: stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it http://www.iit.cnr.it/en/node/345 _________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 15 15:58:27 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 16:58:27 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation Memo, Afternoon, May 15 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Izumi, you filled the gaps of my freezing streaming :) Thanks so much! Marília On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Hakikur Rahman wrote: > I agree. We do feel connected and updated with all latest happenings! > > Thanks, > Hakikur > > > At 17:10 15-05-2012, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > Izumi - you are the greatest! > Thanks a million > Deirdre > > On 15 May 2012 12:05, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Hi, here is the my crude not of the Afternoon Session. It just > finished two minutes ago. > > ----------- > > Izumi > Want to ask nonMAG members in the room – as to how much do you expect > MAG members to intervene the quality of the workshops? > liaise with less represented stakeholder, etc? > > Do you like to let MAG members give more advices to the substance and > organization of the workshops, ie include more from South, gender > balance, etc. > Explore and encourage innovative ones. Many are repetitive from previous > IGFs. > Keep diversity – having many is not bad – rather, good > But raise quality of each workshops. > > > Janis Karlins > How to increase the relevance of the IGF without chaging the nature of > the IGF, place for dialogue? > World Forum - Davos meeting and Clinton’s global dialogue – two similar > events. > > > Council of Europe – > upport Aysha’s proposal of ICC to be focal point > EuroDIG be organized, with European Commission > > ECA > Makane Faye > Support Izumi’s proposal > like to go further – make sure that workshops are co-organized by > other key organizers of other regions > feel free to contact us – to provide resource persons > > Jeff, AT&T and ICC > support comment by Janis > Capture National and Regional IGFs throughout the year > > Tijani > Quality of diversity, etc I agree > best way to insure of quality > if to assess the quality of speech, takes too much > > > Anna Neves > analyze the impact of IGF in national and public policy, > this impact has never been studied > re: Izumi’s point – to raise quality support – to the workshop be > discussed this afternoon > > Anriette, APC > support many comments made > 1) send reminder of criteria be useful > send a few specific questions to workshop organizers > purpose of workshops, what do you want to achieve? > some proposals do not articulate these > 2) MAG to invite volunteers who are not MAG members to participate in > the workshops under main theme > > re: Izumi/Anna/ Tijani > MAG – to identify – addresses topical issue, but not well-developed, > reach out these organizers, don’t have be too formal > > Coffee break > > 16:35: reopening the session > > Mervi, Finland > > Andorea, Russia CS > on report, by scientific > > > Aysha > to reduce/consolidate number of workshops > main session, hope strong participation in Baku > emphasis on capacity building > some focus are on ICT, ask them to add Internet governance angle > > Tijani > assessment of workshops > assessment of report is not good way > on the attendance and interactivity of workshop > indicator – can show the success of workshop > Workshops must be co-organized – I don’t understand this > > Robert Guerra > ad hoc session, successful session – favorable > innovation – how sessions are facilitated, instead of set numbers go > round, proven to be quite well > > Izumi > Asian countries are not accustomed to free, round-table discussion > style, rather more orderly style. > We have different standards of measuring the quality. > Could we also have evaluation from the participants? > > Vladmir, Diplo > We miss participants from small island countries, Pacific, Caribbean etc. > we need more workshops with controversies – feeling of controversies > within workshops > Same panelists appearing many times > Encourage people to apply, as resource persons – > > > > Ask organizers to fill the new template to qualify for final selection. > Specify speakers, clear information on what the purposes. > Modality of the session etc – interactive. > Five basic questions before we make final selection. > Ask people to tag proposals. > Different types of workshops – level of maturity of topics can dictate > format > - expert presentation > - free roundtable > - > we can tag the proposals – > it will enable easier reporting later > how do we assess the quality? - usage, usability of workshops > > Mark > Fear of over-managing the IGF? > I do wonder if we might be going down the road – too many criteria, etc? > > > Chris Dissipain > Individual MAG members have done and will do – contacting WS > organizers, but not MAG as a whole. MAG should not do > I am concerned if MAG to attempt to influence. > > Freedom House > Concern to interfere the substance of workshops. > on controversial subject, etc. > Main message – to be helpful, but stay away from managing individual > workshops. > > Robert Guerra > Echo Sanja’s concerns. > > Izumi > To clarify – with my earlier question on quality - > I note the concerns of Chris, Sanja and Robert among others, not > attempt to influence the substantive part of Workshop, etc. We should > not judge the values etc. The final decisions should be made by the WS > organizers, not by MAG etc. at all. > > Felix, > Clarify - suggested to make the platform, not to dictate. > > > Chengetai > How many numbers of MAG do you want to hold? > > Chris > How many can we? > > Chengetai > All of them! > > Kieren McCarthy > It’s number of tracks, not number of workshops, concurrently. > More than five tracks will be bad. > > Avri > Disagree with Kieren. > > Heather Dryden, Canada, retired MAG member > Do not go into details of workshops. > > The Netherlands > Do not try to reduce the number of workshops. > > Mark Carvell, UK gov > It’s not “conference” – to Kieren’s concern > It’s forum, dialogue, not quite conference. > We do have to cut back. > > > Bertrand, > In favor of keeping as many Workshops as possible, provided there are > appropriate along the criteria. There are many conflicting workshops, > instead of forcing people to merge, identify clusters of workshops > dealing with similar topics, insert the round tables, before plenary > ideally. > > Chair > We will take all into consideration. > Invite MAG members, but I want to give floor (to non MAG members) > > Open Consultation Meeting adjourned. > > [some applause] > 18:01 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- 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 zeeshan_shoki at yahoo.com Tue May 15 19:32:19 2012 From: zeeshan_shoki at yahoo.com (Zeeshan shoki) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 16:32:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Visit to spain Message-ID: <1337124739.58225.YahooMailClassic@web125802.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Hope you get this on time,sorry I didn't inform you about my trip in Spain for a program, I'm presently in Madrid and am having some difficulties here because. we misplaced our Bags and cell phone on our way back to the hotel we lodge in after we went for sight seeing. The Bags contained all the valuables we had. Now, my passport is in custody of the hotel management pending when we make payment. I am sorry if I am inconveniencing you, but I have only very few people to run to now. I will be indeed very grateful if I can get a loan of  €1,550 EURO  from you. this will enable me sort our hotel bills and get my sorry self back home. I will really appreciate whatever you can afford in assisting me with. I promise to refund it in full as soon as I return. let me know if you can be of any assistance. Please, let me know soonest. Thanks so much. Best Regards Zeeshan ShokiChief ExecutivePak Education Society/Pakistan Development NetworkKarachi,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 gurstein at gmail.com Tue May 15 19:37:07 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 16:37:07 -0700 Subject: [governance] Visit to spain SCAM In-Reply-To: <1337124739.58225.YahooMailClassic@web125802.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Zeeshan shoki Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 4:32 PM To: zeeshan_shoki at yahoo.com Subject: [governance] Visit to spain Hope you get this on time,sorry I didn't inform you about my trip in Spain for a program, I'm presently in Madrid and am having some difficulties here because. we misplaced our Bags and cell phone on our way back to the hotel we lodge in after we went for sight seeing. The Bags contained all the valuables we had. Now, my passport is in custody of the hotel management pending when we make payment. I am sorry if I am inconveniencing you, but I have only very few people to run to now. I will be indeed very grateful if I can get a loan of €1,550 EURO from you. this will enable me sort our hotel bills and get my sorry self back home. I will really appreciate whatever you can afford in assisting me with. I promise to refund it in full as soon as I return. let me know if you can be of any assistance. Please, let me know soonest. Thanks so much. Best Regards Zeeshan Shoki Chief Executive Pak Education Society/ Pakistan Development Network Karachi,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 devonrb at gmail.com Tue May 15 20:08:19 2012 From: devonrb at gmail.com (devonrb at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 00:08:19 +0000 Subject: [governance] Visit to spain SCAM In-Reply-To: References: <1337124739.58225.YahooMailClassic@web125802.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <29529716-1337126901-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1494384544-@b5.c6.bise6.blackberry> This looks like a hoax! Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 16:37:07 To: Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,michael gurstein Subject: RE: [governance] Visit to spain SCAM -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Zeeshan shoki Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 4:32 PM To: zeeshan_shoki at yahoo.com Subject: [governance] Visit to spain Hope you get this on time,sorry I didn't inform you about my trip in Spain for a program, I'm presently in Madrid and am having some difficulties here because. we misplaced our Bags and cell phone on our way back to the hotel we lodge in after we went for sight seeing. The Bags contained all the valuables we had. Now, my passport is in custody of the hotel management pending when we make payment. I am sorry if I am inconveniencing you, but I have only very few people to run to now. I will be indeed very grateful if I can get a loan of €1,550 EURO from you. this will enable me sort our hotel bills and get my sorry self back home. I will really appreciate whatever you can afford in assisting me with. I promise to refund it in full as soon as I return. let me know if you can be of any assistance. Please, let me know soonest. Thanks so much. Best Regards Zeeshan Shoki Chief Executive Pak Education Society/ Pakistan Development Network Karachi,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 amoblazem at gmail.com Tue May 15 20:18:33 2012 From: amoblazem at gmail.com (Amos Mpungu) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 09:18:33 +0900 Subject: [governance] Visit to spain In-Reply-To: <1337124739.58225.YahooMailClassic@web125802.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1337124739.58225.YahooMailClassic@web125802.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: It appears Mr. Zeeshan Shoki's email address has been hacked. If the signature is to be belived, he is from Pakistan. Asif, can you please let this gentleman know of his predicarment!! On May 16, 2012 8:33 AM, "Zeeshan shoki" wrote: > Hope you get this on time,sorry I didn't inform you about my trip in Spain > for a program, I'm presently in Madrid and am having some difficulties here > because. we misplaced our Bags and cell phone on our way back to the hotel > we lodge in after we went for sight seeing. The Bags contained all the > valuables we had. Now, my passport is in custody of the hotel management > pending when we make payment. > > I am sorry if I am inconveniencing you, but I have only very few people to > run to now. I will be indeed very grateful if I can get a loan of €1,550 > EURO from you. this will enable me sort our hotel bills and get my sorry > self back home. I will really appreciate whatever you can afford in > assisting me with. I promise to refund it in full as soon as I return. let > me know if you can be of any assistance. Please, let me know soonest. > Thanks so much. > > Best Regards > > Zeeshan Shoki > Chief Executive > Pak Education Society/ > Pakistan Development Network > Karachi,Pakistan > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 15 20:45:50 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 00:45:50 +0000 Subject: [governance] Visit to spain In-Reply-To: References: <1337124739.58225.YahooMailClassic@web125802.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>, Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D18A375FC@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Hi all, this is a fraud and no-one should fall for it. It is a relatively new type though it has been circulating for some time, but at a lower intensity. It should be amazing that people fall for this obvious cheat but... they do, and we see why. We have to intensify our "crap detection" capabilities (term taken from the works of Howard Rheingold.) Yours, Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tels. +52-(1)-55-5105-6044, +52-(1)-55-5418-3732 *Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com *LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty *Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 *Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, http://www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Amos Mpungu [amoblazem at gmail.com] Enviado el: martes, 15 de mayo de 2012 19:18 Hasta: Zeeshan shoki; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] Visit to spain It appears Mr. Zeeshan Shoki's email address has been hacked. If the signature is to be belived, he is from Pakistan. Asif, can you please let this gentleman know of his predicarment!! On May 16, 2012 8:33 AM, "Zeeshan shoki" > wrote: Hope you get this on time,sorry I didn't inform you about my trip in Spain for a program, I'm presently in Madrid and am having some difficulties here because. we misplaced our Bags and cell phone on our way back to the hotel we lodge in after we went for sight seeing. The Bags contained all the valuables we had. Now, my passport is in custody of the hotel management pending when we make payment. I am sorry if I am inconveniencing you, but I have only very few people to run to now. I will be indeed very grateful if I can get a loan of €1,550 EURO from you. this will enable me sort our hotel bills and get my sorry self back home. I will really appreciate whatever you can afford in assisting me with. I promise to refund it in full as soon as I return. let me know if you can be of any assistance. Please, let me know soonest. Thanks so much. Best Regards Zeeshan Shoki Chief Executive Pak Education Society/ Pakistan Development Network Karachi,Pakistan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 15 21:06:32 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 01:06:32 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF Open Consultation memo, Morning, May 15 In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D18A3798B@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Caro Stefano, the clarity you suggest to be achieved here is fundamental and I fully endorse your request. A wishy-washy yes-it-is-no-it-isn't statement about whether the Ministerial meeting is part of the IGF won't do. This also means that if it is not, every organization that decides to attend should make clear that they do so knowing that it is an IGF-related meeting but not a part of the IGF, and that they will not endorse any statement from the meeting as an outcome of the IGF since even the existence of a statement is already outside the rules of the IGF, let alone the procedural rules and the form of the multistakeholder engagement within the Ministerial. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tels. +52-(1)-55-5105-6044, +52-(1)-55-5418-3732 *Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com *LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty *Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 *Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, http://www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Ing. Stefano Trumpy [stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it] Enviado el: martes, 15 de mayo de 2012 13:47 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Izumi AIZU CC: Biasini Maurizio Asunto: Re: [governance] IGF Open Consultation memo, Morning, May 15 >The morning meeting ended around 1300, here is my rough memo. >Annotated, as it is Open consultation, but all are very sketchy. > >izumi thanks Izuni, you succeed to let us (especially those that attended at least one of these meetings) feel as we are present; I add a consideration below concerning the so called "ministerial meeting in the next IGF" > >May 15, 2012 11:25 Open Consultation starts > >UNDESA rep - >Opening remarks >over 100 workshops proposed for IGF 2012 >greater transparency, more information, contribute for better governance > >MR Elmir Valizda, Chair of MAG > >Robert Guerra >Citizen Lab >Update for Preparation, logistics, venue and other issues >scarecity of details a problem - > >Chengetai >Will have update, yes, just now. > >Constance, ISOC >ISCO reception > >Question of participation of indigenes people >rather than access to Internet, they need food, closing, shelters >I need free and active participation from indigenes people > >Azerbaijan host to report: >IGF Nov 6-9 >Nov 5 - ministerial meeting >info on Baku/Azerbaijan > >All hotels (90) with reduced corporate rates, without 18% VAT >46 hotels will be provided with shuttles >17 hotels - no shuttles > >Izumi read Judy's comment: >Physical Accessibility >it is imperative that all locations/ venue , transport,etc is >accessible and usable for PWD . > >Mervi, Finland >Question on Ministerial Meeting >who can participate? >agenda? >who are the organizer? > >Chair >Mostly, ministers, but can consider to invite head of delegates let me here to comment on this, starting from the experience in Nairobi; the Kenyan government decided to organize this pre-IGF meeting and invited ministers in a non homogeneous faction; it was not clear if the meeting was for governments at the top level; in the end the meeting has been a success and private sector and Internet organizations had the floor; concerning non ministerial government delegations, being part of Italian delegation headed by a head of department, I had the chance to meet the Kenyan minister that I knew from before and he said that of course our delegation was more than welcomed to attend having the floor. Since it appears that in Baku we sholud have a second experience in this direction, this meeting should be organized in a clear way by clarifying the following points: 1 is this event part of the IGF or not: if not, specify the relation with IGF and give a purpose to attract high level officials from around the world; 2 provide an agenda and clarify possibly the multistakeholder approach; 3 define that time slot for interventions from private sector and NGos involved in Internet governence, etc. I realize that I am suggesting what the local government should do and this is inappropriate but, at least, the MAG and others should at least make suggestioms. Stefano > >Robert Guerra >Make sure in the Host Country Agreement, for participants to feel free >out of fear. > >Chair >As Deputy minister, I will try to answer >Registration will be happen on the IGF Website, not our own website, >therefore, anyperson have possibility to register, >After this information will be provide to our governmental bodies to >issue visas and others >About some controls; free usage of Internet > through fix, mobile and other >We have some restrictions and all persons tha live and work >inAzerbaijan and if you come - can be used these technologies - suchs >possibilitew will be provided during IGF Balu. > >Peter Major >On accessibility said by Izumi mostly > >Judia Okite from Kenya >adding to accessibility, add that, ^ host country to check out hotel >if they are accessible with PWD for making booking > >Host >Our staff checked all the hotels, but did not put info on this, will >update the hotel list with this issue as well. > >Felix Samakande, new MAG, Zimbabwe >reaction to Video - recollection of Lithuania experience >restriction of time to speak but speak slowly for interpreter > >Chair >Translation will be provided only in Main Session - not in workshops > >Constance, ISOC >Mervi's question - add invitation to CEOs, Civil society members > >Chair >>From Kenya, we will keep this tradtion of inviting CEO (of ICANN), >>Civil Society > >Aysha >Comment on Ministerial, participated in Kenyan Ministerial >important to have dialogue among all stakeholders > >AZ Foreign Minisry >Visa issue - in due course > >Participation of all organizations - take seriously, treat every singe >delegation in a non-discriminatory soverigh- >IF not paritcpate from soverign countries - it's their choice >Linkage between of hosting event and allegation of freedom of >expression and mediu, > it is institutional nor, insure the norm and contineus to do so >mis-reprsented by some media- >is very infortunate that we are taking this time to address to >verenate the situation >clear - emotiona accests do not add credit to the authority of the >organizations or rpresentatives > >Anna, Portugal > >Question about Ministerial meeting >What is man objective of this Ministerial which countries are invited? >which Ministry? >we are in Multi-stakeholder event - cannot be put apart >MSH is not about big companies, but small companies, civil society, etc >what is the purpose of this Ministerial? > >Chair >Kenya, it was the first time to have Ministerial > >Alice - explained the Kenyan Ministerial > agenda - came as bottom up, discussed at East Africa IGF > >AZ rep >There is discussion on how to model ministerial meeting > we want to hear to MAG members - which model? > all countries participated in ITU members - ITU has list of >ministries - who is resposbile on Telecom, ICT InfoSoc -sent >invitation letter to those countries >Involving private sector - big companies but we can invite others >we want to modelize and find best figure - useful > >Address the >your country will be responsible and delegate your officials to that meeting. >ITU will channel this > >Wolfgang >Question to DESA >Nitin and Markus stepped down more than 2 years ago >Can we expect that two positions will be filled at IGF in Baku? > >DESA >Situation on Executive Coordinator and Special Advisor >It was funded by IGF Trust fund, voluntary contributions, but >regrettably, current voluntary contributions do not allow the >recruitment of EC >we are concerned about the absence of EC >once new project document approved 1 year ago, received from Controller, >90 applicants applied for the EC >Due to the financial balance project, we still have strong negative >balance - not able to recruit the EC >Go to IGC Website, you can see the balance of the project document >We just canceled the announcement of the EC, not able to continue the >recruitment, > >Special Advisor - prerogative of the SG, no influence to force him to >make the decision > >Anriette from APC >On Minsterial - I think it is very useful mechanism, appreciated in Kenya - >but IGF is different from ITU, complement each other >IGF could take broader government and other stakeholders - on policy >Not rely on ITU database, but to be more creative about which >minister to invite >Thematic focus on Ministerial - to define - then which CS and minister > >ON human rights, -good hear to the reassurance - ask Host country to >make documents and ask DESA to reflect them into Host Country >agreement > >Chair >according to the procedure, the host country must sign agreement with >UN DESA, and all issues are indicated in this agreement >Issues on transportation, visa, equipmet, computers are fulle include >toths agreement >And now this is agreement - w can publish them in our website. > >Anna Neves, Portugal >It is up to the host country to invite which Minister, yes. If it is >ITU event, then invite telecom ministers. but if it is IGF, then not >only telecom ministers. >If you use ITU Detabase, please do not call as "IGF". >On EC, puzzled. Strange. There is voluntary funding. > >Chair >We can consider all of your proposal. During this event, you have >possibility of contact from our delegation, you can provide some info >on some ministries, please inform us, and we will invite these >ministries. Please provide these. > >Bertrand de La Chappell >On Visa, related to citizens of countries who may have political >tensions and who may have difficulty - can you ensure that there will >be no restriction. >On EC, situation is extremely troublesome, painfully. >It might be intentional - I don't believe that. Choice- wrong >intensions or inefficiency - both are bad. Current situation is >weakening the IGF. >Chicken and Egg -we cannot hire because of funding, funding not coming >because of uncertainty >canceling the process - re-launching - take months > >MAG could, in due time, to designate its own Chair - as an option >A voluntary desire to solve this problem > >DESA >Communicated to donor community - >we are not limiting them, trying hard >recent situation with Google - working with lawyers, beyond control >hope to solve this situation as soon as possible >Recruitment process for EC >we stay with one rule approved by member states >no other way. > >Chengetai >HCA - treated equal as UN > >Qusai >Ministerial meeting - not IGF event, right? >AZ's liberty - to organize > > >LINCH Break > >Adam >How many workshops are possible to be organized - how many rooms? > >Chengetai >128 Workshop proposals - highest number submitted >The venue can fit all workshops >Do we want to have 12 workshops at the same time? > >Grading - >above 12 - green >below 12 - orange > >SOP 49 >Access 19 >EI, IG4D >CIR 10% >TS, WF 6% >Others - > >Cade - how about dynamic coalitions and Open Forum? > >Chengetai - we need to consider them 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 -- _________________________________________________________ Ing. Stefano TRUMPY CNR - Istituto di Informatica e Telematica Phone: +39 050 3152634 Mobile: +39 348 8218618 E-mail: stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it http://www.iit.cnr.it/en/node/345 _________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From correia.rui at gmail.com Wed May 16 02:15:10 2012 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 07:15:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Visit to spain SCAM In-Reply-To: References: <1337124739.58225.YahooMailClassic@web125802.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Does anyone actually know this 'person'? This is the first time the list receives an email from this address, though the said "Zeeshan Shoki" nominated himself/ was nominated for the NomCom, as you can see from the email from Izumi below. Best regards, Rui ---------- From Izumi on the 7th of this month - see very last name. Dear list, Among the 38 volunteers for NomCom, one person joined IGC mailing list in less than two months ago, thus I made the lottery draw selection from the following 37 candidates using the results of the last week's lottery closed on Saturday as announced. The following five persons are selected as New NomCom members. Congratulations! Asif Kabani Hakikur Rahman Naveed-ul-Haq Shahid Uddin Akbar Wilson Abigaba And the following three persons are the reserves. Thomas Lowenhaupt Devon Blake Dixie Hawtin We will first confirm the five selected persons if they are willing to serve. Hope all five will accept the result. If not, we need to ask the people in the reserve pool to join. After that we will select the non-voting Chair. Many thanks, izumi 37 candidates: --------------------- Adam Peake Anriette Esterhuysen Asif Kabani Baudouin Schombe Carlton SAMUELS Charity Gamboa-Embley Deirdre Williams Devon Blake Dixie Hawtin Fouad Baija Ginger Paque Guru Hakikur Rahman Ian Peter Iliya Bazlyankov Jacob Odame Jeremy Hunsinger Jeremy Malcolm Julián Casasbuenas G. Keisha Taylor Ken Stubbs Kerry Brown Lorna Simiyu Madeeha Rehman Michael gurstein Naveed-ul-Haq Norbert Klein Naveed-ul-Haq Shaila Mistry Sonigitu Ekpe Sunil Abraham Tapani Tarvainen Thomas Lowenhaupt Vanda Scartezini VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA Naveed-ul-Haq Zeeshan Shoki ------------ ----------- On 16 May 2012 00:37, michael gurstein wrote: > ** > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Zeeshan shoki > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 15, 2012 4:32 PM > *To:* zeeshan_shoki at yahoo.com > *Subject:* [governance] Visit to spain > > Hope you get this on time,sorry I didn't inform you about my trip in > Spain for a program, I'm presently in Madrid and am having some > difficulties here because. we misplaced our Bags and cell phone on our way > back to the hotel we lodge in after we went for sight seeing. The Bags > contained all the valuables we had. Now, my passport is in custody of the > hotel management pending when we make payment. > > I am sorry if I am inconveniencing you, but I have only very few people to > run to now. I will be indeed very grateful if I can get a loan of €1,550 > EURO from you. this will enable me sort our hotel bills and get my sorry > self back home. I will really appreciate whatever you can afford in > assisting me with. I promise to refund it in full as soon as I return. let > me know if you can be of any assistance. Please, let me know soonest. > Thanks so much. > > Best Regards > > Zeeshan Shoki > Chief Executive > Pak Education Society/ > Pakistan Development Network > Karachi,Pakistan > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- _________________________ Mobile Number in Namibia +264 81 445 1308 Número de Telemóvel na Namíbia +264 81 445 1308 I am away from Johannesburg - you cannot contact me on my South African numbers Estou fora de Joanesburgo - não poderá entrar em contacto comigo através dos meus números sul-africanos Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant _______________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hakik at hakik.org Wed May 16 05:45:03 2012 From: hakik at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 10:45:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] Visit to spain In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D18A375FC@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.l ocal> References: <1337124739.58225.YahooMailClassic@web125802.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D18A375FC@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Yes, as indicated, we have been receiving this sort of email lately, though in lower intensity. However, I will remember the day till I die, when my Laptop bag with most of my belongings, except my money bag and passport was mugged in Barcelona on December 26th 2009. I was editing my latest book, that time during those holidays there. A horrible day indeed! I lost over ten years of work in my laptop, though a slight portion was backed up before a year ago. Still I think I could not be on the track, in terms of my publications. The funny (I would now say) thing is that the local police at the central bus station from where the bag was mugged by a group of three or four (around 06:00AM local time), was reluctant to list it as a case and then refused. I had to go to the central police station to file the case. Due to the compilation, the case was weak and despite two surveillance cameras that might had clues or evidence were overlooked. This may happen... Sorry for putting a few personal words here (thought that I can share my feelings with my fellow friends and colleagues), but you never know what actually can happen to anybody anywhere. I hope Asif or Naveed or someone in this list from Pakistan could verify the incidence. I will be happy to learn what is written is really a scam! Best regards, Hakikur Hakikur Rahman Post Doctoral Researcher University of Minho Portugal (www.uminho.pt) and Adjunct Faculty BSMRAU, Bangladesh ( www.bsmrau.edu.bd). Web: www.hakik.org; www.kmowl.org/hakik Phone: +351-253510319-Extn 517301 (Office) +351-253060343 (Home) +351-960193872 (Cell) Chief Editor International Journal of Information Communication Technology for Human Development (IJICTHD) (http://www.igi-global.com/journal/international-journal-information-communication-technologies/1101), and Advances in Knowledge Communities and Social Networks (AKCSN) Book Series (http://www.igi-global.com/book-series/advances-knowledge-communities-social-networks/37168) At 01:45 AM 5/16/2012, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: >Content-Language: es-MX >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > >boundary="_000_6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D18A375FCW8EXMBDPunamloc_" > >Hi all, > >this is a fraud and no-one should fall for it. >It is a relatively new type though it has been >circulating for some time, but at a lower intensity. > >It should be amazing that people fall for this >obvious cheat but... they do, and we see why. We >have to intensify our "crap detection" >capabilities (term taken from the works of Howard Rheingold.) > >Yours, > >Alejandro Pisanty > >. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > >Tels. +52-(1)-55-5105-6044, +52-(1)-55-5418-3732 > >*Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >*LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >*Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, >http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >*Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty >---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > Participa en ICANN, http://www.icann.org >. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > >---------- >Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >[governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en >nombre de Amos Mpungu [amoblazem at gmail.com] >Enviado el: martes, 15 de mayo de 2012 19:18 >Hasta: Zeeshan shoki; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >Asunto: Re: [governance] Visit to spain > >It appears Mr. Zeeshan Shoki's email address has >been hacked. If the signature is to be belived, >he is from Pakistan. Asif, can you please let >this gentleman know of his predicarment!! >On May 16, 2012 8:33 AM, "Zeeshan shoki" ><zeeshan_shoki at yahoo.com> wrote: >Hope you get this on time,sorry I didn't inform >you about my trip in Spain for a program, I'm >presently in Madrid and am having some >difficulties here because. we misplaced our Bags >and cell phone on our way back to the hotel we >lodge in after we went for sight seeing. The >Bags contained all the valuables we had. Now, my >passport is in custody of the hotel management pending when we make payment. > >I am sorry if I am inconveniencing you, but I >have only very few people to run to now. I will >be indeed very grateful if I can get a loan >of €1,550 EURO from you. this will enable me >sort our hotel bills and get my sorry self back >home. I will really appreciate whatever you can >afford in assisting me with. I promise to refund >it in full as soon as I return. let me know if >you can be of any assistance. Please, let me know soonest. Thanks so much. > >Best Regards > >Zeeshan Shoki >Chief Executive >Pak Education Society/ >Pakistan Development Network >Karachi,Pakistan > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > >http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > >http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: >http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed May 16 05:55:15 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 18:55:15 +0900 Subject: [governance] MAG meeting, open to observers, Morning - before Coffee Break, May 16 Message-ID: May 16 MAG Meeting, 9:30 MAG started with the self-introduction of new MAG members. Chengetai Non-MAG members – primarily as observers non-MAG members to participate in groups, Aysha welcome – in person Chatham House rule – for small groups welcoming in email exchange- confusing online groups – not include non-MAG members Mervi in the agenda –talk about Ministerial meeting Chengetai Ministerial meeting is NOT IGF event as such, it’s totally up to the Chair, but it’s a side event that happens before Chair ask MAG members to concentrate on IGF Bill Drake 1)- working groups – participated as non-MAG members, continue the tradition, not agree entirely – online discussion important for inclusion 2) discussion about workshops – how many etc Mark Carbell Take input of CSTD WG Report Izumi I support what Bill said – for non-MAG members What is important is the substance of the work, quality, and invite non-MAG members on their specific areas of expertise to participate (online, as well) Also for plenary of MAG, in addition to the first and last part of the session where observers could take the floor, I would like to suggest that during the MAG discussions, if seemed appropriate by MAG member, with Chair’s permission, to let non-MAG members to take the floor, on specifics Anriette discuss the overall theme Sweden – around Human rights – need to find some modality to pull that together It is important to get the big picture – before breaking up Mark’s comment on CSTD WG, on document, outcome I volunteer Taking Stock and SOP Chengetai For the Swedish For CSTD WG, tomorrow, give briefing – tomorrow, 4 pm For reading of types of workshop, good idea to review the main sessions, we can – tomorrow morning on each item as we go Chris number of workshops – Bill’s point is important if we have more workshops – crash more - we could not get speakers we want because the speaker was also speaking at the same time in different session Chengetai – we can have max of 13 workshops concurrently, but only 4 concurrent sessions in a day Paul Wilson quality of workshops, we can’t guarantee the result we can rely on the collective judgment level of commitment of many workshops wasn’t good enough, to give confidence – not serious approach taken, relevance is important – some content is not relevant to IGF not about Internet Governance, but ICT only – not accept those we should trim down, to make sure we have high quality appeared to be repeated, not convincing Chengetai I do encourage WGs if they feel that WG does not make grade, delete them Opening session – prerogative of the host country and UN, we can listen to your comments Vladimr – relevance is not problematic, but some are incomplete Merging is second important Jeff - Eliminate some duplication focus be incompleteness and merging focus on Main Session and Feder workshops – for schedule reason Bill Drake Support what Paul said One individual submitted 8 proposals CEO of Apple and IBM – skeptical putting some place-markers respect bottom-up process and inclusiveness Felix Main theme – how was this arrived? Internet Governance for sustainable human, economic and social development Chengetai The theme came MAG after long discussion on consensus Izumi Writing good program is one thing, implementing what they propose is another. Somewhere in-between Have there been ways/works by Secretariat, between now and November before- if so how? Is there also ways for MAG members to work with the WS organizers, as well as I like to hear non MAG members here on how to organize Main Session – before we discuss about this Chris, changing the title, etc, is not our job Chengetai set number of workshops happen at the meeting if they did not meet the criteria, make comments and communicated to the organizer, to modify we are not going to change the substantive part of workshops Nurani Paul’s comments were good Role of MAG – to look at the relevance Jimpson Olphe Yuria identify sub-themes in each Chapter/Theme Some workshops did not reflect the global theme – what to do? Chengetai – Feeder workshops have to answer the Anriette Merge- broadening participation narrow or broad difinition of Internet Governance Collins, MAG, Uganda concern – number of workshops suggest Secretariat to make assessment team – of all workshops merge or put forward Paul Suggest to be reasonably ruthless on Anriette’s point provisional acceptance is good but ask confirmed speakers – obliged – to eliminate Ghost speaker’s list detailed session structure, consistant approach for orange and green proposals MAG member can, but not MAG as a whole to go individually proponents that is too hands on Chengetai – do we need another assessment? Agenda – good Workshops under multiple themes – if they may not apply to current themes, but they may apply to alternate theme Izumi on merging – some caution – as I was– asked to merge the workshop by MAG - before Some workshops ended up too many speakers, no real time for discussion, among the panel, and with participants Lower grade, but room for improvement (without interfering the substance) On diversity – especially increasing participation from developing countries, measures should be taken with big picture no real assessment yet done Bill Drake Secretariat to take work of objective analysis – not right to burden Secretariat on that workload Mark Qusai Not eliminate some proposals, but help improve the quality Remote – Zahid focus on relevance, avoid overwrap Mervi Greatful for Baku Host to accommodate many rooms As other organizations – Diplo or other, for capacity building, to provide basic information on capacity building Adpot soft approach for selection – Lucida on merging – were they given the right to decline? Chengetai since we have rooms, we do not have to force Nurani Stakeholder representing Swedish Government, like to emphasise on strong focus on Openness and Human Right – welcome the proposal of Bertrarand, to have roundtable, on human right Option of Raportour vladimr Support Izumi to hear non MAG members we should also discuss capacity building Bill Drake On background paper – it was not crystal clear that this is required at the front end. Some don’t understand what is expected, encouraged or mandatory. It’s a matter of balance. Aysha these discussions, especially from new MAG members, are helpful when we go into small WGs. Sanja Peter background paper – necessary to have background paper elimination – academic approach - loosely this is not a job-selection or university ranking it’s a forum Lian Guo, MAG members, from China I agree with need for more participation from developing countries read few proposals from China Mark UK IGF – to outreach Conditionality approval anticipating further shift of process beyond this MAG process, not anticipated Chengetai when you come back, you will give secretariat, list of workshops – IF they have more gender balance, geographic balance – that is easy for secretariat to check -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed May 16 06:26:28 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 22:26:28 +1200 Subject: [governance] MAG meeting, open to observers, Morning - before Coffee Break, May 16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Civil Society MAG Members, This is a friendly reminder to please keep in mind the positions and consolidation submissions that were prepared a few months ago in terms of themes etc. The Human Rights Statement that was developed for the Human Rights Council Meeting can also be used. Kind Regards, Sala On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > May 16 > MAG Meeting, > 9:30 > MAG started with the self-introduction of new MAG members. > > > Chengetai > Non-MAG members – primarily as observers > non-MAG members to participate in groups, > > Aysha > welcome – in person > Chatham House rule – for small groups > welcoming in email exchange- confusing > online groups – not include non-MAG members > > Mervi > in the agenda –talk about Ministerial meeting > > Chengetai > Ministerial meeting is NOT IGF event as such, it’s totally up to the > Chair, but it’s a side event that happens before > > Chair > ask MAG members to concentrate on IGF > > Bill Drake > 1)- working groups – participated as non-MAG members, continue the > tradition, not agree entirely – online discussion > important for inclusion > > 2) discussion about workshops – how many etc > > > Mark Carbell > Take input of CSTD WG Report > > > Izumi > I support what Bill said – for non-MAG members > What is important is the substance of the work, quality, and invite > non-MAG members on their specific areas of expertise to participate > (online, as well) > > Also for plenary of MAG, in addition to the first and last part of the > session where observers could take the floor, I would like to suggest > that during the MAG discussions, if seemed appropriate by MAG member, > with Chair’s permission, to let non-MAG members to take the floor, on > specifics > > Anriette > discuss the overall theme > Sweden – around Human rights – > need to find some modality to pull that together > It is important to get the big picture – before breaking up > Mark’s comment on CSTD WG, on document, outcome > I volunteer Taking Stock and SOP > > Chengetai > For the Swedish > For CSTD WG, tomorrow, give briefing – tomorrow, 4 pm > For reading of types of workshop, good idea > to review the main sessions, we can – tomorrow morning on each item as we > go > > Chris > number of workshops – Bill’s point is important > if we have more workshops – crash more > - we could not get speakers we want because the speaker was also > speaking at the same time in different session > > Chengetai – we can have max of 13 workshops concurrently, but only 4 > concurrent sessions in a day > > Paul Wilson > quality of workshops, we can’t guarantee the result > we can rely on the collective judgment > level of commitment of many workshops wasn’t good enough, to give > confidence – not serious approach taken, > relevance is important – some content is not relevant to IGF > not about Internet Governance, but ICT only – not accept those > we should trim down, to make sure we have high quality > appeared to be repeated, not convincing > > Chengetai > I do encourage WGs if they feel that WG does not make grade, delete them > Opening session – prerogative of the host country and UN, we can > listen to your comments > > Vladimr – relevance is not problematic, but some are incomplete > Merging is second important > > Jeff > - Eliminate some duplication > focus be incompleteness and merging > focus on Main Session and Feder workshops – for schedule reason > > Bill Drake > Support what Paul said > One individual submitted 8 proposals > CEO of Apple and IBM – skeptical > putting some place-markers > respect bottom-up process and inclusiveness > > Felix > Main theme – how was this arrived? > Internet Governance for sustainable human, economic and social development > > Chengetai > The theme came MAG after long discussion on consensus > > > Izumi > Writing good program is one thing, implementing what they propose is > another. > > Somewhere in-between > Have there been ways/works by Secretariat, between now and November > before- if so how? Is there also ways for MAG members to work with > the WS organizers, as well as > > I like to hear non MAG members here on how to organize Main Session – > before we discuss about this > > Chris, > changing the title, etc, is not our job > > Chengetai > set number of workshops happen at the meeting > if they did not meet the criteria, make comments and communicated to > the organizer, to modify > we are not going to change the substantive part of workshops > > Nurani > Paul’s comments were good > Role of MAG – to look at the relevance > > Jimpson Olphe > > Yuria > identify sub-themes in each Chapter/Theme > Some workshops did not reflect the global theme – what to do? > > Chengetai – Feeder workshops have to answer the > > > Anriette > Merge- > broadening participation > narrow or broad difinition of Internet Governance > > > Collins, MAG, Uganda > concern – number of workshops > suggest Secretariat to make assessment team – of all workshops > merge or put forward > > Paul > Suggest to be reasonably ruthless > on Anriette’s point > provisional acceptance is good > but ask confirmed speakers – obliged – > to eliminate Ghost speaker’s list > detailed session structure, > consistant approach for orange and green proposals > MAG member can, but not MAG as a whole to go individually proponents > that is too hands on > > > Chengetai – do we need another assessment? > Agenda – good > Workshops under multiple themes – if they may not apply to current > themes, but they may apply to alternate theme > > > Izumi > on merging – some caution – as I was– asked to merge the workshop by > MAG - before > > Some workshops ended up too many speakers, no real time for > discussion, among the panel, and with participants > > Lower grade, but room for improvement (without interfering the substance) > On diversity – especially increasing participation from developing > countries, measures should be taken with big picture > no real assessment yet done > > Bill Drake > Secretariat to take work of objective analysis – not right to burden > Secretariat on that workload > > Mark > > Qusai > Not eliminate some proposals, but help improve the quality > > Remote – Zahid > focus on relevance, avoid overwrap > > > Mervi > Greatful for Baku Host to accommodate many rooms > As other organizations – Diplo or other, for capacity building, to > provide basic information on capacity building > Adpot soft approach for selection – > > Lucida > on merging – were they given the right to decline? > > Chengetai > since we have rooms, we do not have to force > > Nurani > Stakeholder representing Swedish Government, like to emphasise on > strong focus on Openness and Human Right – welcome the proposal of > Bertrarand, to have roundtable, on human right > Option of Raportour > > vladimr > Support Izumi to hear non MAG members > we should also discuss capacity building > > Bill Drake > On background paper – it was not crystal clear that this is required > at the front end. Some don’t understand what is expected, encouraged > or mandatory. > It’s a matter of balance. > > Aysha > these discussions, especially from new MAG members, are helpful when > we go into small WGs. > > Sanja > > Peter > background paper – necessary to have background paper > elimination – academic approach - loosely > this is not a job-selection or university ranking > it’s a forum > > Lian Guo, MAG members, from China > I agree with need for more participation from developing countries > read few proposals from China > > Mark > UK IGF – to outreach > Conditionality approval > anticipating further shift of process beyond this MAG process, not > anticipated > > Chengetai > when you come back, you will give secretariat, list of workshops – IF > they have more gender balance, geographic balance – that is easy for > secretariat to check > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and 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 ginger at paque.net Wed May 16 06:46:59 2012 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 06:16:59 -0430 Subject: [governance] Visit to spain SCAM In-Reply-To: References: <1337124739.58225.YahooMailClassic@web125802.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I know of Zeeshan Shoki since 2009 as an online person from the University of Karachi, interested in IG. I have seen other email accounts hacked this way, so I have some sympathy/empathy. As he recovers his accounts, I hope he will update us on what happened, if nothing else, so we can learn from his experience. If however, he is having serious problems with his email account being compromised, he might not be reading this thread, or be aware that the email was propagated through it. Cheers... Ginger On 16 May 2012 01:45, Rui Correia wrote: > Does anyone actually know this 'person'? This is the first time the list > receives an email from this address, though the said "Zeeshan Shoki" > nominated himself/ was nominated for the NomCom, as you can see from the > email from Izumi below. > > Best regards, > > Rui > > ---------- > From Izumi on the 7th of this month - see very last name. > > Dear list, > > Among the 38 volunteers for NomCom, one person joined IGC mailing list > in less than two months ago, thus I made the lottery draw selection from > the following 37 candidates using the results of the last week's lottery > closed on Saturday as announced. > > The following five persons are selected as New NomCom members. > Congratulations! > > Asif Kabani > Hakikur Rahman > Naveed-ul-Haq > Shahid Uddin Akbar > Wilson Abigaba > > And the following three persons are the reserves. > > Thomas Lowenhaupt > Devon Blake > Dixie Hawtin > > We will first confirm the five selected persons if they are willing to > serve. > Hope all five will accept the result. If not, we need to ask the people in > the reserve pool to join. > > After that we will select the non-voting Chair. > > Many thanks, > > izumi > > > 37 candidates: > --------------------- > Adam Peake > Anriette Esterhuysen > Asif Kabani > Baudouin Schombe > Carlton SAMUELS > Charity Gamboa-Embley > Deirdre Williams > Devon Blake > Dixie Hawtin > Fouad Baija > Ginger Paque > Guru > Hakikur Rahman > Ian Peter > Iliya Bazlyankov > Jacob Odame > Jeremy Hunsinger > Jeremy Malcolm > Julián Casasbuenas G. > Keisha Taylor > Ken Stubbs > Kerry Brown > Lorna Simiyu > Madeeha Rehman > Michael gurstein > Naveed-ul-Haq > Norbert Klein > Naveed-ul-Haq > Shaila Mistry > Sonigitu Ekpe > Sunil Abraham > Tapani Tarvainen > Thomas Lowenhaupt > Vanda Scartezini > VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA > Naveed-ul-Haq > Zeeshan Shoki > > ------------ > ----------- > > On 16 May 2012 00:37, michael gurstein wrote: > >> ** >> >> -----Original Message----- >> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: >> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Zeeshan shoki >> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 15, 2012 4:32 PM >> *To:* zeeshan_shoki at yahoo.com >> *Subject:* [governance] Visit to spain >> >> Hope you get this on time,sorry I didn't inform you about my trip in >> Spain for a program, I'm presently in Madrid and am having some >> difficulties here because. we misplaced our Bags and cell phone on our way >> back to the hotel we lodge in after we went for sight seeing. The Bags >> contained all the valuables we had. Now, my passport is in custody of the >> hotel management pending when we make payment. >> >> I am sorry if I am inconveniencing you, but I have only very few people >> to run to now. I will be indeed very grateful if I can get a loan of >> €1,550 EURO from you. this will enable me sort our hotel bills and get my >> sorry self back home. I will really appreciate whatever you can afford in >> assisting me with. I promise to refund it in full as soon as I return. let >> me know if you can be of any assistance. Please, let me know soonest. >> Thanks so much. >> >> Best Regards >> >> Zeeshan Shoki >> Chief Executive >> Pak Education Society/ >> Pakistan Development Network >> Karachi,Pakistan >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > _________________________ > Mobile Number in Namibia +264 81 445 1308 > Número de Telemóvel na Namíbia +264 81 445 1308 > > I am away from Johannesburg - you cannot contact me on my South African > numbers > Estou fora de Joanesburgo - não poderá entrar em contacto comigo através > dos meus números sul-africanos > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > Angola Liaison Consultant > > _______________ > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 16 06:51:51 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 12:51:51 +0200 Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?RE=A0=3A_=5Bgovernance=5D?= MAG meeting, open to observers, Morning - before Coffee Break, May 16 References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD26@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thanks Izumi great work. Extremly helpful. wolfgang ________________________________ De: izumiaizu at gmail.com de la part de Izumi AIZU Date: mer. 16.05.2012 11:55 À: governance Objet : [governance] MAG meeting, open to observers, Morning - before Coffee Break, May 16 May 16 MAG Meeting, 9:30 MAG started with the self-introduction of new MAG members. Chengetai Non-MAG members - primarily as observers non-MAG members to participate in groups, Aysha welcome - in person Chatham House rule - for small groups welcoming in email exchange- confusing online groups - not include non-MAG members Mervi in the agenda -talk about Ministerial meeting Chengetai Ministerial meeting is NOT IGF event as such, it's totally up to the Chair, but it's a side event that happens before Chair ask MAG members to concentrate on IGF Bill Drake 1)- working groups - participated as non-MAG members, continue the tradition, not agree entirely - online discussion important for inclusion 2) discussion about workshops - how many etc Mark Carbell Take input of CSTD WG Report Izumi I support what Bill said - for non-MAG members What is important is the substance of the work, quality, and invite non-MAG members on their specific areas of expertise to participate (online, as well) Also for plenary of MAG, in addition to the first and last part of the session where observers could take the floor, I would like to suggest that during the MAG discussions, if seemed appropriate by MAG member, with Chair's permission, to let non-MAG members to take the floor, on specifics Anriette discuss the overall theme Sweden - around Human rights - need to find some modality to pull that together It is important to get the big picture - before breaking up Mark's comment on CSTD WG, on document, outcome I volunteer Taking Stock and SOP Chengetai For the Swedish For CSTD WG, tomorrow, give briefing - tomorrow, 4 pm For reading of types of workshop, good idea to review the main sessions, we can - tomorrow morning on each item as we go Chris number of workshops - Bill's point is important if we have more workshops - crash more - we could not get speakers we want because the speaker was also speaking at the same time in different session Chengetai - we can have max of 13 workshops concurrently, but only 4 concurrent sessions in a day Paul Wilson quality of workshops, we can't guarantee the result we can rely on the collective judgment level of commitment of many workshops wasn't good enough, to give confidence - not serious approach taken, relevance is important - some content is not relevant to IGF not about Internet Governance, but ICT only - not accept those we should trim down, to make sure we have high quality appeared to be repeated, not convincing Chengetai I do encourage WGs if they feel that WG does not make grade, delete them Opening session - prerogative of the host country and UN, we can listen to your comments Vladimr - relevance is not problematic, but some are incomplete Merging is second important Jeff - Eliminate some duplication focus be incompleteness and merging focus on Main Session and Feder workshops - for schedule reason Bill Drake Support what Paul said One individual submitted 8 proposals CEO of Apple and IBM - skeptical putting some place-markers respect bottom-up process and inclusiveness Felix Main theme - how was this arrived? Internet Governance for sustainable human, economic and social development Chengetai The theme came MAG after long discussion on consensus Izumi Writing good program is one thing, implementing what they propose is another. Somewhere in-between Have there been ways/works by Secretariat, between now and November before- if so how? Is there also ways for MAG members to work with the WS organizers, as well as I like to hear non MAG members here on how to organize Main Session - before we discuss about this Chris, changing the title, etc, is not our job Chengetai set number of workshops happen at the meeting if they did not meet the criteria, make comments and communicated to the organizer, to modify we are not going to change the substantive part of workshops Nurani Paul's comments were good Role of MAG - to look at the relevance Jimpson Olphe Yuria identify sub-themes in each Chapter/Theme Some workshops did not reflect the global theme - what to do? Chengetai - Feeder workshops have to answer the Anriette Merge- broadening participation narrow or broad difinition of Internet Governance Collins, MAG, Uganda concern - number of workshops suggest Secretariat to make assessment team - of all workshops merge or put forward Paul Suggest to be reasonably ruthless on Anriette's point provisional acceptance is good but ask confirmed speakers - obliged - to eliminate Ghost speaker's list detailed session structure, consistant approach for orange and green proposals MAG member can, but not MAG as a whole to go individually proponents that is too hands on Chengetai - do we need another assessment? Agenda - good Workshops under multiple themes - if they may not apply to current themes, but they may apply to alternate theme Izumi on merging - some caution - as I was- asked to merge the workshop by MAG - before Some workshops ended up too many speakers, no real time for discussion, among the panel, and with participants Lower grade, but room for improvement (without interfering the substance) On diversity - especially increasing participation from developing countries, measures should be taken with big picture no real assessment yet done Bill Drake Secretariat to take work of objective analysis - not right to burden Secretariat on that workload Mark Qusai Not eliminate some proposals, but help improve the quality Remote - Zahid focus on relevance, avoid overwrap Mervi Greatful for Baku Host to accommodate many rooms As other organizations - Diplo or other, for capacity building, to provide basic information on capacity building Adpot soft approach for selection - Lucida on merging - were they given the right to decline? Chengetai since we have rooms, we do not have to force Nurani Stakeholder representing Swedish Government, like to emphasise on strong focus on Openness and Human Right - welcome the proposal of Bertrarand, to have roundtable, on human right Option of Raportour vladimr Support Izumi to hear non MAG members we should also discuss capacity building Bill Drake On background paper - it was not crystal clear that this is required at the front end. Some don't understand what is expected, encouraged or mandatory. It's a matter of balance. Aysha these discussions, especially from new MAG members, are helpful when we go into small WGs. Sanja Peter background paper - necessary to have background paper elimination - academic approach - loosely this is not a job-selection or university ranking it's a forum Lian Guo, MAG members, from China I agree with need for more participation from developing countries read few proposals from China Mark UK IGF - to outreach Conditionality approval anticipating further shift of process beyond this MAG process, not anticipated Chengetai when you come back, you will give secretariat, list of workshops - IF they have more gender balance, geographic balance - that is easy for secretariat to check -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 16 07:09:51 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 04:09:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Visit to spain In-Reply-To: References: <1337124739.58225.YahooMailClassic@web125802.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D18A375FC@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <1337166591.6096.YahooMailNeo@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dear Hakikur Rahman   Just talked to Zeshan, and he confirmed that his email account "zeeshan_shoki(at)yahoo.com" was hacked, he lost all of his contacts & messages from his email account.   He also confirmed that one of his close friend contacted him for the fianancial support as per the email messages circulated to his contacts.   He has initiated data recovery request through Yahoo Help process.   Regards   Imran Ahmed Shah From: Hakikur Rahman >To: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch ; "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Amos Mpungu >Sent: Wednesday, 16 May 2012, 14:45 >Subject: RE: [governance] Visit to spain > > >Yes, as indicated, we have been receiving this sort of email lately, though in lower intensity. > >However, I will remember the day till I die, when my Laptop bag with most of my belongings, except my money bag and passport was mugged in Barcelona on December 26th 2009. I was editing my latest book, that time during those holidays there. A horrible day indeed! I lost over ten years of work in my laptop, though a slight portion was backed up before a year ago. Still I think I could not be on the track, in terms of my publications. The funny (I would now say) thing is that the local police at the central bus station from where the bag was mugged by a group of three or four (around 06:00AM local time), was reluctant to list it as a case and then refused. I had to go to the central police station to file the case. Due to the compilation, the case was weak and despite two surveillance cameras that might had clues or evidence were overlooked. This may happen... > >Sorry for putting a few personal words here (thought that I can share my feelings with my fellow friends and colleagues), but you never know what actually can happen to anybody anywhere. I hope Asif or Naveed or someone in this list from Pakistan could verify the incidence. I will be happy to learn what is written is really a scam! > >Best regards, >Hakikur >  > >Hakikur Rahman >Post Doctoral Researcher >University of Minho >Portugal (www.uminho.pt) and >Adjunct Faculty >BSMRAU, Bangladesh ( www.bsmrau.edu.bd ). >Web: www.hakik.org; www.kmowl.org/hakik >Phone: +351-253510319-Extn 517301 (Office) >         +351-253060343 (Home) >         +351-960193872 (Cell) > >Chief Editor >International Journal of Information Communication Technology for Human Development (IJICTHD) >(http://www.igi-global.com/journal/international-journal-information-communication-technologies/1101 ), and > >Advances in Knowledge Communities and Social Networks (AKCSN) Book Series >(http://www.igi-global.com/book-series/advances-knowledge-communities-social-networks/37168 ) > >At 01:45 AM 5/16/2012, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > >Content-Language: es-MX >>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; >>         boundary="_000_6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D18A375FCW8EXMBDPunamloc_" >> >>Hi all, >> >>this is a fraud and no-one should fall for it. It is a relatively new type though it has been circulating for some time, but at a lower intensity. >> >>It should be amazing that people fall for this obvious cheat but... they do, and we see why. We have to intensify our "crap detection" capabilities (term taken from the works of Howard Rheingold.) >> >>Yours, >> >>Alejandro Pisanty >> >>.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  .  .  . >>     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >>UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >> >>Tels. +52-(1)-55-5105-6044, +52-(1)-55-5418-3732 >> >>*Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >>*LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >>*Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >>*Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty >>---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org >> Participa en ICANN, http://www.icann.org >>.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . >>Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Amos Mpungu [amoblazem at gmail.com] >>Enviado el: martes, 15 de mayo de 2012 19:18 >>Hasta: Zeeshan shoki; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>Asunto: Re: [governance] Visit to spain >> >>It appears Mr. Zeeshan Shoki's email address has been hacked. If the signature is to be belived, he is from Pakistan. Asif, can you please let this gentleman know of his predicarment!! >>On May 16, 2012 8:33 AM, "Zeeshan shoki" wrote: >> >>Hope you get this on time,sorry I didn't inform you about my trip in Spain for a program, I'm presently in Madrid and am having some difficulties here because. we misplaced our Bags and cell phone on our way back to the hotel we lodge in after we went for sight seeing. The Bags contained all the valuables we had. Now, my passport is in custody of the hotel management pending when we make payment. >> >> >> >>I am sorry if I am inconveniencing you, but I have only very few people to run to now. I will be indeed very grateful if I can get a loan of  €1,550 EURO  from you. this will enable me sort our hotel bills and get my sorry self back home. I will really appreciate whatever you can afford in assisting me with. I promise to refund it in full as soon as I return. let me know if you can be of any assistance. Please, let me know soonest. Thanks so much. >> >> >>Best Regards >> >> >>Zeeshan Shoki >> >>Chief Executive >> >>Pak Education Society/ >> >>Pakistan Development Network >> >>Karachi,Pakistan >> >>____________________________________________________________ >> >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >>For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Wed May 16 07:27:44 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 07:27:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] MAG meeting, open to observers, Morning - before Coffee Break, May 16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you again Izumi. And thank you for your support of developing countries - yesterday too :-) Deirdre On 16 May 2012 05:55, Izumi AIZU wrote: > May 16 > MAG Meeting, > 9:30 > MAG started with the self-introduction of new MAG members. > > > Chengetai > Non-MAG members – primarily as observers > non-MAG members to participate in groups, > > Aysha > welcome – in person > Chatham House rule – for small groups > welcoming in email exchange- confusing > online groups – not include non-MAG members > > Mervi > in the agenda –talk about Ministerial meeting > > Chengetai > Ministerial meeting is NOT IGF event as such, it’s totally up to the > Chair, but it’s a side event that happens before > > Chair > ask MAG members to concentrate on IGF > > Bill Drake > 1)- working groups – participated as non-MAG members, continue the > tradition, not agree entirely – online discussion > important for inclusion > > 2) discussion about workshops – how many etc > > > Mark Carbell > Take input of CSTD WG Report > > > Izumi > I support what Bill said – for non-MAG members > What is important is the substance of the work, quality, and invite > non-MAG members on their specific areas of expertise to participate > (online, as well) > > Also for plenary of MAG, in addition to the first and last part of the > session where observers could take the floor, I would like to suggest > that during the MAG discussions, if seemed appropriate by MAG member, > with Chair’s permission, to let non-MAG members to take the floor, on > specifics > > Anriette > discuss the overall theme > Sweden – around Human rights – > need to find some modality to pull that together > It is important to get the big picture – before breaking up > Mark’s comment on CSTD WG, on document, outcome > I volunteer Taking Stock and SOP > > Chengetai > For the Swedish > For CSTD WG, tomorrow, give briefing – tomorrow, 4 pm > For reading of types of workshop, good idea > to review the main sessions, we can – tomorrow morning on each item as we > go > > Chris > number of workshops – Bill’s point is important > if we have more workshops – crash more > - we could not get speakers we want because the speaker was also > speaking at the same time in different session > > Chengetai – we can have max of 13 workshops concurrently, but only 4 > concurrent sessions in a day > > Paul Wilson > quality of workshops, we can’t guarantee the result > we can rely on the collective judgment > level of commitment of many workshops wasn’t good enough, to give > confidence – not serious approach taken, > relevance is important – some content is not relevant to IGF > not about Internet Governance, but ICT only – not accept those > we should trim down, to make sure we have high quality > appeared to be repeated, not convincing > > Chengetai > I do encourage WGs if they feel that WG does not make grade, delete them > Opening session – prerogative of the host country and UN, we can > listen to your comments > > Vladimr – relevance is not problematic, but some are incomplete > Merging is second important > > Jeff > - Eliminate some duplication > focus be incompleteness and merging > focus on Main Session and Feder workshops – for schedule reason > > Bill Drake > Support what Paul said > One individual submitted 8 proposals > CEO of Apple and IBM – skeptical > putting some place-markers > respect bottom-up process and inclusiveness > > Felix > Main theme – how was this arrived? > Internet Governance for sustainable human, economic and social development > > Chengetai > The theme came MAG after long discussion on consensus > > > Izumi > Writing good program is one thing, implementing what they propose is > another. > > Somewhere in-between > Have there been ways/works by Secretariat, between now and November > before- if so how? Is there also ways for MAG members to work with > the WS organizers, as well as > > I like to hear non MAG members here on how to organize Main Session – > before we discuss about this > > Chris, > changing the title, etc, is not our job > > Chengetai > set number of workshops happen at the meeting > if they did not meet the criteria, make comments and communicated to > the organizer, to modify > we are not going to change the substantive part of workshops > > Nurani > Paul’s comments were good > Role of MAG – to look at the relevance > > Jimpson Olphe > > Yuria > identify sub-themes in each Chapter/Theme > Some workshops did not reflect the global theme – what to do? > > Chengetai – Feeder workshops have to answer the > > > Anriette > Merge- > broadening participation > narrow or broad difinition of Internet Governance > > > Collins, MAG, Uganda > concern – number of workshops > suggest Secretariat to make assessment team – of all workshops > merge or put forward > > Paul > Suggest to be reasonably ruthless > on Anriette’s point > provisional acceptance is good > but ask confirmed speakers – obliged – > to eliminate Ghost speaker’s list > detailed session structure, > consistant approach for orange and green proposals > MAG member can, but not MAG as a whole to go individually proponents > that is too hands on > > > Chengetai – do we need another assessment? > Agenda – good > Workshops under multiple themes – if they may not apply to current > themes, but they may apply to alternate theme > > > Izumi > on merging – some caution – as I was– asked to merge the workshop by > MAG - before > > Some workshops ended up too many speakers, no real time for > discussion, among the panel, and with participants > > Lower grade, but room for improvement (without interfering the substance) > On diversity – especially increasing participation from developing > countries, measures should be taken with big picture > no real assessment yet done > > Bill Drake > Secretariat to take work of objective analysis – not right to burden > Secretariat on that workload > > Mark > > Qusai > Not eliminate some proposals, but help improve the quality > > Remote – Zahid > focus on relevance, avoid overwrap > > > Mervi > Greatful for Baku Host to accommodate many rooms > As other organizations – Diplo or other, for capacity building, to > provide basic information on capacity building > Adpot soft approach for selection – > > Lucida > on merging – were they given the right to decline? > > Chengetai > since we have rooms, we do not have to force > > Nurani > Stakeholder representing Swedish Government, like to emphasise on > strong focus on Openness and Human Right – welcome the proposal of > Bertrarand, to have roundtable, on human right > Option of Raportour > > vladimr > Support Izumi to hear non MAG members > we should also discuss capacity building > > Bill Drake > On background paper – it was not crystal clear that this is required > at the front end. Some don’t understand what is expected, encouraged > or mandatory. > It’s a matter of balance. > > Aysha > these discussions, especially from new MAG members, are helpful when > we go into small WGs. > > Sanja > > Peter > background paper – necessary to have background paper > elimination – academic approach - loosely > this is not a job-selection or university ranking > it’s a forum > > Lian Guo, MAG members, from China > I agree with need for more participation from developing countries > read few proposals from China > > Mark > UK IGF – to outreach > Conditionality approval > anticipating further shift of process beyond this MAG process, not > anticipated > > Chengetai > when you come back, you will give secretariat, list of workshops – IF > they have more gender balance, geographic balance – that is easy for > secretariat to check > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed May 16 08:15:54 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 00:15:54 +1200 Subject: [governance] Visit to spain SCAM In-Reply-To: References: <1337124739.58225.YahooMailClassic@web125802.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: - Once I had friends over for dinner and I received an email purporting to be from one of my friends from her legitimate email account stating that she was stuck in the United Kingdom and needed me to wire money over. What was amusing was that I showed her the email I received and she was shocked/angry/embarrassed; - I then forwarded the email to our Cyber Crimes Unit in Fiji and also googled the closest Police Station next to where she was supposed to have wired the money and reported it to their cyber crimes unit. They could not attend to it because it was a common occurrence or perhaps because they felt like it was not their problem or that I was not a UK national; Countries have regional and international cooperation through the various Treaties in relation to law enforcement....but often the average internet user whose privacy has been invaded has no recourse because he/she is dealing with an "invisible enemy". Kind Regards, On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > I know of Zeeshan Shoki since 2009 as an online person from the University > of Karachi, interested in IG. I have seen other email accounts hacked this > way, so I have some sympathy/empathy. As he recovers his accounts, I hope > he will update us on what happened, if nothing else, so we can learn from > his experience. > > If however, he is having serious problems with his email account being > compromised, he might not be reading this thread, or be aware that the > email was propagated through it. > > Cheers... Ginger > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed May 16 08:19:41 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 00:19:41 +1200 Subject: [governance] MAG meeting, open to observers, Morning - before Coffee Break, May 16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, I have placed the consolidated paper that was developed in February by the IGC and attached here for your records and use. Thank you Izumi for the updates. Kind Regards, Sala On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you again Izumi. > And thank you for your support of developing countries - yesterday too :-) > Deirdre > > On 16 May 2012 05:55, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> May 16 >> MAG Meeting, >> 9:30 >> MAG started with the self-introduction of new MAG members. >> >> >> Chengetai >> Non-MAG members – primarily as observers >> non-MAG members to participate in groups, >> >> Aysha >> welcome – in person >> Chatham House rule – for small groups >> welcoming in email exchange- confusing >> online groups – not include non-MAG members >> >> Mervi >> in the agenda –talk about Ministerial meeting >> >> Chengetai >> Ministerial meeting is NOT IGF event as such, it’s totally up to the >> Chair, but it’s a side event that happens before >> >> Chair >> ask MAG members to concentrate on IGF >> >> Bill Drake >> 1)- working groups – participated as non-MAG members, continue the >> tradition, not agree entirely – online discussion >> important for inclusion >> >> 2) discussion about workshops – how many etc >> >> >> Mark Carbell >> Take input of CSTD WG Report >> >> >> Izumi >> I support what Bill said – for non-MAG members >> What is important is the substance of the work, quality, and invite >> non-MAG members on their specific areas of expertise to participate >> (online, as well) >> >> Also for plenary of MAG, in addition to the first and last part of the >> session where observers could take the floor, I would like to suggest >> that during the MAG discussions, if seemed appropriate by MAG member, >> with Chair’s permission, to let non-MAG members to take the floor, on >> specifics >> >> Anriette >> discuss the overall theme >> Sweden – around Human rights – >> need to find some modality to pull that together >> It is important to get the big picture – before breaking up >> Mark’s comment on CSTD WG, on document, outcome >> I volunteer Taking Stock and SOP >> >> Chengetai >> For the Swedish >> For CSTD WG, tomorrow, give briefing – tomorrow, 4 pm >> For reading of types of workshop, good idea >> to review the main sessions, we can – tomorrow morning on each item as we >> go >> >> Chris >> number of workshops – Bill’s point is important >> if we have more workshops – crash more >> - we could not get speakers we want because the speaker was also >> speaking at the same time in different session >> >> Chengetai – we can have max of 13 workshops concurrently, but only 4 >> concurrent sessions in a day >> >> Paul Wilson >> quality of workshops, we can’t guarantee the result >> we can rely on the collective judgment >> level of commitment of many workshops wasn’t good enough, to give >> confidence – not serious approach taken, >> relevance is important – some content is not relevant to IGF >> not about Internet Governance, but ICT only – not accept those >> we should trim down, to make sure we have high quality >> appeared to be repeated, not convincing >> >> Chengetai >> I do encourage WGs if they feel that WG does not make grade, delete them >> Opening session – prerogative of the host country and UN, we can >> listen to your comments >> >> Vladimr – relevance is not problematic, but some are incomplete >> Merging is second important >> >> Jeff >> - Eliminate some duplication >> focus be incompleteness and merging >> focus on Main Session and Feder workshops – for schedule reason >> >> Bill Drake >> Support what Paul said >> One individual submitted 8 proposals >> CEO of Apple and IBM – skeptical >> putting some place-markers >> respect bottom-up process and inclusiveness >> >> Felix >> Main theme – how was this arrived? >> Internet Governance for sustainable human, economic and social development >> >> Chengetai >> The theme came MAG after long discussion on consensus >> >> >> Izumi >> Writing good program is one thing, implementing what they propose is >> another. >> >> Somewhere in-between >> Have there been ways/works by Secretariat, between now and November >> before- if so how? Is there also ways for MAG members to work with >> the WS organizers, as well as >> >> I like to hear non MAG members here on how to organize Main Session – >> before we discuss about this >> >> Chris, >> changing the title, etc, is not our job >> >> Chengetai >> set number of workshops happen at the meeting >> if they did not meet the criteria, make comments and communicated to >> the organizer, to modify >> we are not going to change the substantive part of workshops >> >> Nurani >> Paul’s comments were good >> Role of MAG – to look at the relevance >> >> Jimpson Olphe >> >> Yuria >> identify sub-themes in each Chapter/Theme >> Some workshops did not reflect the global theme – what to do? >> >> Chengetai – Feeder workshops have to answer the >> >> >> Anriette >> Merge- >> broadening participation >> narrow or broad difinition of Internet Governance >> >> >> Collins, MAG, Uganda >> concern – number of workshops >> suggest Secretariat to make assessment team – of all workshops >> merge or put forward >> >> Paul >> Suggest to be reasonably ruthless >> on Anriette’s point >> provisional acceptance is good >> but ask confirmed speakers – obliged – >> to eliminate Ghost speaker’s list >> detailed session structure, >> consistant approach for orange and green proposals >> MAG member can, but not MAG as a whole to go individually proponents >> that is too hands on >> >> >> Chengetai – do we need another assessment? >> Agenda – good >> Workshops under multiple themes – if they may not apply to current >> themes, but they may apply to alternate theme >> >> >> Izumi >> on merging – some caution – as I was– asked to merge the workshop by >> MAG - before >> >> Some workshops ended up too many speakers, no real time for >> discussion, among the panel, and with participants >> >> Lower grade, but room for improvement (without interfering the substance) >> On diversity – especially increasing participation from developing >> countries, measures should be taken with big picture >> no real assessment yet done >> >> Bill Drake >> Secretariat to take work of objective analysis – not right to burden >> Secretariat on that workload >> >> Mark >> >> Qusai >> Not eliminate some proposals, but help improve the quality >> >> Remote – Zahid >> focus on relevance, avoid overwrap >> >> >> Mervi >> Greatful for Baku Host to accommodate many rooms >> As other organizations – Diplo or other, for capacity building, to >> provide basic information on capacity building >> Adpot soft approach for selection – >> >> Lucida >> on merging – were they given the right to decline? >> >> Chengetai >> since we have rooms, we do not have to force >> >> Nurani >> Stakeholder representing Swedish Government, like to emphasise on >> strong focus on Openness and Human Right – welcome the proposal of >> Bertrarand, to have roundtable, on human right >> Option of Raportour >> >> vladimr >> Support Izumi to hear non MAG members >> we should also discuss capacity building >> >> Bill Drake >> On background paper – it was not crystal clear that this is required >> at the front end. Some don’t understand what is expected, encouraged >> or mandatory. >> It’s a matter of balance. >> >> Aysha >> these discussions, especially from new MAG members, are helpful when >> we go into small WGs. >> >> Sanja >> >> Peter >> background paper – necessary to have background paper >> elimination – academic approach - loosely >> this is not a job-selection or university ranking >> it’s a forum >> >> Lian Guo, MAG members, from China >> I agree with need for more participation from developing countries >> read few proposals from China >> >> Mark >> UK IGF – to outreach >> Conditionality approval >> anticipating further shift of process beyond this MAG process, not >> anticipated >> >> Chengetai >> when you come back, you will give secretariat, list of workshops – IF >> they have more gender balance, geographic balance – that is easy for >> secretariat to check >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CSIGC [MAG Consultations] Consolidation Theme 29.2.12.doc Type: application/msword Size: 66048 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hakik at hakik.org Wed May 16 08:36:25 2012 From: hakik at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 13:36:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] Visit to spain In-Reply-To: <1337166591.6096.YahooMailNeo@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1337124739.58225.YahooMailClassic@web125802.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D18A375FC@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <1337166591.6096.YahooMailNeo@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Imran, Thank you for the information. A relief after all! However, this concerns to the person who has lost his/her information and data from the account, and also lead to privacy (may fall into embarrassing situation) and security issues (how secured is the data) that this group is emphasizing in relationship to IG. Best regards, Hakikur At 12:09 PM 5/16/2012, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >Dear Hakikur Rahman > >Just talked to Zeshan, and he confirmed that his >email account "zeeshan_shoki(at)yahoo.com" was >hacked, he lost all of his contacts & messages from his email account. > >He also confirmed that one of his close friend >contacted him for the fianancial support as per >the email messages circulated to his contacts. > >He has initiated data recovery request through Yahoo Help process. > >Regards > >Imran Ahmed Shah > >From: Hakikur Rahman >To: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch >; >"governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >; Amos Mpungu >Sent: Wednesday, 16 May 2012, 14:45 >Subject: RE: [governance] Visit to spain > >Yes, as indicated, we have been receiving this >sort of email lately, though in lower intensity. > >However, I will remember the day till I die, >when my Laptop bag with most of my belongings, >except my money bag and passport was mugged in >Barcelona on December 26th 2009. I was editing >my latest book, that time during those holidays >there. A horrible day indeed! I lost over ten >years of work in my laptop, though a slight >portion was backed up before a year ago. Still I >think I could not be on the track, in terms of >my publications. The funny (I would now say) >thing is that the local police at the central >bus station from where the bag was mugged by a >group of three or four (around 06:00AM local >time), was reluctant to list it as a case and >then refused. I had to go to the central police >station to file the case. Due to the >compilation, the case was weak and despite two >surveillance cameras that might had clues or >evidence were overlooked. This may happen... > >Sorry for putting a few personal words here >(thought that I can share my feelings with my >fellow friends and colleagues), but you never >know what actually can happen to anybody >anywhere. I hope Asif or Naveed or someone in >this list from Pakistan could verify the >incidence. I will be happy to learn what is written is really a scam! > >Best regards, >Hakikur > > >Hakikur Rahman >Post Doctoral Researcher >University of Minho >Portugal (www.uminho.pt) and >Adjunct Faculty >BSMRAU, Bangladesh ( www.bsmrau.edu.bd ). >Web: www.hakik.org; www.kmowl.org/hakik >Phone: +351-253510319-Extn 517301 (Office) > +351-253060343 (Home) > +351-960193872 (Cell) > >Chief Editor >International Journal of Information >Communication Technology for Human Development (IJICTHD) >( >http://www.igi-global.com/journal/international-journal-information-communication-technologies/1101 >), and > >Advances in Knowledge Communities and Social Networks (AKCSN) Book Series >( >http://www.igi-global.com/book-series/advances-knowledge-communities-social-networks/37168 >) > >At 01:45 AM 5/16/2012, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: >>Content-Language: es-MX >>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; >> >>boundary="_000_6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D18A375FCW8EXMBDPunamloc_" >> >>Hi all, >> >>this is a fraud and no-one should fall for it. >>It is a relatively new type though it has been >>circulating for some time, but at a lower intensity. >> >>It should be amazing that people fall for this >>obvious cheat but... they do, and we see why. >>We have to intensify our "crap detection" >>capabilities (term taken from the works of Howard Rheingold.) >> >>Yours, >> >>Alejandro Pisanty >> >>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >>UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >> >>Tels. +52-(1)-55-5105-6044, +52-(1)-55-5418-3732 >> >>*Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >>*LinkedIn profile: >>http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >>*Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, >>http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >>*Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty >>---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org >> Participa en ICANN, http://www.icann.org >>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >>Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>[governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en >>nombre de Amos Mpungu [amoblazem at gmail.com] >>Enviado el: martes, 15 de mayo de 2012 19:18 >>Hasta: Zeeshan shoki; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>Asunto: Re: [governance] Visit to spain >> >>It appears Mr. Zeeshan Shoki's email address >>has been hacked. If the signature is to be >>belived, he is from Pakistan. Asif, can you >>please let this gentleman know of his predicarment!! >>On May 16, 2012 8:33 AM, "Zeeshan shoki" >><zeeshan_shoki at yahoo.com > wrote: >>Hope you get this on time,sorry I didn't inform >>you about my trip in Spain for a program, I'm >>presently in Madrid and am having some >>difficulties here because. we misplaced our >>Bags and cell phone on our way back to the >>hotel we lodge in after we went for sight >>seeing. The Bags contained all the valuables we >>had. Now, my passport is in custody of the >>hotel management pending when we make payment. >>I am sorry if I am inconveniencing you, but I >>have only very few people to run to now. I will >>be indeed very grateful if I can get a loan >>of €1,550 EURO from you. this will enable me >>sort our hotel billls and get my sorry self >>back home. I will really appreciate whatever >>you can afford in assisting me with. I promise >>to refund it in full as soon as I return. let >>me know if you can be of any assistance. >>Please, let me know soonest. Thanks so much. >>Best Regards >>Zeeshan Shoki >>Chief Executive >>Pak Education Society/ >>Pakistan Development Network >>Karachi,Pakistan >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>Translate this email: >>http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>Translate this email: >>http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > >http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > >http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: >http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed May 16 09:06:07 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 01:06:07 +1200 Subject: [governance] Visit to spain In-Reply-To: References: <1337124739.58225.YahooMailClassic@web125802.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D18A375FC@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <1337166591.6096.YahooMailNeo@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Good luck with getting relief from Yahoo. I remember not getting feedback from Yahoo and when I met their representative at the Asia Pacific regional IGF last year, I raised it. It will be good to see if you get some traction with that. On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:36 AM, Hakikur Rahman wrote: > Dear Imran, > > Thank you for the information A relief after all! > > However, this concerns to the person who has lost his/her information and > data from the account, and also lead to privacy (may fall into embarrassing > situation) and security issues (how secured is the data) that this group is > emphasizing in relationship to IG. > > Best regards, > Hakikur > > > At 12:09 PM 5/16/2012, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > Dear Hakikur Rahman > > Just talked to Zeshan, and he confirmed that his email account > "zeeshan_shoki(at)yahoo.com" was hacked, he lost all of his contacts & > messages from his email account. > > He also confirmed that one of his close friend contacted him for the > fianancial support as per the email messages circulated to his contacts. > > He has initiated data recovery request through Yahoo Help process. > > Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > From: Hakikur Rahman > To: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch ; " > governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Amos > Mpungu > Sent: Wednesday, 16 May 2012, 14:45 > Subject: RE: [governance] Visit to spain > > Yes, as indicated, we have been receiving this sort of email lately, > though in lower intensity. > > However, I will remember the day till I die, when my Laptop bag with most > of my belongings, except my money bag and passport was mugged in Barcelona > on December 26th 2009. I was editing my latest book, that time during those > holidays there. A horrible day indeed! I lost over ten years of work in my > laptop, though a slight portion was backed up before a year ago. Still I > think I could not be on the track, in terms of my publications. The funny > (I would now say) thing is that the local police at the central bus station > from where the bag was mugged by a group of three or four (around 06:00AM > local time), was reluctant to list it as a case and then refused. I had to > go to the central police station to file the case. Due to the compilation, > the case was weak and despite two surveillance cameras that might had clues > or evidence were overlooked. This may happen... > > Sorry for putting a few personal words here (thought that I can share my > feelings with my fellow friends and colleagues), but you never know what > actually can happen to anybody anywhere. I hope Asif or Naveed or someone > in this list from Pakistan could verify the incidence. I will be happy to > learn what is written is really a scam! > > Best regards, > Hakikur > > > Hakikur Rahman > Post Doctoral Researcher > University of Minho > Portugal (www.uminho.pt) and > Adjunct Faculty > BSMRAU, Bangladesh ( www.bsmrau.edu.bd ). > Web: www.hakik.org; www.kmowl.org/hakik > Phone: +351-253510319-Extn 517301 (Office) > +351-253060343 (Home) > +351-960193872 (Cell) > > Chief Editor > International Journal of Information Communication Technology for Human > Development (IJICTHD) > ( > http://www.igi-global.com/journal/international-journal-information-communication-technologies/1101), and > > Advances in Knowledge Communities and Social Networks (AKCSN) Book Series > ( > http://www.igi-global.com/book-series/advances-knowledge-communities-social-networks/37168) > > At 01:45 AM 5/16/2012, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > > Content-Language: es-MX > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > > boundary="_000_6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D18A375FCW8EXMBDPunamloc_" > > Hi all, > > this is a fraud and no-one should fall for it. It is a relatively new type > though it has been circulating for some time, but at a lower intensity. > > It should be amazing that people fall for this obvious cheat but... they > do, and we see why. We have to intensify our "crap detection" capabilities > (term taken from the works of Howard Rheingold.) > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Tels. +52-(1)-55-5105-6044, +52-(1)-55-5418-3732 > > *Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > *LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > *Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > *Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > Participa en ICANN, http://www.icann.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > . > > Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Amos Mpungu [ > amoblazem at gmail.com] > Enviado el: martes, 15 de mayo de 2012 19:18 > Hasta: Zeeshan shoki; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Asunto: Re: [governance] Visit to spain > > It appears Mr. Zeeshan Shoki's email address has been hacked. If the > signature is to be belived, he is from Pakistan. Asif, can you please let > this gentleman know of his predicarment!! > On May 16, 2012 8:33 AM, "Zeeshan shoki" > wrote: > Hope you get this on time,sorry I didn't inform you about my trip in Spain > for a program, I'm presently in Madrid and am having some difficulties here > because. we misplaced our Bags and cell phone on our way back to the hotel > we lodge in after we went for sight seeing. The Bags contained all the > valuables we had. Now, my passport is in custody of the hotel management > pending when we make payment. > I am sorry if I am inconveniencing you, but I have only very few people to > run to now. I will be indeed very grateful if I can get a loan of €1,550 > EURO from you. this will enable me sort our hotel billls and get my sorry > self back home. I will really appreciate whatever you can afford in > assisting me with. I promise to refund it in full as soon as I return. let > me know if you can be of any assistance. Please, let me know soonest. > Thanks so much. > > Best Regards > Zeeshan Shoki Chief Executive Pak Education Society/ Pakistan Development > Network Karachi,Pakistan > ____________________________________________________________ You received > this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to > find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and 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 anriette at apc.org Wed May 16 10:54:20 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 16:54:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Proposal for an IGF working group on EC In-Reply-To: References: <1337124739.58225.YahooMailClassic@web125802.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D18A375FC@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <1337166591.6096.YahooMailNeo@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4FB3BF9C.5090708@apc.org> Hi all Attached (and below) is a statement and proposal on EC that we hope to discuss further, online, and then also in the CSTD consultation on enhanced cooperation on Friday 18 May here in Geneva. Note that this is not yet an official APC position. Members are still discussing it. Looking forward to your feedback. Anriette ----------------------------- APC Policy Programme calls for the establishment of a multi-stakeholder working group of the Internet Governance Forum aimed at enhanced cooperation GENEVA, MAY 14 2012 - Cooperation in internet governance implies that all partners should, in their respective roles, work together on an equal footing and with a shared mission. The Association for Progressive Communications' Communication and Information Policy Programme (APC CIPP) thereby supports strengthening 'enhanced cooperation' to address global public policy issues pertaining to the internet, which will realise its potential only when forces are balanced. Structural differences exist between governments, the technical community the private sector and civil society - four stakeholder groups that make up the current internet governance ecosystem. APC is a civil society network that has not shied away from actively participating in the global policy dialogue and seven years after release of the Tunis Agenda still believes that internet governance should be ,participative, inclusive, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community and international organisations. This implies recognizing and curbing imbalances not only between stakeholders, but also within stakeholder entities. APC stresses the principle of democratic global governance of the internet. Building legitimacy of global internet-related policy spaces and mechanisms is a complex process that requires the acknowledgment of power dynamics, diverse interests and the political climate. Future internet governance mechanisms must engage stakeholders on an equal footing and ensure they are effectively represented. APC further requests that as a forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on internet policy, established as an outcome of the World Summit on Information Society, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) establish a multi-stakeholder working group on unresolved issues related to 'enhancing cooperation' in internet governance. The Tunis Agenda states very clearly that taking enhanced cooperation forward is central to the mandate given to the IGF. “71. The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN Secretary-General, involving all relevant organizations by the end of the first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their respective roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with legal process, and will be responsive to innovation. Relevant organizations should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders, proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The same relevant organizations shall be requested to provide annual performance reports. “72. We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process, to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).” The text of the Tunis Agenda then continues to describe in greater detail what this open and inclusive process should achieve in order to forward enhanced cooperation, and, in paragraph 73 it proposes how this should be done: “73. The Internet Governance Forum, in its working and function, will be multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent. To that end, the proposed IGF could: a. Build on the existing structures of Internet governance, with special emphasis on the complementarity between all stakeholders involved in this process – governments, business entities, civil society and intergovernmental organizations. b. Have a lightweight and decentralized structure that would be subject to periodic review. c. Meet periodically, as required. IGF meetings, in principle, may be held in parallel with major relevant UN conferences, inter alia, to use logistical support1.“ Participation and cooperation in internet governance has increased dramatically since 2005. It is important that these gains are not lost. As pointed out by Joy Liddicoat, coordinator of APC's Internet Rights are Human Rights project, there is particular value in “... the system of [internet governance] remaining dependent on the collection of individuals and organisations and the system of mutual recognition and cooperation which have ,so far, enabled the internet to function without significant problems. Such a system provides a compelling framework within which contests for control have sufficient counterweights to ensure no single person or organisation has total autonomy.” At the same time, many imbalances and constraints remain and new challenges are posed by the rapid development of the internet and its increased relevance as more people, particularly people who are excluded from social, economic and political power, gain access. Unresolved issues include real constraints for effective participation in internet governance decision-shaping and decision-making such as, but not exclusive to, financial resources, capacity, knowledge and understanding of issues and implications. These constraints do not apply only to civil society, but also to governments, the technical community and the private sector. They apply primarily, but not exclusively to stakeholders from developing countries. For cooperation between stakeholders in internet governance to be further enhanced, these imbalances need to be acknowledged, and addressed. They exist between countries: governments from North America and Europe are generally more engaged in IG, and have more influence; between companies, with large, globalised companies often being disproportionately influential as they are powerful in open processes in their own right, and through the influence they have on governments. Imbalances also exist in the participation of civil society in internet governance: within civil society (with only a small sub-section of civil society participating regularly), and, between civil society and governments as well as other non-governmental stakeholders such as business and the technical community. The Association for Progressive Communications sees 'enhanced cooperation' as a responsibility of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The advances towards a potential consensus among stakeholders that have been made since 2005 can and must evolve into concrete and sustainable mechanisms that facilitate not just multi-stakeholder participation, but also multi-stakeholder decision-making in internet governance. Based on our experience with global public policy issues pertaining to the internet, we are today in a position to say that we are not in favour of a new UN body to govern the Internet. This does not imply that we do not place great value on the UN system and the important role it plays in facilitating international cooperation. Nor do we subscribe to the manner in which governance of internet resources is currently being done. We are also unhappy with the degree to which current arrangements only partially implement a multi-stakeholder model. We believe that civil society and the citizens of the world will be best served by an internet governance setting that relies on 'enhanced cooperation' among equals. For these reasons we call on all stakeholders to renew and reinvigorate efforts to ensure existing mechanisms demonstrate enhanced cooperation and improved internet governance, and to explore the establishment of new mechanisms that can effectively deepen cooperation between all stakeholders. In our collective efforts to ensure that global governance of the internet relies on enhanced cooperation among equals, developing a set of principles and procedures to guide the way in which multi-stakeholder collaboration can practically translate into EC is necessary. Accordingly, APC proposes that an IGF working group on enhanced cooperation be established, drawing on the modalities used to constitute the Working Group on Internet Governance in the build-up to the second phase of the WSIS in Tunis. It should be multi-stakeholder with all stakeholders able to participate on an equal footing. We propose that the goal of this working group should be to develop a 'Multi-stakeholder Declaration on Enhanced Cooperation in Internet Governance' that, in line with the Tunis Agenda, captures consensus positions on basic principles, modalities for enhanced cooperation. It should also consider proceedings of the United Nations Human Right Council in relation to the internet and human rights. This group can consider proposals for enhancing cooperation made in the last few years, such as, for example, the IBSA (India Brazil South Africa) and CIRP (Committee for Internet Related Policies) proposals as well as the proceedings of the General Assembly sessions that dealt with enhanced cooperation. APC recognises the importance of specifically underscoring one of the largest examples of existing imbalance in internet governance, as mentioned above: the geopolitical influence of the United States and Europe. However, the power of other forces and drivers (governmental and non-governmental) should not be underestimated. APC executive director Anriette Esterhuysen adds, “it would be a mistake to assume that shifting the current balance of geopolitical influence away from the US and Europe would guarantee that the public interest, as opposed to narrower business and government interests, will become the main driver for IG. It is also no guarantee for a stronger voice for civil society.” APC will continue working with a rights-based and public interest principles approach towards its vision of an internet that is governed by a clear set of guiding principles and procedures grounded in human rights declarations. This should be the concrete goal of 'enhanced cooperation' and this is certainly what APC will be actively pursuing. 16 May 2012 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This statement has been developed by the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) Communications and Information Policy Programme. The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) is an network and non-profit organisation founded in 1990 that wants everyone to have access to a free and open Internet to improve lives and create a more just world. www.apc.org END Context Tunis Agenda (WSIS, 2005) http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html Report of the Secretary-General : Enhanced cooperation on public policy issues pertaining to the Internet (UN Economic and Social Council, 2009) http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN-DPADM/UNPAN039046.pdf CSTD meeting on enhanced cooperation on public policy issues pertaining to the Internet (May 18 2012) http://www.unctad.org/en/Pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=61 APC Contribution to the UN CSTD five year review of progress concerning WSIS outcomes http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_CSTDquestionnaire_WSISFollowUp.pdf ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: APC_enhanced_coop-final_DRAFT_16052012.odt Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text Size: 45475 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: APC_enhanced_coop-final_DRAFT_16052012.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 106334 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Wed May 16 11:24:33 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 15:24:33 +0000 Subject: [governance] Workshop judgments Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217564A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Thanks for these helpful notes, Izumi! I see that the number and quality of workshops was discussed quite a bit. How many can be eliminated and which should be merged? This has been a longstanding issue with the IGF. Because it is so easy to submit a workshop - but not easy at all to organize and run a good one - I believe that the MAG and the Secretariat have an important obligation to eliminate obviously bad proposals. They should reject those that are not relevant to global internet governance but are about ICT generally, or don't have an actual governance angle. They should also insist that organizations or individuals who submitted more than three workshop proposals withdraw all but the two or three best ones. They should also be very careful with mergers. A merger can literally ruin multiple workshops by diluting their focus, involving too many panelists or organizers, or throwing together incompatible approaches. As an example, IGP proposed one workshop, which has a lot of support among people interested in addressing. The proposal is actually for a workshop - it is not a series of "speakers" but brings together people to actually work on something according to a defined framework. It would not be possible to "merge" this workshop with another one that is based on the idea of a series of speakers. Those two approaches are simply not compatible. Let me add that I was happy to see these comments from MAG members: > -----Original Message----- > > Paul Wilson > level of commitment of many workshops wasn't good enough, to give > confidence - not serious approach taken, > relevance is important - some content is not relevant to IGF > not about Internet Governance, but ICT only - not accept those > we should trim down, to make sure we have high quality > appeared to be repeated, not convincing > > Bill Drake > Support what Paul said > One individual submitted 8 proposals -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed May 16 12:41:24 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 22:11:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's proposal for a 50 member UN committee for Internet Related Policies Message-ID: India Today, one of the most respected news magazines in Inda and Headlines Today, its Television channel today criticized India's current proposal for "web takeover" http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/india-wants-internet-watchdog-proposes-50-nation-regulator-to-un/1/189032.html The good news is that the press is beginning to pay attention to what our Government is doing on its own, without due consultation. Sivasubramanian M ISOC India Chennai http://isocindiachennai.org facebook: goo.gl/1VvIG LinkedIn: goo.gl/eUt7s Twitter: http://goo.gl/kaQ3a -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 16 12:46:15 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 01:46:15 +0900 Subject: [governance] about facebook, animation Message-ID: If you have a free 3 minutes Interesting. 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 rguerra at privaterra.org Wed May 16 13:26:08 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 19:26:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] Concerns about hidden cameras in Azerbaijan hotel rooms Message-ID: <78DA47DB-AFAD-4C21-94C6-780094C0F7D9@privaterra.org> -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: press-release-hidden-cameras-in-azerbaijan-hotels-16-may-2012.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 103536 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed May 16 13:39:54 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 02:39:54 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Appointing non-voting NomCom Chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear List, We would like to formally name Thomas Lowenhaupt to be the NomCom Chair 2012, for the selection of Appeals Team. He was the member of the former NomCom and showed his great ability there, and he kindly accepted our request already. With his request, we came up with the attached document as draft process for NomCom work. It's not complete, but hope this as a starting document, and would like to listen to your comments for further refinement. We also like to designate two persons for the backup of Chair: Ian Peter and and Jeremy Malcolm, in that order. Both have agreed already for this position. Should the Chair could not continue the job, then we will ask the backup person to take over. As already announced, following are the five members of NomCom 2012: Asif Kabani, Hakikur Rahman, Naveed-ul-Haq, Shahid Uddin Akbar, Wilson Abigaba. With this, I hope the NomCom 2012 could prepare the work and start it when ready. As this is to select the Appeals Team, the checks and balances mechanisms against the Coordinators's decisions, we will no way intervene the substantive side of your work at all. We trust the Chair and all members of NomCom to produce the great result. Thank you for your hard work in advance, Sala and Izumi -- >> 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NomComAppealsTeamSelectionProcess May13 .pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 33894 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed May 16 13:42:34 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 14:42:34 -0300 Subject: [governance] Workshop judgments In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217564A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217564A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I completely agree with Milton. Slots in the IGF are a public resource of the community and should be managed accordingly, with the aim of fostering productive discussions. No obviously bad or inconsistent proposal should be given a slot just because the proponent took the time to submit some paragraphs. Unfortunately, it happened in past years that one or two proposals got rejected, but the group that evaluated them was asked to reconsider its decision. If it becomes recurrent, the exercise of selecting the workshops would be somewhat unproductive. Marília On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Thanks for these helpful notes, Izumi! > I see that the number and quality of workshops was discussed quite a bit. > How many can be eliminated and which should be merged? > This has been a longstanding issue with the IGF. > > Because it is so easy to submit a workshop - but not easy at all to > organize and run a good one - I believe that the MAG and the Secretariat > have an important obligation to eliminate obviously bad proposals. They > should reject those that are not relevant to global internet governance but > are about ICT generally, or don't have an actual governance angle. They > should also insist that organizations or individuals who submitted more > than three workshop proposals withdraw all but the two or three best ones. > > They should also be very careful with mergers. A merger can literally ruin > multiple workshops by diluting their focus, involving too many panelists or > organizers, or throwing together incompatible approaches. > > As an example, IGP proposed one workshop, which has a lot of support among > people interested in addressing. The proposal is actually for a workshop - > it is not a series of "speakers" but brings together people to actually > work on something according to a defined framework. It would not be > possible to "merge" this workshop with another one that is based on the > idea of a series of speakers. Those two approaches are simply not > compatible. > > Let me add that I was happy to see these comments from MAG members: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > Paul Wilson > > level of commitment of many workshops wasn't good enough, to give > > confidence - not serious approach taken, > > relevance is important - some content is not relevant to IGF > > not about Internet Governance, but ICT only - not accept those > > we should trim down, to make sure we have high quality > > appeared to be repeated, not convincing > > > > Bill Drake > > Support what Paul said > > One individual submitted 8 proposals > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Wed May 16 15:28:16 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 19:28:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] Concerns about hidden cameras in Azerbaijan hotel rooms In-Reply-To: <78DA47DB-AFAD-4C21-94C6-780094C0F7D9@privaterra.org> References: <78DA47DB-AFAD-4C21-94C6-780094C0F7D9@privaterra.org> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2175854@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> I am waiting for Roland to say: "Doesn't operating in an International community require us to make allowances from time to time?" From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:26 PM To: Internet Governance Caucus Subject: [governance] Concerns about hidden cameras in Azerbaijan hotel rooms - R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vladar at diplomacy.edu Wed May 16 16:07:19 2012 From: vladar at diplomacy.edu (Vladimir Radunovic) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 22:07:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] Workshop judgments In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217564A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, Marilia, here are some bits of atmosphere from today's MAG on these issues: Today at MAG meeting there was quite a discussion and diversity of views on reselection and number of workshops. While some supported your views, others provided counter arguments like that all the proposals that meet the basic criteria (and are of course relevant) should be approved, with eventually inviting the organisers to strengthen the missing aspects (like geographical or stakeholder diversity etc). There were views that we should drop the least possible, since space is not an issue in Baku (commonly main argument for dropping some proposals) that judging on the quality and output of the ws only based on the proposal (having in mind all the possibly needed further improvements of the application process) is not a thankful job, and we might bring more costs than benefits of keeping them in (practice shows that some not-perfect proposals ended up as good sessions and even more so vice versa). Finally, some think that selection can also serve as an excuse for possible "misuse" by some stakeholders to filter out "problematic" workshops (though, of course, other stakeholders involved in the selection could object, but with such a number of proposals and limited time for final selection some may slip). Obviously, a right balance is needed, which is quite a challenge. Good thing is that, even though MAG is finally in charge of decisions, thematic break out sessions were opened for non-MAG observers, to allow "more eyes" and experiences. Regarding the merger, it was decided that MAG will not impose merging sessions, but only recommend. The organisers may then decide. The least, the organisers should contact with the organisers of similar sessions to make sure they cover different angles and perspectives and not overlap. Some might even find it useful to get a suggestion of whom they can possible merge with (I have heard of some), while those that decide to go on their own will be allowed to. Hope this helps. Best! Vlada On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > I completely agree with Milton. Slots in the IGF are a public resource of > the community and should be managed accordingly, with the aim of fostering > productive discussions. No obviously bad or inconsistent proposal should be > given a slot just because the proponent took the time to submit some > paragraphs. Unfortunately, it happened in past years that one or two > proposals got rejected, but the group that evaluated them was asked to > reconsider its decision. If it becomes recurrent, the exercise of selecting > the workshops would be somewhat unproductive. > > Marília > > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> Thanks for these helpful notes, Izumi! >> I see that the number and quality of workshops was discussed quite a bit. >> How many can be eliminated and which should be merged? >> This has been a longstanding issue with the IGF. >> >> Because it is so easy to submit a workshop - but not easy at all to >> organize and run a good one - I believe that the MAG and the Secretariat >> have an important obligation to eliminate obviously bad proposals. They >> should reject those that are not relevant to global internet governance but >> are about ICT generally, or don't have an actual governance angle. They >> should also insist that organizations or individuals who submitted more >> than three workshop proposals withdraw all but the two or three best ones. >> >> They should also be very careful with mergers. A merger can literally >> ruin multiple workshops by diluting their focus, involving too many >> panelists or organizers, or throwing together incompatible approaches. >> >> As an example, IGP proposed one workshop, which has a lot of support >> among people interested in addressing. The proposal is actually for a >> workshop - it is not a series of "speakers" but brings together people to >> actually work on something according to a defined framework. It would not >> be possible to "merge" this workshop with another one that is based on the >> idea of a series of speakers. Those two approaches are simply not >> compatible. >> >> Let me add that I was happy to see these comments from MAG members: >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > >> > Paul Wilson >> > level of commitment of many workshops wasn't good enough, to give >> > confidence - not serious approach taken, >> > relevance is important - some content is not relevant to IGF >> > not about Internet Governance, but ICT only - not accept those >> > we should trim down, to make sure we have high quality >> > appeared to be repeated, not convincing >> > >> > Bill Drake >> > Support what Paul said >> > One individual submitted 8 proposals >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at internetdemocracy.in Wed May 16 17:27:40 2012 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 02:57:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's proposal for a 50 member UN committee for Internet Related Policies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, The Hindu, a major English-language Indian newspaper also carried a piece on India's proposal yesterday: India's proposal for government control of Internet to be discussed in Geneva. Interestingly, it mentions that when the reporter contacted the Ministry of External Affairs for a response, she was referred to the Department of Information Technology. The latter never got back to her. The occasion for all this attention for India's proposal within the country is a four page letter an independent MP has written to the Prime Minister, requesting the PM to ensure that the proposal is withdrawn. The MP in question (Rajeev Chandrasekhar) was also among the first to criticise a set of rules for intermediaries that were notified by the government in April 2011 and which we have been trying to get Parliament to withdraw over the past year. These rules are coming up for a debate (and probably also a vote) in Parliament tomorrow. Chandrasekhar's letter says, among other things: "India's position (in the statement), even though cleverly worded, hurts its reputation of a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and democratic society with an open economy and an abiding culture of pluralism. Further, it hurts the advancement of the Internet as a vehicle for openness, democracy, freedom of expression, human rights, diversity, inclusiveness, creativity, free and unhindered access to information and knowledge, global connectivity, innovation and socio-economic growth. It is fundamentally against the interest of 800 million mobile users and over 100 million Internet users in India, who need to play a continued role [sic] by strengthening the existing multi-stakeholder process, rather than moving Internet governance to a government-run, inter-governmental, bureaucratically organised system - as proposed by India". For those interested, the full text of the letter can be found here: http://www.rajeev.in/NewsRoom/rajeev_writes/Government_proposal/Prime_Minister_May152012.pdf Best regards, Anja On 16 May 2012 22:11, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > India Today, one of the most respected news magazines in Inda and > Headlines Today, its Television channel today criticized India's current > proposal for "web takeover" > > > http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/india-wants-internet-watchdog-proposes-50-nation-regulator-to-un/1/189032.html > > The good news is that the press is beginning to pay attention to what our > Government is doing on its own, without due consultation. > > > Sivasubramanian M > ISOC India Chennai > http://isocindiachennai.org > > > facebook: goo.gl/1VvIG > LinkedIn: goo.gl/eUt7s > Twitter: http://goo.gl/kaQ3a > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Wed May 16 18:52:29 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 00:52:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Concerns about hidden cameras in Azerbaijan hotel rooms In-Reply-To: <78DA47DB-AFAD-4C21-94C6-780094C0F7D9@privaterra.org> References: <78DA47DB-AFAD-4C21-94C6-780094C0F7D9@privaterra.org> Message-ID: Don't most of us already bring our own spy cameras into every hotel room we are in, with our laptops, tablets and phones. You got to figure you are alwasy being spied on by someone somewhgere if this world of ours. bummer that this happens, but that is the least of the problems in Azerbaijan. avri Robert Guerra wrote: > > > > >-- >R. Guerra >Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >Email: rguerra at privaterra.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katycarvt at gmail.com Wed May 16 18:57:13 2012 From: katycarvt at gmail.com (Katy P) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 18:57:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] Concerns about hidden cameras in Azerbaijan hotel rooms In-Reply-To: References: <78DA47DB-AFAD-4C21-94C6-780094C0F7D9@privaterra.org> Message-ID: Sure, but the possibility of the government using sex tapes against us is much more likely in Azerbaijan than in the U.S. On May 16, 2012 6:53 PM, "Avri Doria" wrote: > Don't most of us already bring our own spy cameras into every hotel room > we are in, with our laptops, tablets and phones. > You got to figure you are alwasy being spied on by someone somewhgere if > this world of ours. > > bummer that this happens, but that is the least of the problems in > Azerbaijan. > > avri > > > Robert Guerra wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >-- > >R. Guerra > >Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > >Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > >Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 16 18:59:58 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 00:59:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] Concerns about hidden cameras in Azerbaijan hotel rooms In-Reply-To: References: <78DA47DB-AFAD-4C21-94C6-780094C0F7D9@privaterra.org> Message-ID: who has sex at an IGF? avri Katy P wrote: >Sure, but the possibility of the government using sex tapes against us >is >much more likely in Azerbaijan than in the U.S. >On May 16, 2012 6:53 PM, "Avri Doria" wrote: > >> Don't most of us already bring our own spy cameras into every hotel >room >> we are in, with our laptops, tablets and phones. >> You got to figure you are alwasy being spied on by someone somewhgere >if >> this world of ours. >> >> bummer that this happens, but that is the least of the problems in >> Azerbaijan. >> >> avri >> >> >> Robert Guerra wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >-- >> >R. Guerra >> >Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >> >Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >> >Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 16 20:04:58 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (c.a.) Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 21:04:58 -0300 Subject: [governance] Concerns about hidden cameras in Azerbaijan hotel rooms In-Reply-To: References: <78DA47DB-AFAD-4C21-94C6-780094C0F7D9@privaterra.org> Message-ID: <67D1E6A5-BA5A-4E2A-9701-74D3C4591803@cafonso.ca> Hmmm... This IGF is finally becoming more... interesting? :) --c.a. Sent from a tablet On 16/05/2012, at 19:59, Avri Doria wrote: > who has sex at an IGF? > > avri > > > Katy P wrote: > >> Sure, but the possibility of the government using sex tapes against us >> is >> much more likely in Azerbaijan than in the U.S. >> On May 16, 2012 6:53 PM, "Avri Doria" wrote: >> >>> Don't most of us already bring our own spy cameras into every hotel >> room >>> we are in, with our laptops, tablets and phones. >>> You got to figure you are alwasy being spied on by someone somewhgere >> if >>> this world of ours. >>> >>> bummer that this happens, but that is the least of the problems in >>> Azerbaijan. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> Robert Guerra wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> R. Guerra >>>> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >>>> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >>>> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed May 16 23:01:51 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 11:01:51 +0800 Subject: [governance] Proposal for an IGF working group on EC In-Reply-To: <4FB3BF9C.5090708@apc.org> References: <1337124739.58225.YahooMailClassic@web125802.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D18A375FC@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <1337166591.6096.YahooMailNeo@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4FB3BF9C.5090708@apc.org> Message-ID: <4FB46A1F.1030802@ciroap.org> On 16/05/12 22:54, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Attached (and below) is a statement and proposal on EC that we hope to > discuss further, online, and then also in the CSTD consultation on > enhanced cooperation on Friday 18 May here in Geneva. Note that this is > not yet an official APC position. Members are still discussing it. Thanks for the opportunity to give feedback on this draft statement Anriette (which I am re-attaching for the benefit of the CC recipients). Personally and wearing my Consumers International hat, we are convinced of the need for all stakeholders to collaboratively develop a better global norm-setting framework for addressing border-crossing public policy issues concerning the Internet. India's CIRP model was welcome as the first serious proposal to respond to the enhanced cooperation mandate from WSIS, which had otherwise been deliberately neglected by all stakeholders who were either privileged under the status quo, or were too risk-averse to sanction the consideration of more globally democratic alternatives. However, it would be premature to endorse the CIRP model (as the IT for Change statement does too much for our liking), before all stakeholders have had an opportunity to collaborate on improving it, in a setting such as the CSTD working group that the IT for Change statement (to its credit) calls for, or the IGF working group that APC is proposing to call for through this statement. Such a group, whether at the CSTD or the IGF, may be able to reach consensus on a less traditional institutional form, that is further from the UK-linked multilateral body that the CIRP represents, and closer to a balanced network of stakeholders in which power over Internet policy development is shared, as in a consociation. This ultimately would be a better outcome for civil society. In either case, the first step is the formation of such a multi-stakeholder working group, and we therefore wholeheartedly support both the APC statement and the IT for Change statement in that regard. Our member in Geneva, Romain Houéhou, will be expressing these sentiments during the consultation meeting. -- *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: APC_enhanced_coop-final_DRAFT_16052012.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 106334 bytes Desc: not available 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 ceo at bnnrc.net Thu May 17 00:04:56 2012 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 10:04:56 +0600 Subject: [governance] Proposal for an IGF working group on EC In-Reply-To: <4FB3BF9C.5090708@apc.org> References: <1337124739.58225.YahooMailClassic@web125802.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D18A375FC@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <1337166591.6096.YahooMailNeo@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4FB3BF9C.5090708@apc.org> Message-ID: *Dear Anriette,* Greetings from Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) and Bangladesh IGF. We fully support establishment of a multi-stakeholder working group of the Internet Governance Forum aimed at enhanced cooperation. We wish grand success of establishment of a multi-stakeholder working group of the Internet Governance Forum form Bangladesh. With best regards, Bazlu _______________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR Chief Executive Officer Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) [NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council] & Head, Community Radio Academy House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 Bangladesh Phone: +88-02-9130750, +88-02-9138501, Cell: +88 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105, E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net, bnnr cbd at gmail.com www.bnnrc.net On 16 May 2012 20:54, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Hi all > > Attached (and below) is a statement and proposal on EC that we hope to > discuss further, online, and then also in the CSTD consultation on > enhanced cooperation on Friday 18 May here in Geneva. Note that this is > not yet an official APC position. Members are still discussing it. > > Looking forward to your feedback. > > Anriette > > > ----------------------------- > > APC Policy Programme calls for the establishment of a multi-stakeholder > working group of the Internet Governance Forum aimed at enhanced > cooperation > > GENEVA, MAY 14 2012 - Cooperation in internet governance implies that > all partners should, in their respective roles, work together on an > equal footing and with a shared mission. The Association for Progressive > Communications' Communication and Information Policy Programme (APC > CIPP) thereby supports strengthening 'enhanced cooperation' to address > global public policy issues pertaining to the internet, which will > realise its potential only when forces are balanced. > > Structural differences exist between governments, the technical > community the private sector and civil society - four stakeholder groups > that make up the current internet governance ecosystem. APC is a civil > society network that has not shied away from actively participating in > the global policy dialogue and seven years after release of the Tunis > Agenda still believes that internet governance should be ,participative, > inclusive, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community > and international organisations. This implies recognizing and curbing > imbalances not only between stakeholders, but also within stakeholder > entities. > > APC stresses the principle of democratic global governance of the > internet. Building legitimacy of global internet-related policy spaces > and mechanisms is a complex process that requires the acknowledgment of > power dynamics, diverse interests and the political climate. Future > internet governance mechanisms must engage stakeholders on an equal > footing and ensure they are effectively represented. > > APC further requests that as a forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on > internet policy, established as an outcome of the World Summit on > Information Society, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) establish a > multi-stakeholder working group on unresolved issues related to > 'enhancing cooperation' in internet governance. The Tunis Agenda states > very clearly that taking enhanced cooperation forward is central to the > mandate given to the IGF. > > “71. The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN > Secretary-General, involving all relevant organizations by the end of > the first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their > respective roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with > legal process, and will be responsive to innovation. Relevant > organizations should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation > involving all stakeholders, proceeding as quickly as possible and > responsive to innovation. The same relevant organizations shall be > requested to provide annual performance reports. > > “72. We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process, > to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum > for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance > Forum (IGF).” > > The text of the Tunis Agenda then continues to describe in greater > detail what this open and inclusive process should achieve in order to > forward enhanced cooperation, and, in paragraph 73 it proposes how this > should be done: > “73. The Internet Governance Forum, in its working and function, will be > multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent. To that > end, the proposed IGF could: > a. Build on the existing structures of Internet governance, with special > emphasis on the complementarity between all stakeholders involved in > this process – governments, business entities, civil society and > intergovernmental organizations. > b. Have a lightweight and decentralized structure that would be subject > to periodic review. > c. Meet periodically, as required. IGF meetings, in principle, may be > held in parallel with major relevant UN conferences, inter alia, to use > logistical support1.“ > Participation and cooperation in internet governance has increased > dramatically since 2005. It is important that these gains are not lost. > As pointed out by Joy Liddicoat, coordinator of APC's Internet Rights > are Human Rights project, there is particular value in “... the system > of [internet governance] remaining dependent on the collection of > individuals and organisations and the system of mutual recognition and > cooperation which have ,so far, enabled the internet to function without > significant problems. Such a system provides a compelling framework > within which contests for control have sufficient counterweights to > ensure no single person or organisation has total autonomy.” > > At the same time, many imbalances and constraints remain and new > challenges are posed by the rapid development of the internet and its > increased relevance as more people, particularly people who are excluded > from social, economic and political power, gain access. > > Unresolved issues include real constraints for effective participation > in internet governance decision-shaping and decision-making such as, but > not exclusive to, financial resources, capacity, knowledge and > understanding of issues and implications. These constraints do not apply > only to civil society, but also to governments, the technical community > and the private sector. They apply primarily, but not exclusively to > stakeholders from developing countries. > > For cooperation between stakeholders in internet governance to be > further enhanced, these imbalances need to be acknowledged, and > addressed. They exist between countries: governments from North America > and Europe are generally more engaged in IG, and have more influence; > between companies, with large, globalised companies often being > disproportionately influential as they are powerful in open processes in > their own right, and through the influence they have on governments. > > Imbalances also exist in the participation of civil society in internet > governance: within civil society (with only a small sub-section of civil > society participating regularly), and, between civil society and > governments as well as other non-governmental stakeholders such as > business and the technical community. > > The Association for Progressive Communications sees 'enhanced > cooperation' as a responsibility of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). > The advances towards a potential consensus among stakeholders that have > been made since 2005 can and must evolve into concrete and sustainable > mechanisms that facilitate not just multi-stakeholder participation, but > also multi-stakeholder decision-making in internet governance. > > Based on our experience with global public policy issues pertaining to > the internet, we are today in a position to say that we are not in > favour of a new UN body to govern the Internet. This does not imply that > we do not place great value on the UN system and the important role it > plays in facilitating international cooperation. Nor do we subscribe to > the manner in which governance of internet resources is currently being > done. We are also unhappy with the degree to which current arrangements > only partially implement a multi-stakeholder model. We believe that > civil society and the citizens of the world will be best served by an > internet governance setting that relies on 'enhanced cooperation' among > equals. For these reasons we call on all stakeholders to renew and > reinvigorate efforts to ensure existing mechanisms demonstrate enhanced > cooperation and improved internet governance, and to explore the > establishment of new mechanisms that can effectively deepen cooperation > between all stakeholders. > > In our collective efforts to ensure that global governance of the > internet relies on enhanced cooperation among equals, developing a set > of principles and procedures to guide the way in which multi-stakeholder > collaboration can practically translate into EC is necessary. > Accordingly, APC proposes that an IGF working group on enhanced > cooperation be established, drawing on the modalities used to constitute > the Working Group on Internet Governance in the build-up to the second > phase of the WSIS in Tunis. It should be multi-stakeholder with all > stakeholders able to participate on an equal footing. > > We propose that the goal of this working group should be to develop a > 'Multi-stakeholder Declaration on Enhanced Cooperation in Internet > Governance' that, in line with the Tunis Agenda, captures consensus > positions on basic principles, modalities for enhanced cooperation. It > should also consider proceedings of the United Nations Human Right > Council in relation to the internet and human rights. This group can > consider proposals for enhancing cooperation made in the last few years, > such as, for example, the IBSA (India Brazil South Africa) and CIRP > (Committee for Internet Related Policies) proposals as well as the > proceedings of the General Assembly sessions that dealt with enhanced > cooperation. > > APC recognises the importance of specifically underscoring one of the > largest examples of existing imbalance in internet governance, as > mentioned above: the geopolitical influence of the United States and > Europe. However, the power of other forces and drivers (governmental and > non-governmental) should not be underestimated. APC executive director > Anriette Esterhuysen adds, “it would be a mistake to assume that > shifting the current balance of geopolitical influence away from the US > and Europe would guarantee that the public interest, as opposed to > narrower business and government interests, will become the main driver > for IG. It is also no guarantee for a stronger voice for civil society.” > > APC will continue working with a rights-based and public interest > principles approach towards its vision of an internet that is governed > by a clear set of guiding principles and procedures grounded in human > rights declarations. This should be the concrete goal of 'enhanced > cooperation' and this is certainly what APC will be actively pursuing. > > 16 May 2012 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This statement has been developed by the Association for Progressive > Communications (APC) Communications and Information Policy Programme. > The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) is an network and > non-profit organisation founded in 1990 that wants everyone to have > access to a free and open Internet to improve lives and create a more > just world. www.apc.org > > END > > Context > Tunis Agenda (WSIS, 2005) > http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html > Report of the Secretary-General : Enhanced cooperation on public policy > issues pertaining to the Internet (UN Economic and Social Council, 2009) > > http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN-DPADM/UNPAN039046.pdf > CSTD meeting on enhanced cooperation on public policy issues pertaining > to the Internet (May 18 2012) > http://www.unctad.org/en/Pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=61 > APC Contribution to the UN CSTD five year review of progress concerning > WSIS outcomes > http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_CSTDquestionnaire_WSISFollowUp.pdf > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Thu May 17 02:12:42 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 08:12:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] Concerns about hidden cameras in Azerbaijan hotel rooms In-Reply-To: References: <78DA47DB-AFAD-4C21-94C6-780094C0F7D9@privaterra.org> Message-ID: <4FB496DA.6040804@apc.org> Avri Doria wrote: > who has sex at an IGF? stakeholders perhaps even... 'multi' stakeholders? anriette -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 17 02:40:21 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 08:40:21 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Proposal for an IGF working group on EC In-Reply-To: <4FB3BF9C.5090708@apc.org> References: <1337124739.58225.YahooMailClassic@web125802.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D18A375FC@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <1337166591.6096.YahooMailNeo@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4FB3BF9C.5090708@apc.org> Message-ID: <1070226019.77816.1337236821458.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d16> Dear Anriette and all   Please find hereafter some exerpts of the statement (in italics) and my personal questions and comments :     Based on our experience with global public policy issues pertaining to the internet, we are today in a position to say that we are not in favour of a new UN body to govern the Internet.   What (kind of) body does ACP propose for incorporating the actual governance of the Internet ? Unless other  indications are added in the document, the statement seems to consider the IGF as a possible "body". But actually, IGF is rather an “informal body” (an oxymore !). Or does APC consider EC as a goal ? In my opinion, this issue should be more clearly dealt with.   large, globalised companies often being disproportionately influential as they are powerful in open processes in their own right, and through the influence they have on governments.   International organizations also are “influenced”, both inside –such as ITU, UNITAR- and outside the UN system –such as G8, OCDE ….   APC recognises the importance of specifically underscoring one of the largest examples of existing imbalance in internet governance, as mentioned above: the geopolitical influence of the United States and Europe. However, the power of other forces and drivers (governmental and non-governmental) should not be underestimated   The “geopolitical influence” of the US and Europe is quite different, since all major Internet corporations –in fact monopolies in their respective domain- are American : Google, Cisco, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, e-Bay …  Nowhere in the APC statement these monopolies are addressed despite the strong links they have with Internet governance. I do also regret that the specific problematics of DCs don't have their prominent place in this APC (i.e. CS) statement.     Best regards   Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT > Message du 16/05/12 16:57 > De : "Anriette Esterhuysen" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] Proposal for an IGF working group on EC > > Hi all > > Attached (and below) is a statement and proposal on EC that we hope to > discuss further, online, and then also in the CSTD consultation on > enhanced cooperation on Friday 18 May here in Geneva. Note that this is > not yet an official APC position. Members are still discussing it. > > Looking forward to your feedback. > > Anriette > > > ----------------------------- > > APC Policy Programme calls for the establishment of a multi-stakeholder > working group of the Internet Governance Forum aimed at enhanced cooperation > > GENEVA, MAY 14 2012 - Cooperation in internet governance implies that > all partners should, in their respective roles, work together on an > equal footing and with a shared mission. The Association for Progressive > Communications' Communication and Information Policy Programme (APC > CIPP) thereby supports strengthening 'enhanced cooperation' to address > global public policy issues pertaining to the internet, which will > realise its potential only when forces are balanced. > > Structural differences exist between governments, the technical > community the private sector and civil society - four stakeholder groups > that make up the current internet governance ecosystem. APC is a civil > society network that has not shied away from actively participating in > the global policy dialogue and seven years after release of the Tunis > Agenda still believes that internet governance should be ,participative, > inclusive, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of > governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community > and international organisations. This implies recognizing and curbing > imbalances not only between stakeholders, but also within stakeholder > entities. > > APC stresses the principle of democratic global governance of the > internet. Building legitimacy of global internet-related policy spaces > and mechanisms is a complex process that requires the acknowledgment of > power dynamics, diverse interests and the political climate. Future > internet governance mechanisms must engage stakeholders on an equal > footing and ensure they are effectively represented. > > APC further requests that as a forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on > internet policy, established as an outcome of the World Summit on > Information Society, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) establish a > multi-stakeholder working group on unresolved issues related to > 'enhancing cooperation' in internet governance. The Tunis Agenda states > very clearly that taking enhanced cooperation forward is central to the > mandate given to the IGF. > > “71. The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN > Secretary-General, involving all relevant organizations by the end of > the first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their > respective roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with > legal process, and will be responsive to innovation. Relevant > organizations should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation > involving all stakeholders, proceeding as quickly as possible and > responsive to innovation. The same relevant organizations shall be > requested to provide annual performance reports. > > “72. We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process, > to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum > for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance > Forum (IGF).” > > The text of the Tunis Agenda then continues to describe in greater > detail what this open and inclusive process should achieve in order to > forward enhanced cooperation, and, in paragraph 73 it proposes how this > should be done: > “73. The Internet Governance Forum, in its working and function, will be > multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent. To that > end, the proposed IGF could: > a. Build on the existing structures of Internet governance, with special > emphasis on the complementarity between all stakeholders involved in > this process – governments, business entities, civil society and > intergovernmental organizations. > b. Have a lightweight and decentralized structure that would be subject > to periodic review. > c. Meet periodically, as required. IGF meetings, in principle, may be > held in parallel with major relevant UN conferences, inter alia, to use > logistical support1.“ > Participation and cooperation in internet governance has increased > dramatically since 2005. It is important that these gains are not lost. > As pointed out by Joy Liddicoat, coordinator of APC's Internet Rights > are Human Rights project, there is particular value in “... the system > of [internet governance] remaining dependent on the collection of > individuals and organisations and the system of mutual recognition and > cooperation which have ,so far, enabled the internet to function without > significant problems. Such a system provides a compelling framework > within which contests for control have sufficient counterweights to > ensure no single person or organisation has total autonomy.” > > At the same time, many imbalances and constraints remain and new > challenges are posed by the rapid development of the internet and its > increased relevance as more people, particularly people who are excluded > from social, economic and political power, gain access. > > Unresolved issues include real constraints for effective participation > in internet governance decision-shaping and decision-making such as, but > not exclusive to, financial resources, capacity, knowledge and > understanding of issues and implications. These constraints do not apply > only to civil society, but also to governments, the technical community > and the private sector. They apply primarily, but not exclusively to > stakeholders from developing countries. > > For cooperation between stakeholders in internet governance to be > further enhanced, these imbalances need to be acknowledged, and > addressed. They exist between countries: governments from North America > and Europe are generally more engaged in IG, and have more influence; > between companies, with large, globalised companies often being > disproportionately influential as they are powerful in open processes in > their own right, and through the influence they have on governments. > > Imbalances also exist in the participation of civil society in internet > governance: within civil society (with only a small sub-section of civil > society participating regularly), and, between civil society and > governments as well as other non-governmental stakeholders such as > business and the technical community. > > The Association for Progressive Communications sees 'enhanced > cooperation' as a responsibility of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). > The advances towards a potential consensus among stakeholders that have > been made since 2005 can and must evolve into concrete and sustainable > mechanisms that facilitate not just multi-stakeholder participation, but > also multi-stakeholder decision-making in internet governance. > > Based on our experience with global public policy issues pertaining to > the internet, we are today in a position to say that we are not in > favour of a new UN body to govern the Internet. This does not imply that > we do not place great value on the UN system and the important role it > plays in facilitating international cooperation. Nor do we subscribe to > the manner in which governance of internet resources is currently being > done. We are also unhappy with the degree to which current arrangements > only partially implement a multi-stakeholder model. We believe that > civil society and the citizens of the world will be best served by an > internet governance setting that relies on 'enhanced cooperation' among > equals. For these reasons we call on all stakeholders to renew and > reinvigorate efforts to ensure existing mechanisms demonstrate enhanced > cooperation and improved internet governance, and to explore the > establishment of new mechanisms that can effectively deepen cooperation > between all stakeholders. > > In our collective efforts to ensure that global governance of the > internet relies on enhanced cooperation among equals, developing a set > of principles and procedures to guide the way in which multi-stakeholder > collaboration can practically translate into EC is necessary. > Accordingly, APC proposes that an IGF working group on enhanced > cooperation be established, drawing on the modalities used to constitute > the Working Group on Internet Governance in the build-up to the second > phase of the WSIS in Tunis. It should be multi-stakeholder with all > stakeholders able to participate on an equal footing. > > We propose that the goal of this working group should be to develop a > 'Multi-stakeholder Declaration on Enhanced Cooperation in Internet > Governance' that, in line with the Tunis Agenda, captures consensus > positions on basic principles, modalities for enhanced cooperation. It > should also consider proceedings of the United Nations Human Right > Council in relation to the internet and human rights. This group can > consider proposals for enhancing cooperation made in the last few years, > such as, for example, the IBSA (India Brazil South Africa) and CIRP > (Committee for Internet Related Policies) proposals as well as the > proceedings of the General Assembly sessions that dealt with enhanced > cooperation. > > APC recognises the importance of specifically underscoring one of the > largest examples of existing imbalance in internet governance, as > mentioned above: the geopolitical influence of the United States and > Europe. However, the power of other forces and drivers (governmental and > non-governmental) should not be underestimated. APC executive director > Anriette Esterhuysen adds, “it would be a mistake to assume that > shifting the current balance of geopolitical influence away from the US > and Europe would guarantee that the public interest, as opposed to > narrower business and government interests, will become the main driver > for IG. It is also no guarantee for a stronger voice for civil society.” > > APC will continue working with a rights-based and public interest > principles approach towards its vision of an internet that is governed > by a clear set of guiding principles and procedures grounded in human > rights declarations. This should be the concrete goal of 'enhanced > cooperation' and this is certainly what APC will be actively pursuing. > > 16 May 2012 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This statement has been developed by the Association for Progressive > Communications (APC) Communications and Information Policy Programme. > The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) is an network and > non-profit organisation founded in 1990 that wants everyone to have > access to a free and open Internet to improve lives and create a more > just world. www.apc.org > > END > > Context > Tunis Agenda (WSIS, 2005) http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html > Report of the Secretary-General : Enhanced cooperation on public policy > issues pertaining to the Internet (UN Economic and Social Council, 2009) > http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN-DPADM/UNPAN039046.pdf > CSTD meeting on enhanced cooperation on public policy issues pertaining > to the Internet (May 18 2012) > http://www.unctad.org/en/Pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=61 > APC Contribution to the UN CSTD five year review of progress concerning > WSIS outcomes > http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_CSTDquestionnaire_WSISFollowUp.pdf > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > [ APC_enhanced_coop-final_DRAFT_16052012.odt (61.2 Ko) ] > [ APC_enhanced_coop-final_DRAFT_16052012.pdf (143.1 Ko) ] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 17 02:49:21 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 07:49:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] Concerns about hidden cameras in Azerbaijan hotel rooms In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2175854@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <78DA47DB-AFAD-4C21-94C6-780094C0F7D9@privaterra.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2175854@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2175854 at SUEX10-mbx- 10.ad.syr.edu>, at 19:28:16 on Wed, 16 May 2012, Milton L Mueller writes >I am waiting for Roland to say: >"Doesn't operating in an International community require us to make >allowances from time to time? So as not to disappoint you, can I recommend this book, which discusses cultural differences between countries, and how to work with international colleagues. The chapter on "Americans in Europe" is particularly useful for Europeans wanting to understand how organisations such as ICANN might have a different dynamic from corporations in their own country. http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Your-Manners-Managing-Business/dp/1857883144 As for jumping into bed with strangers at conferences, it's something I try to avoid. Unless it's meant figuratively. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu May 17 04:13:17 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 17:13:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC Talking Points for Enhanced Cooperation workshop Message-ID: Dear list, While busy in attending the MAG meeting, I like to ask our members to consider the following about the Enhanced Cooperation Workshop scheduled tomorrow. Due to lack of time, co-coordinators could not prepare the complete draft statement for EC workshop. So I like to propose that the following points be approved, as depicting the broad sense of our group, but not the formal statement, and yet to be stated by myself tomorrow. Given the diversity of the views among the Civil Society, or among our members I tried to capture just the "bottom-line" ----------- For the process towards Enhanced Cooperation, IGC like to state the following: 1. we are encouraged to see the constructive dialogue around EC is proceeding 2. our “bottom-line” is, keep the principles endorsed by the Tunis Agenda, especially, to hold to the principles of: - democratic global governance - multi-stakeholder participation, the need for IG forums where all stakeholders are equally, and effectively represented --------- Please give your feedback until tomorrow morning, Geneva Time, and I will do my best, together with our colleagues here in Geneva, to reflect our view as much as possible. Thanks, izumi -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu May 17 04:43:56 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 17:43:56 +0900 Subject: [governance] Concerns about hidden cameras in Azerbaijan hotel rooms In-Reply-To: <4FB496DA.6040804@apc.org> References: <78DA47DB-AFAD-4C21-94C6-780094C0F7D9@privaterra.org> <4FB496DA.6040804@apc.org> Message-ID: Dynamic coalitions? Revenue from webcam feeds might solve funding problem. Adam On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Avri Doria wrote: > >> who has sex at an IGF? > > stakeholders > > perhaps even... > > 'multi' stakeholders? > > anriette > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Thu May 17 05:35:58 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 11:35:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] Concerns about hidden cameras in Azerbaijan hotel rooms In-Reply-To: References: <78DA47DB-AFAD-4C21-94C6-780094C0F7D9@privaterra.org> <4FB496DA.6040804@apc.org> Message-ID: Seriously folks, the reports of systematic surveillance, intimidation and violation of human rights in Azerbaijan is no joking matter. I would have expected a more serious conversation on the issue, and how the IGC might want to react. It is unfortunate that we've gone from a proactive and active engagement on and about Human Rights at the WSIS in Tunis in 2005 to silence on the issues in Azerbaijan. regards Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2012-05-17, at 10:43 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Dynamic coalitions? > > Revenue from webcam feeds might solve funding problem. > > Adam > > > > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> who has sex at an IGF? >> >> stakeholders >> >> perhaps even... >> >> 'multi' stakeholders? >> >> anriette >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 17 05:45:40 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 11:45:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] Concerns about hidden cameras in Azerbaijan hotel rooms In-Reply-To: References: <78DA47DB-AFAD-4C21-94C6-780094C0F7D9@privaterra.org> <4FB496DA.6040804@apc.org> Message-ID: <9b73a44e-692d-4aed-a344-72c0c9e3cfad@email.android.com> Seriously my point was that us being surveyed in a Azerbaijani hotel, was not the important point. Rather the conditions people living in Azerbaijan is the important issue, not that some one might watch us or might make a sex video of our activities. avri Robert Guerra wrote: >Seriously folks, the reports of systematic surveillance, intimidation >and violation of human rights in Azerbaijan is no joking matter. I >would have expected a more serious conversation on the issue, and how >the IGC might want to react. > >It is unfortunate that we've gone from a proactive and active >engagement on and about Human Rights at the WSIS in Tunis in 2005 to >silence on the issues in Azerbaijan. > >regards > >Robert > >-- >R. Guerra >Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > >On 2012-05-17, at 10:43 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Dynamic coalitions? >> >> Revenue from webcam feeds might solve funding problem. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: >>> Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>>> who has sex at an IGF? >>> >>> stakeholders >>> >>> perhaps even... >>> >>> 'multi' stakeholders? >>> >>> anriette >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pwilson at apnic.net Thu May 17 05:46:18 2012 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 19:46:18 +1000 Subject: [governance] Concerns about hidden cameras in Azerbaijan hotel rooms In-Reply-To: References: <78DA47DB-AFAD-4C21-94C6-780094C0F7D9@privaterra.org> Message-ID: On the other hand, workplace video footage is often helpful in cases like this... http://ourtaxdollarsatwork.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/woman-awarded-workers-compensation-in-australia-for-sex-injury-in-hotel-while-on-work-trip/ Paul. On 17/05/2012, at 8:59 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > who has sex at an IGF? > > avri > > > Katy P wrote: > >> Sure, but the possibility of the government using sex tapes against us >> is >> much more likely in Azerbaijan than in the U.S. >> On May 16, 2012 6:53 PM, "Avri Doria" wrote: >> >>> Don't most of us already bring our own spy cameras into every hotel >> room >>> we are in, with our laptops, tablets and phones. >>> You got to figure you are alwasy being spied on by someone somewhgere >> if >>> this world of ours. >>> >>> bummer that this happens, but that is the least of the problems in >>> Azerbaijan. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> Robert Guerra wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> R. Guerra >>>> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >>>> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >>>> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 1906 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 Thu May 17 05:54:11 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 11:54:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC Talking Points for Enhanced Cooperation workshop In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <867D37FA-2275-412F-ABB6-6C92BE402119@uzh.ch> Hi Izumi On May 17, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > 1. we are encouraged to see the constructive dialogue around EC is proceeding How do you know it's going to be constructive? Why would we prejudge how members might characterize the quality of the discussion? I don't really see the need for the IGC to try to slap together a statement on enhanced cooperation, a topic that's sharply divided members for seven years. But if you feel compelled to say something, it would be consistent with the broad consensus over the years to endorse > - multi-stakeholder participation, the need for IG forums where all > stakeholders are equally, and effectively represented 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 Thu May 17 06:00:24 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 06:00:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC Talking Points for Enhanced Cooperation workshop In-Reply-To: <867D37FA-2275-412F-ABB6-6C92BE402119@uzh.ch> References: <867D37FA-2275-412F-ABB6-6C92BE402119@uzh.ch> Message-ID: On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 5:54 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Izumi > > > On May 17, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > 1. we are encouraged to see the constructive dialogue around EC is > proceeding > > > How do you know it's going to be constructive?  Why would we prejudge how > members might characterize the quality of the discussion? > > I don't really see the need for the IGC to try to slap together a statement > on enhanced cooperation, a topic that's sharply divided members for seven > years.  But if you feel compelled to say something, it would be consistent > with the broad consensus over the years to endorse > > - multi-stakeholder participation, the need for IG forums where all > stakeholders are equally, and effectively represented +1 -- 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 iza at anr.org Thu May 17 06:04:01 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 19:04:01 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC Talking Points for Enhanced Cooperation workshop In-Reply-To: <867D37FA-2275-412F-ABB6-6C92BE402119@uzh.ch> References: <867D37FA-2275-412F-ABB6-6C92BE402119@uzh.ch> Message-ID: 2012/5/17 William Drake : > Hi Izumi > > > On May 17, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > 1. we are encouraged to see the constructive dialogue around EC is > proceeding > > > How do you know it's going to be constructive?  Why would we prejudge how > members might characterize the quality of the discussion? Well, this is to some extent a diplomatic Cheapou and expectation. > > I don't really see the need for the IGC to try to slap together a statement > on enhanced cooperation, a topic that's sharply divided members for seven > years.  But if you feel compelled to say something, it would be consistent > with the broad consensus over the years to endorse That's why I wanted to ask the reactions from the list. izumi > > - multi-stakeholder participation, the need for IG forums where all > stakeholders are equally, and effectively represented > > > Bill --                      >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Thu May 17 08:26:47 2012 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 14:26:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC Talking Points for Enhanced Cooperation workshop In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, The idea in itself is instructive. But where it is a problem is when we must contribute to the declaration on enhanced cooperation without an overall and sectoral assessment of this cooperation should be strengthened. At my country, for example, it still poses problems in terms of collaboration between different stakeholders. The concept is not very well-established and the implementation of the WSIS process has never been evaluated locally. So we do not have a dashboard that will allow us to compile a statistical analysis .. Recently, the CAFEC proposed a program of implementation and monitoring of WSIS in DR Congo to enable the country to get a reference on the development of digital technology in the country. This is one case among many others. Enhanced cooperation has been significant progress in many countries and even in some african countries. Whatever the will of the actors, it still poses many barriers in the collaboration and work in synergy between government, private sector, civil society and some sub-regional organizations. International organizations are often willing to support local initiatives but a lack of shared vision in the country, the results are always mixed. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2012/5/17 Izumi AIZU > Dear list, > While busy in attending the MAG meeting, I like to ask our members to > consider > the following about the Enhanced Cooperation Workshop scheduled tomorrow. > > Due to lack of time, co-coordinators could not prepare the complete > draft statement > for EC workshop. So I like to propose that the following points be > approved, > as depicting the broad sense of our group, but not the formal statement, > and > yet to be stated by myself tomorrow. > > Given the diversity of the views among the Civil Society, or among our > members > I tried to capture just the "bottom-line" > > ----------- > For the process towards Enhanced Cooperation, IGC like to state the > following: > > 1. we are encouraged to see the constructive dialogue around EC is > proceeding > > 2. our “bottom-line” is, keep the principles endorsed by the Tunis > Agenda, especially, to hold to the principles of: > - democratic global governance > - multi-stakeholder participation, the need for IG forums where all > stakeholders are equally, and effectively represented > > --------- > > Please give your feedback until tomorrow morning, Geneva Time, and I will > do my best, together with our colleagues here in Geneva, to reflect our > view > as much as possible. > > Thanks, > > izumi > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu May 17 08:31:38 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 21:31:38 +0900 Subject: [governance] MAG meeting, Day 2, morning Message-ID: Here again is my crude memo. Day 2 of MAG May 17 9:33 Chair Chengetai Document the discussion template for WG call on each WG report Access and Diversity Judy Okite, co-co with Aysha Hassan Block and Filtering – imcomplete – rejected 191 – influence of politics – flag Security, Openness, Privacy Green – ready to be approved Yellow – A few not well Emerging Issues Izumi reported the result of the Workshop Selection – 5 provisionary drop, but all others need improvement for implications Thomas Spiller, reporting Main Session idea - Framing the question - Disaster recovery – discrete part - Discussion on Key issues - Wrap-up Qusai IG4D Paul Wilson Made the process proposal, Katoh Support Paul’s proposal welcome the combining some workshops but one question – can we give two slots for these combined ones? There are some good proposals with already many speakers Chengetai we can combine the slots Vladimir Robert Guerra by mid July, identify the names Jeff Developmental Track 0 welcome prepare material well in advance, well design with Remote Participation Chengetai – summarizing the suggestions Secretariat – received comments on Workshops, will send them to organizers, ask them to edit WS Organizers to make agenda, recommend each panelist should register as resource persons, as suggested by Paul as in previous IGF, we had a little book of all speakers, hope to local host First question – deadline – when these updates should be made? June 30? - same resource persons Second deadline – provide agenda - Aysha Agenda deadline – first week of September Adam Peake Open Forums, Dynamic Coalitions, National/Regional WS to be finalized in same timeline? Chengetai Printing – before September-, July 30 Email sent out to WS organizers, detailing what they need to fix to be accepted, with deadlines – to produce the Agenda Working Groups continue online – Deadline for Main Session – organize, be same as others – June 30 two weeks later Aysha flexibility – mid-September OK Mark Cabell Izumi Aizu New tools for Main Session Paul (not Wilson) diversity of geographic regions - from Central Asia and Arab proposals are not encouraging what kind of support be given to them? Chengetai ICC and ISCO provides some support we have resource persons list Azerbaijan need information by end of July Mervi Capacity Building Stream at IGF in Baku mark the color bottom-up exercise Slav UN DESA made presentation on Internet Governance Community online course for developing countries capacity building raised quite a few questions most CS members, Bill Drake, Wolfgang, myself, are note quite convinced yet, and asked for further information Wolfgang proposed in the end to hold an Open Forum in Baku to disucss this further. Peter Major Briefing on CSTD WG on Improvement to the IGF recommendations explaining the slide presentation, to be published from their website, summarizing the Report, already there at their site http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/a66d67_en.pdf It was multi-stakeholder, disconnected from Enhanced Cooperation mutual trust and team work agreed main topics 39 recommendations Implementation No explicit provisions we have to wait the CSTD and Ecosoc, GA endorsement, Proactive reflections on tasks MAG may setup Correspondence Groups with exception of funding, we may setup around these Main Topics Share oints sites for each topic Moderator/Chair for each topic on how to implement Conclusion multi-stakeholder approach –mutual trust Decoupled from Enhanced cooperation Results –within mandate, to near changes for some Critical changes in the Internet world not reflected IGF in the forefront of public policy, but no leadership, no money CST 15 session may be too much, limitation to be clarified in the resolution There were some questions around CSTD WG. Then the Chair suggested to finish Remote Participation as the only remaining agenda before lunch, close the meeting and no afternoon session. Several, including myself, proposed to continue the discussion into the afternoon, one, 15 min or less is not enough for Remote participation, and two, it is not fair to those who came to Geneva with much resources and not work until end, combined that some members are outside the room and may plan to come back in the afternoon, so if they find the session is fininshed without prior notice that is not good. Paul suggested to hold the meeting from 2 to 3 pm. Chair agreed, and we went to lunch. ------------ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 17 09:24:54 2012 From: vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk (vincent solomon) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 14:24:54 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] IGC Talking Points for Enhanced Cooperation workshop In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1337261094.61896.YahooMailClassic@web29013.mail.ird.yahoo.com> + 1 “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, 17/5/12, McTim wrote: From: McTim Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Talking Points for Enhanced Cooperation workshop To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "William Drake" Cc: "Izumi AIZU" Date: Thursday, 17 May, 2012, 11:00 On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 5:54 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Izumi > > > On May 17, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > 1. we are encouraged to see the constructive dialogue around EC is > proceeding > > > How do you know it's going to be constructive?  Why would we prejudge how > members might characterize the quality of the discussion? > > I don't really see the need for the IGC to try to slap together a statement > on enhanced cooperation, a topic that's sharply divided members for seven > years.  But if you feel compelled to say something, it would be consistent > with the broad consensus over the years to endorse > > - multi-stakeholder participation, the need for IG forums where all > stakeholders are equally, and effectively represented +1 -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel -----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 parminder at itforchange.net Thu May 17 09:55:15 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 19:25:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC Talking Points for Enhanced Cooperation workshop In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FB50343.7060903@itforchange.net> On Thursday 17 May 2012 01:43 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > ----------- > For the process towards Enhanced Cooperation, IGC like to state the following: > > 1. we are encouraged to see the constructive dialogue around EC is proceeding > > 2. our “bottom-line” is, keep the principles endorsed by the Tunis > Agenda, especially, to hold to the principles of: > - democratic global governance > - multi-stakeholder participation, the need for IG forums where all > stakeholders are equally, and effectively represented > I have often tried to initiate a discussion on this list about what is meant by equal participation of all stakeholders in actual decision making process/ level but discussion never got too far... we first need to know what we are talking about here before asking for it..... Wolfgang and Bertrand, and i think at some time, Marilia, made the distinction on this list about the decision inputting and shaping and decision making levels/ stages........ so where all do we want equal participation. Does it mean that a google or Microsoft rep will sign a privacy or data flow/ protection treaty is one is to be made, and thus will have a veto on it... I am not sure what equally represented means here, so if you can clarify maybe we can find a good text to go with... parminder > --------- > > Please give your feedback until tomorrow morning, Geneva Time, and I will > do my best, together with our colleagues here in Geneva, to reflect our view > as much as possible. > > Thanks, > > izumi > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Thu May 17 10:06:18 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 14:06:18 +0000 Subject: [governance] Workshop judgments In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217564A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21772F3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Thanks for the clarification, V. A few comments below space is not an issue in Baku (commonly main argument for dropping some proposals) [Milton L Mueller] Didn't know that. That is good, it increases the viability of liberal approaches. However, I still believe that people (or organizations) who submit more than 3 proposals should simply be reduced to a maximum, which should probably be 2 or at worst 3. Let those organizations themselves decide which ones are really the top priority. I have been involved in countless IGF workshops and I know about as much about various aspects of IG as anyone, and I do not believe that any individual or organization can properly organize and run more than 2 IGF workshops if a high quality standard is maintained. Finally, some think that selection can also serve as an excuse for possible "misuse" by some stakeholders to filter out "problematic" workshops [Milton L Mueller] Yes, this is always in my mind as well. As soon as selection exists there is the possibility for discrimination according to what some consider undesirable content rather than low quality. That is another reason why a limit on multiple submissions is a good selection approach - it is content neutral and allows the proposers to trim the fat rather than the MAG. Still, I would hope that the MAG is diverse enough, and respectful of the opinions of its various members, that discriminatory or censorial selections would not be possible. Regarding the merger, it was decided that MAG will not impose merging sessions, but only recommend. The organisers may then decide. [Milton L Mueller] Good. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 17 10:16:00 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 14:16:00 +0000 Subject: [governance] Concerns about hidden cameras in Azerbaijan hotel rooms In-Reply-To: <9b73a44e-692d-4aed-a344-72c0c9e3cfad@email.android.com> References: <78DA47DB-AFAD-4C21-94C6-780094C0F7D9@privaterra.org> <4FB496DA.6040804@apc.org> <9b73a44e-692d-4aed-a344-72c0c9e3cfad@email.android.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2177321@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Avri, Robert is right. You are really missing the point. The point is not that they would make videos of run of the mill IGF attendees such as you and me for fun. Rather, the hotel-room cameras a) show that hotel operators may be tools of the state surveillance apparatus; b) the sex tapes are used to embarrass/blackmail journalists and politicians who might criticize or oppose the government. That DOES affect the "conditions of people living in Azerbaijan." You might try reading the press release that Robert distributed and not just the headline. > -----Original Message----- > Seriously my point was that us being surveyed in a Azerbaijani hotel, > was not the important point. Rather the conditions people living in > Azerbaijan is the important issue, not that some one might watch us or > might make a sex video of our activities. > > 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 Thu May 17 11:05:45 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 15:05:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] a reality check on economics Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217838E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> The “geopolitical influence” of the US and Europe is quite different, since all major Internet corporations –in fact monopolies in their respective domain- are American : Google, Cisco, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, e-Bay … Nowhere in the APC statement these monopolies are addressed despite the strong links they have with Internet governance. [Milton L Mueller] The dialogue on enhanced cooperation is becoming polluted with simplistic and inaccurate economic nostrums. May I request that the word “monopoly” be used with at least some attention paid to its actual meaning? From the MIT Dictionary of Economics: “a firm is a monopoly if it is the only supplier of a homogenous product for which there are no substitutes and many buyers.” This definition can be made less restrictive by relaxing the assumption that there are no substitutes, to include imperfect substitutes. But even so, none of the firms cited above are monopolies. None. Some have varying degrees of market power in specific sectors, but none are close to being _global_ monopolies. Apple, for example, does not even surpass Samsung in its share of smartphones. I am also curious to know what is going on when people group the regulation of equipment manufacturers (Apple, Cisco) under the rubric of “internet governance.” Same for computer operating systems. Moreover, I wonder whether the people who think UN-based institutions are an appropriate response to market power in the ICT sector have done their homework. There are powerful, well-resourced antitrust and economic regulatory agencies in the U.S., Europe, and various other countries in Latin America, Asia and elsewhere. The operate under specific laws, not under a theory of resentment (that’s a good thing), laws which have evolved for decades and which have established precedents and bodies of research behind them regarding the nature of market power, the impact of regulation and antitrust intervention on innovation and consumer welfare, etc. Moreover, it’s not like these firms are running amok. There have been in the recent past, or currently are underway, serious tangles with Microsoft, Intel, Google, Apple, and Facebook on various issues involving their market power* - by antitrust authorities, privacy regulators and consumer protection regulators. Have our agitators made a case that these entities are incapable of doing their jobs? If so, how would the political economy of regulating big business improve at the global level – or would it get worse? Is the absence of European companies in the list of globally competitive firms, Mssr. Fullsack, due to some cosmic injustice, or simply to the over-regulated, protectionist, nationalist structure of European Internet and ICT markets, which does not produce globally competitive firms? Why is it that tens of millions in subsidies for a European search engine haven’t produced anything? Might it be because consumers decide for themselves what is a better service and that people don’t care much whether a service provider is American, European or Chinese as long as they can use their own language? Could there be some serious engagement with these issues and, perhaps, a little more knowledge and a lot less populism? The idea that some vague notion of “governance” is going to save us from any and every problem in the internet economy sounds to me like the fulminations of wannabe politicians seeking power for themselves and not interested in actually solving problems. (*Note the absence of Cisco from that list – the equipment mfring biz is highly competitive and Cisco is declining in market share, flat in revenue, and considered “on the ropes” by stock investors for the past 2 years). Huawei, on the other hand… -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katycarvt at gmail.com Thu May 17 11:10:59 2012 From: katycarvt at gmail.com (Katy P) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 11:10:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] Concerns about hidden cameras in Azerbaijan hotel rooms In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2177321@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <78DA47DB-AFAD-4C21-94C6-780094C0F7D9@privaterra.org> <4FB496DA.6040804@apc.org> <9b73a44e-692d-4aed-a344-72c0c9e3cfad@email.android.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2177321@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: And that the state engages in such behavior and international corporations have no idea/allow it is concerning. Moreover, considering that this isn't unusual behavior for the Azerbaijani government, can you imagine how difficult it is for civil society to operate? On May 17, 2012 11:07 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > Avri, Robert is right. You are really missing the point. The point is not > that they would make videos of run of the mill IGF attendees such as you > and me for fun. Rather, the hotel-room cameras a) show that hotel operators > may be tools of the state surveillance apparatus; b) the sex tapes are used > to embarrass/blackmail journalists and politicians who might criticize or > oppose the government. That DOES affect the "conditions of people living in > Azerbaijan." You might try reading the press release that Robert > distributed and not just the headline. > > > -----Original Message----- > > Seriously my point was that us being surveyed in a Azerbaijani hotel, > > was not the important point. Rather the conditions people living in > > Azerbaijan is the important issue, not that some one might watch us or > > might make a sex video of our activities. > > > > avri > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu May 17 11:29:20 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 17:29:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Concerns about hidden cameras in Azerbaijan hotel rooms In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2177321@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <78DA47DB-AFAD-4C21-94C6-780094C0F7D9@privaterra.org> <4FB496DA.6040804@apc.org> <9b73a44e-692d-4aed-a344-72c0c9e3cfad@email.android.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2177321@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Beleive it or not I got that point and even read the press release. I just interpretted it as concern for those of us who come and go, as opposed to concern for the people who live there. And I think the concerns for those of us who come and go is the smallest part of the problem. I felt the focus was misplaced. But since you did me the grace of writing to correct my interpretation, I accept that it is a critically important press release that we should all take to heart. Thanks you so much for showing me the error of my ways. avri Milton L Mueller wrote: >Avri, Robert is right. You are really missing the point. The point is >not that they would make videos of run of the mill IGF attendees such >as you and me for fun. Rather, the hotel-room cameras a) show that >hotel operators may be tools of the state surveillance apparatus; b) >the sex tapes are used to embarrass/blackmail journalists and >politicians who might criticize or oppose the government. That DOES >affect the "conditions of people living in Azerbaijan." You might try >reading the press release that Robert distributed and not just the >headline. > >> -----Original Message----- >> Seriously my point was that us being surveyed in a Azerbaijani hotel, >> was not the important point. Rather the conditions people living in >> Azerbaijan is the important issue, not that some one might watch us >or >> might make a sex video of our activities. >> >> 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 iza at anr.org Thu May 17 11:44:18 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 00:44:18 +0900 Subject: [governance] MAG Meeting, Day 2, Afternoon Message-ID: Hi all, The MAG meeting finished at around 15:30. The overall mood is not bad, positive. Here is my note for the afternoon session. I plan to report the Enhanced cooperation workshop tomorrow. And many thanks for the encouraging comments. izumi --------- Afternoon Session 14:20 - Remote participation Technical issues – pass to the Secretariat institutional element remote hubs Izumi Emphasized the importance of Remote participation. Will send technical details to secretariat. Robert Guerra Vladimir Kieren Nurani Chengetai Current practice integrate RP, improve current plan – to offer the same service as last year and previous year every single room has equipment, translation provide interactive Technical aspect Last year, we had17 remote panelists Baku – preparing for EuroVision – more bandwidth Patrik Falstrom, will help, now consulting with network infrastructure All are in the host country requirement For remote moderators – indications are there they can approach the secretariat Students will work as remote moderators, planning Fulltime job – not for Bernard this time We encourage you to come, to create Remote hubs Contact Bernard Sadaka Remote participation training Welcome volunteers New things to use – eTube? etc we are having renewal of website welcome suggestions for new tools, platform Suggest for separate mailing list for MAG members on RP if going to use tags, we have to have ontology for the tags, Challenge – need more participants Kieren WebX requires download software – barrier Nairobi – Camera is good quality Live-stream is very good – video works better Izumi Principle level: Treat “remote” participants equal to physical participants as much as possible. Can we overcome the Time zone – GMT - 10am to 6 pm there is 3 to 11 pm in Japan Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those physically present in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. Good opportunity to Demonstrate the State of the art of Internet technology Is “remote” the right word? physically in distant, yes, but philosophically should be close, not too remote. Aysha link with National and Regional IGFs Vladimir Thank you Aysha for remiding this Robert Chair We will implement this Host Country Agreement fully, Your advices and comments are very useful for us and will keep your advices and comments in our preparatory process. In all parts of MSH, will prepare. We will try together with Secretariat, you, UN DESA, all that. Vladimir Capacity Building Track of IGF training a day before Constance concentrate the effort with existing material by the community Izumi Just as MAG member On side event – be treated equally as much as possible without harming the prerogative of the host community too much: GIGAnet Human rights roundtable Anriette Paul thank everyone concerned online evaluation Boston Consulting report – Internet Economy 2013 – G20 – $1M budget for Secretariat – critical we are supporting the IGF IGF is continue beyond the second phase consensus- both in line with CSTD and others, CSTD useful – but also to evolve respect – appointed bit to late to MAG no clear opportunity for review or improvement it would have been more empowering – MAC renew process could happen earlier in future right after IGF to get up to speed creation of Program Paper missed opportunity – to make the best use of the group here Marilyn Acknowledge major improvement in IGF and MAG meeting MAG agreed to become more open and inclusive – no longer closed 1) Role of MAG – think carefully about being as inclusive and concerned, about making sure non-MAG members and new players have every opportunity to fully participate Do not prioritize open space to MAG-event 2) CSTD WG on IGF Many of government participants and all non-gov members truly experienced IGF – Cecil Mccain As IGF evolved and MAG improves, had discussion with Diplo – candidate to assist 1) we need to scoring tools augment current tools, objective minimum requirement 2) Data mining - for future IGF – to have clear picture of what impact IGF will have Izumi I agree with Marilyn – that MAG is tasked to facilitate – with all IGF community to make IGF relevant. – like CSTD WG Agree with most of what Paul said including the renewal timing of MAG, orientation would be very helpful. Support online evaluation – suggested multi-lingual capability seem very attractive Way forward – no September meeting? any alternative measures Three times meeting a year? Feb, May and ?? CSTD WG -recommends better outcome message we don’t have to wait until GA approve everything – MAG as bottom-up voluntary I thank you all Felix IG is subset of most dynamic industry – ICT Chengetai – Final Remarks continue online (to izumi) no support for September meeting Chair Very fruitful meeting help the preparation Will be comfortable in Baku Thanks to everyone, special thanks to Secretariat MAG Meeting finished at 15:32 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu May 17 11:58:03 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 00:58:03 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC Talking Points for Enhanced Cooperation workshop In-Reply-To: <4FB50343.7060903@itforchange.net> References: <4FB50343.7060903@itforchange.net> Message-ID: It seems that even minimal approach, or "bottom-line" is not getting broad support, if I am not mistaken, among IGC members. And no strong desire to make a statement. Being a coordinator, I am at your disposal, just try to reflect the view of our caucus. So, unless there is some more sign of support of making short statement outlined in my previous message, I will not try to make an IGC statement tomorrow. (we are not sure if participants will be given any slot, assuming so). For the record, IGC made this statement in Nov. 2010. http://www.igcaucus.org/node/43 izumi 2012/5/17 parminder : > > > On Thursday 17 May 2012 01:43 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > ----------- > For the process towards Enhanced Cooperation, IGC like to state the > following: > > 1. we are encouraged to see the constructive dialogue around EC is > proceeding > > 2. our “bottom-line” is, keep the principles endorsed by the Tunis > Agenda, especially, to hold to the principles of: > - democratic global governance > - multi-stakeholder participation, the need for IG forums where all > stakeholders are equally, and effectively represented > > > I have often tried to initiate a discussion on this list about what is meant > by equal participation of all stakeholders in actual decision making > process/ level but discussion never got too far... we first need to know > what we are talking about here before asking for it..... Wolfgang and > Bertrand, and i think at some time, Marilia, made the distinction on this > list about the decision inputting and shaping and decision making levels/ > stages........  so where all do we want equal participation. Does it mean > that a google or Microsoft rep will sign a privacy or data flow/ protection > treaty is one is to be made, and thus will have a veto on it... I am not > sure what equally represented means here, so if you can clarify maybe we can > find a good text to go with... parminder > > --------- > > Please give your feedback until tomorrow morning, Geneva Time, and I will > do my best, together with our colleagues here in Geneva, to reflect our view > as much as possible. > > Thanks, > > izumi > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Guru at ITforChange.net Thu May 17 12:08:28 2012 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 21:38:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's proposal for a 50 member UN committee for Internet Related Policies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FB5227C.2080202@ITforChange.net> Yes, its good that the Indian press is now also paying attention to the larger challenge of Internet governance - of the implications of the current undemocratic regimes and processes.... The Hindu is one of India's most respected and sober dailies and its Op-Ed today has an article on the issue. The Op-Ed page also carries the civil society statement, which now has more than 50 institutions from across the world endorsing it. (statement also available in chinese, spanish, french and portuguese on http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_statement_on_democratic_internet ) Link to the Joint civil society statement - in The Hindu Op-Ed : http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article3426290.ece Link to the article - The Hindu Op-Ed : http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article3426292.ece As the article and the statement explain, many of us have been crying 'Govt takeover' too often and too long... and it is high time we **_also_** discuss the emperor's robes (sorry for mixed metaphors:-) ) regards Guru On 16/05/12 22:11, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > India Today, one of the most respected news magazines in Inda and > Headlines Today, its Television channel today criticized India's > current proposal for "web takeover" > > http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/india-wants-internet-watchdog-proposes-50-nation-regulator-to-un/1/189032.html > > > The good news is that the press is beginning to pay attention to what our Government is doing on its own, without due consultation. > > > Sivasubramanian M ISOC India Chennai http://isocindiachennai.org > > > > facebook: goo.gl/1VvIG LinkedIn: goo.gl/eUt7s > Twitter: http://goo.gl/kaQ3a > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 17 12:08:49 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 09:08:49 -0700 Subject: [governance] MAG Meeting, Day 2, Afternoon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Just one point... "Izumi: Principle level: Treat "remote" participants equal to physical participants as much as possible." In the discussion of several months ago on remote participation the point was made (although perhaps not in these words) that it was important to recognize that people participating remotely were not "equal" in their opportunities for participation and in practice never would be. What is important as a principle is to recognize the differences in opportunities for participation remotely as compared to f2f and to build in mechanisms to ensure that the "outcomes" achievable from participation whether remote or f2f were as "equal" as possible. A subtle point perhaps but one that I think is crucial as it provides direction for the design of the overall IGF not simply of processes of "participation" but also of the desired/anticipated outcomes of the IGF itself. Mike -----Original Message----- From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 8:44 AM To: governance Subject: [governance] MAG Meeting, Day 2, Afternoon Hi all, The MAG meeting finished at around 15:30. The overall mood is not bad, positive. Here is my note for the afternoon session. I plan to report the Enhanced cooperation workshop tomorrow. And many thanks for the encouraging comments. izumi --------- Afternoon Session 14:20 - Remote participation Technical issues - pass to the Secretariat institutional element remote hubs Izumi Emphasized the importance of Remote participation. Will send technical details to secretariat. Robert Guerra Vladimir Kieren Nurani Chengetai Current practice integrate RP, improve current plan - to offer the same service as last year and previous year every single room has equipment, translation provide interactive Technical aspect Last year, we had17 remote panelists Baku - preparing for EuroVision - more bandwidth Patrik Falstrom, will help, now consulting with network infrastructure All are in the host country requirement For remote moderators - indications are there they can approach the secretariat Students will work as remote moderators, planning Fulltime job - not for Bernard this time We encourage you to come, to create Remote hubs Contact Bernard Sadaka Remote participation training Welcome volunteers New things to use - eTube? etc we are having renewal of website welcome suggestions for new tools, platform Suggest for separate mailing list for MAG members on RP if going to use tags, we have to have ontology for the tags, Challenge - need more participants Kieren WebX requires download software - barrier Nairobi - Camera is good quality Live-stream is very good - video works better Izumi Principle level: Treat "remote" participants equal to physical participants as much as possible. Can we overcome the Time zone - GMT - 10am to 6 pm there is 3 to 11 pm in Japan Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those physically present in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. Good opportunity to Demonstrate the State of the art of Internet technology Is "remote" the right word? physically in distant, yes, but philosophically should be close, not too remote. Aysha link with National and Regional IGFs Vladimir Thank you Aysha for remiding this Robert Chair We will implement this Host Country Agreement fully, Your advices and comments are very useful for us and will keep your advices and comments in our preparatory process. In all parts of MSH, will prepare. We will try together with Secretariat, you, UN DESA, all that. Vladimir Capacity Building Track of IGF training a day before Constance concentrate the effort with existing material by the community Izumi Just as MAG member On side event - be treated equally as much as possible without harming the prerogative of the host community too much: GIGAnet Human rights roundtable Anriette Paul thank everyone concerned online evaluation Boston Consulting report - Internet Economy 2013 - G20 - $1M budget for Secretariat - critical we are supporting the IGF IGF is continue beyond the second phase consensus- both in line with CSTD and others, CSTD useful - but also to evolve respect - appointed bit to late to MAG no clear opportunity for review or improvement it would have been more empowering - MAC renew process could happen earlier in future right after IGF to get up to speed creation of Program Paper missed opportunity - to make the best use of the group here Marilyn Acknowledge major improvement in IGF and MAG meeting MAG agreed to become more open and inclusive - no longer closed 1) Role of MAG - think carefully about being as inclusive and concerned, about making sure non-MAG members and new players have every opportunity to fully participate Do not prioritize open space to MAG-event 2) CSTD WG on IGF Many of government participants and all non-gov members truly experienced IGF - Cecil Mccain As IGF evolved and MAG improves, had discussion with Diplo - candidate to assist 1) we need to scoring tools augment current tools, objective minimum requirement 2) Data mining - for future IGF - to have clear picture of what impact IGF will have Izumi I agree with Marilyn - that MAG is tasked to facilitate - with all IGF community to make IGF relevant. - like CSTD WG Agree with most of what Paul said including the renewal timing of MAG, orientation would be very helpful. Support online evaluation - suggested multi-lingual capability seem very attractive Way forward - no September meeting? any alternative measures Three times meeting a year? Feb, May and ?? CSTD WG -recommends better outcome message we don't have to wait until GA approve everything - MAG as bottom-up voluntary I thank you all Felix IG is subset of most dynamic industry - ICT Chengetai - Final Remarks continue online (to izumi) no support for September meeting Chair Very fruitful meeting help the preparation Will be comfortable in Baku Thanks to everyone, special thanks to Secretariat MAG Meeting finished at 15:32 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu May 17 12:16:27 2012 From: ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com (Narine Khachatryan) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 20:46:27 +0430 Subject: [governance] Concerns about hidden cameras in Azerbaijan hotel rooms In-Reply-To: References: <78DA47DB-AFAD-4C21-94C6-780094C0F7D9@privaterra.org> <4FB496DA.6040804@apc.org> <9b73a44e-692d-4aed-a344-72c0c9e3cfad@email.android.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2177321@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear all, Here is another article about Azerbaijan on Times magazine: (Read the story on TIME.com ) SELLING AZERBAIJAN AT EUROVISION 2012 by williamleeadams • Eurovision , Politics • Tags: 2012 , Azerbaijan , Eurovision , human rights Last May, Ell & Nikki, an obscure duo from Azerbaijan, won the 2011 Eurovision Song Contest. The country’s President, Ilham Aliyev, treated the musical win like a military triumph, describing it as “a victory for the people of Azerbaijan and the Azerbaijani state.” By winning the pan-European singing contest—which, kitschy as it is, unites the region like little else—Azerbaijan’s capital city, Baku, earned the right to host this year’s show, which will be broadcast to more than 100 million people at the end of May. Hosting Eurovision is a big deal for Azerbaijan, a sleepy ex–Soviet republic of 9.5 million that sits on the geographic and political outskirts of Europe. So Aliyev entrusted his glamorous wife Mehriban Aliyeva, who is also a member of parliament, to organize the event. She’s overseen an infrastructure upgrade, beautification projects around the city and the rapid construction of the 23,000-seat Baku Crystal Hall, the Eurovision venue that will feature 45,000 LEDs onstage and views of the Caspian Sea. Like an insecure adolescent trying to get the cool kids to come to his party, Baku is sparing no expense on Eurovision. Governments frequently spend around $30 million to host the contest, but Azerbaijan has officially budgeted $64 million, while journalists estimate the real figure is at least $277 million. “We are very proud that we won Eurovision and are honored that we have the chance to host this year,” says Fakhraddin Gurbanov, Azerbaijan’s ambassador to Britain. “It’s not only an advertisement. It’s the introduction of our country to the world.” (Read the story on TIME.com ) For Azerbaijan, a small country keen to distract the world from its poor human-rights record, Eurovision represents the culmination of a global charm offensive. Although most people would struggle to find it on a map, Azerbaijan has amassed impressive wealth in the 20 years since it obtained independence from the Soviet Union. Its vast oil and gas reserves helped push its real GDP up by 35% in 2006—making it the fastest-growing country in the world for a time. Since then, the economy has nearly tripled, to $62 billion, putting it on par with countries like Oman. Despite Azerbaijan’s post-Soviet economic success, international critics say the country remains an autocracy with little respect for human rights. Heydar Aliyev, the current President’s father, controlled Soviet Azerbaijan as leader of the Communist Party, beginning in 1969, and assumed the presidency in 1993 after a bloodless coup. He stood down in October 2003, and two weeks later the younger Aliyev won a stacked election in a landslide. The new President abolished term limits via a widely disputed referendum in 2009. The Human Rights House Foundation described the country’s most recent elections in 2010 as a farce. Azeri citizens who criticize the political elite face reprisal. According to Amnesty International , police beat and imprisoned two musicians after they insulted the President’s mother during their performance at a peaceful protest on March 17. Azeri authorities have ignored dozens of assaults on journalists in recent years, including two murders. According to the Norwegian Helsinki Committee, a human-rights NGO, about 70 people are in jail for political reasons—where many are allegedly tortured. Transparency International ranked Azerbaijan No. 143 out of 183 countries on its most recent Corruption Perceptions Index. Azerbaijan disputes these charges, claiming the country’s democracy is still developing. Nonetheless, Aliyev is spending good money to ensure that corruption, repression and autocracy aren’t the first words that come to mind when you think about Azerbaijan. According to Budget.az—an Azeri website run by a group of independent economic analysts—the government of Azerbaijan spent at least $38 million promoting the country abroad in 2011. That promotion includes passing out books on Azeri carpets along with Azeri-branded USB drives to delegates at the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland; opening Azeri Friendship Parks in Mexico and Bosnia; and erecting a 220-ton, 162-m flagpole in Baku in May 2010. There are also commercials on CNN that show fashionable young women shopping in Baku, and the official Eurovision website now includes a video explaining Nowruz, the Azeri New Year celebration. Azerbaijan isn’t the only country that spends liberally around the globe to polish its international image. Belarus—which currently faces E.U. sanctions over its human-rights abuses—previously paid the London public relations firm Bell Pottinger to perform advocacy work and image counseling. Kazakhstan, which led the U.S. State Department to express concern over the arbitrary arrests and torture of prisoners, paid the consulting firm BGR Gabara $45,000 a month for “outreach to government officials, news outlets and other individuals in the United States.” Azerbaijan, though, has been particularly eager to tap the expertise of international p.r. firms. In September 2007, “the Presidency of Azerbaijan” paid Jefferson Waterman International (JWI), a Washington-based political- and business-consulting firm, $25,000 per month plus expenses for “professional services.” That contract has ended, but JWI still represents the International Bank of Azerbaijan—for the same fee—for services that include “consultations with members of the Executive Branch and U.S. Congress.” In Europe, the particulars of such deals are hazier, but there’s little doubt that Azerbaijan is riding a wave of good press. “Its wealth has encouraged the inter­national community to buy into the myth of a young democracy making slow and steady progress,” says John Dalhuisen, the director of Amnesty International’s Europe and Central Asia program. Baku has stronger support among politicians across Europe than its Central Asian neighbors do, and the World Economic Forum recently ranked it as the most competitive economy in the region. Last September, the acting U.S. ambassador to Azerbaijan praised Baku for sharing “the benefits of oil and gas … throughout society.” According to the World Bank, Azerbaijan has cut poverty from 50% in 2001 to just 7.6% last year. But Eurovision —and all the international attention it will bring—may change the narrative. “They are moving toward the biggest p.r. disaster in their entire history,” says Emin Milli, an Azeri political activist who was imprisoned for 18 months on charges of hooliganism. “I do so many interviews with the press,” says Milli, who is now a graduate student in London. “It’s like a full-time job now.” *Friends in High Places* Give Azerbaijan’s leaders this much: they’ve got ambition. Besides hosting Eurovision, Azerbaijan is bidding for the 2020 Olympic Games. Last October it won an election to become a temporary member of the U.N. Security Council. And in April developers announced plans to build the world’s tallest skyscraper, tentatively named the Azerbaijan Tower. But the p.r. blitz isn’t merely about national pride. Azerbaijan hopes respectability will help it secure international funding to build the region’s largest petrochemical complex, which could be worth as much as $15 billion. Baku also hopes to win support in its ongoing conflict with Armenia over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh. As part of its campaign, Azerbaijan is working with the London-based Leadership Agency, a firm that helped Russia win its bid for the 2014 Winter Olympics. In a meeting with Time, the agency’s representatives described democracy in Azerbaijan as “a work in progress,” trumpeting the country’s economic growth and commitment to secularism. They also emphasized the country’s growing relationship with Israel as well as the imminent opening of a Four Seasons hotel in Baku—the first in an ex-Soviet republic. Azerbaijan has aggressively courted foreign politicians and dignitaries. In 2009, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair accepted $143,000 for making a 20-minute speech in Azerbaijan praising the opening of a methanol power plant. State TV broadcast the press conference, and Blair later dined with Aliyev. (Blair’s spokesman said the event was a “one-off speaking engagement” and that the former Prime Minister has no commercial relationship with Aliyev.) Prince Andrew, whom the Azeri media have referred to as “the dear guest,” has visited Azerbaijan at least eight times since 2005. He came under fire in March 2011 for encouraging an MP to boost British business with Azerbaijan. Buckingham Palace defended the Prince’s actions, telling the Guardian that Andrew—then serving as the U.K.’s trade envoy—“tries to identify opportunities for British businesses in overseas markets.” Michael Harris, head of advocacy at the Index on Censorship and author of the report *Azerbaijan’s Image Problem*, says engaging with the West legitimizes Aliyev at home. “Visits by European politicians are used to convince the people of Azerbaijan that the government is a ‘normal’ European democracy that enjoys good relations with its neighbors,” he says. Baku also dispatches emissaries to hobnob with politicians in European capitals. According to its own materials, the European Azerbaijan Society (TEAS) exists “to promote Azerbaijan to international audiences,” and Gurbanov, Azerbaijan’s ambassador in London, claims the group “has nothing to do with the government.” But according to U.S. embassy cables released by WikiLeaks, TEAS’s “talking points very much reflect the goals and objectives of the GOAJ [government of Azerbaijan].” Critics have also raised questions about the group’s close relationship with European politicians. Mark Field, a Tory MP and member of the British government’s Intelligence and Security Committee, has accepted two trips to Azerbaijan valued at more than $9,000. TEAS covered all expenses. Field also works as a member of the advisory board of TEAS and has estimated that he received between $8,000 and $16,000 from it over the past year. MPs can pursue outside consultancy work as long as they declare any financial interests, which Field has done. As someone with experience in energy and security, Field says he is keen to “build links between our nations in areas of shared interest.” It’s true that about 5,000 U.K. nationals now work in Azerbaijan and that Britain is the country’s largest foreign investor. But Field still raised eyebrows in the House of Commons on Oct. 10 when he introduced a parliamentary early day motion celebrating Azerbaijan’s achievements since independence and wished “the country well on its path toward becoming a fully fledged member of the community of European democratic states.” The motion made no mention of the country’s human-rights record. “It’s outrageous that lobbyists should be able to buy access and influence in a way that they are clearly doing,” says Paul Flynn, a Labour MP. For his part, Field tells Time he expressed his concerns about media restrictions in Azerbaijan to the country’s senior ministers. He says economic and diplomatic engagement is the best way to encourage genuine democracy. Of particular concern to critics of Azerbaijan is its success in recruiting former members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE)—the international body that appoints judges to the European Court of Human Rights. Eduard Lintner, a former member of the German Bundestag, served as chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights from 2002 to ’05. He now works for Berlin’s Society for the Promotion of German-Azerbaijani Relations, a lobbying group supported by Azerbaijan. Lintner told *Der Spiegel* that he resigned from the Council of Europe partly because the body wanted to condemn alleged human-rights violations rather than ushering Azerbaijan “along in a supportive way.” Gurbanov, Azerbaijan’s ambassador to Britain, stresses that Lintner and other similar officials no longer work for PACE. “They share our vision, and that is why we are in close cooperation with them,” he says. “We definitely need politicians who will support us in international organizations.” *Positive Press* Politicians won’t fill up Baku’s luxury hotels on their own, so Azerbaijan hopes to seduce potential tourists too. It speaks directly to foreigners through journalists, who are drawn to Baku by over-the-top press junkets that p.r. firms hand out like candy. In 2010, during one of the more lavish outings, a group of 10 editors and writers from some of London’s biggest magazines and newspapers flew on a private jet to Baku for the opening of the city’s Chinar nightclub. The three-day tour included free-flowing champagne, chauffeurs, gift bags full of caviar and a special performance by British girl group the Suga­babes. “There was a sense that anything you wanted, you could have,” one journalist says of the trip. “Nothing was off-limits.” Four months after the Chinar trip, the Daily Mail—the most powerful newspaper in Britain—ran an article by one of the travelers with the headline “Amazing Azerbaijan: Baku to the future in the capital city at the very edge of Europe.” The puffery goes beyond print media. Last November, CNN—which, like Time, is owned by Time Warner—ran a weeklong series of short segments called Eye on Azerbaijan. It looked at the country’s carpets, folk music and cuisine, explaining that Baku “might have an ancient heart, but it is getting a remarkably modern face.” Nothing was reported about the country’s human-rights problems, and Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Culture and Tourism paid for advertisements during the broadcasts. A CNN spokesman acknowledges that Eye on Azerbaijan was a sponsored series but says the network retained all editorial control and that CNN aired a story about Amnesty International’s activities in the country as part of a separate news program. Surely there are limits to how many advertisements a single country can buy—unless, of course, it runs a magazine of its own. That likely explains Baku, a fashion-and-lifestyle magazine launched by Condé Nast in October. Available globally, the magazine portrays Azerbaijan as a modern country in sync with Western values, with lush photo spreads of models and celebrities shot around the country’s landmarks. Edited by Leyla Aliyeva, the President’s London-based daughter, the current issue includes 26 pages on Eurovision—none of which mention that Emin Agalarov, the President’s son-in-law, will perform as a special guest act during the contest’s live broadcast. *The Curtain Rises* Ironically, Eurovision—meant to be Azerbaijan’s coming-out party—could end up undermining the country’s expensively tended image. In recent weeks, newspapers across Europe have reported on allegations by Human Rights Watch that officials have un­lawfully evicted residents and demolished their homes in the area surrounding Baku Crystal Hall, where Eurovision rehearsals will begin on May 13. The European Broadcasting Union (EBU), which oversees Eurovision, and Azeri authorities deny this. “They thought Eurovision was another jewel in this propaganda crown,” says Dalhuisen of Amnesty International. “It’s unraveling for them.” For Aliyev, that criticism must sting, especially since his government has already bowed to pressure from the EBU to ease some of its more repressive policies during the contest. On April 22 the government sanctioned a protest in Baku—only the second in seven years—during which opposition groups called for Aliyev’s resignation, chanting, “Eurovision without political prisoners.” “Euro­vision is shedding light on the darkness,” says Milli, the activist. “The best way to expose injustice is to come to Azerbaijan and make this the most subversive event in the history of Eurovision.” How Azerbaijan copes with 30,000 guests—including 1,500 journalists—during the event will prove to be its greatest p.r. test. Even the First Lady knows that. “The European song contest is a big and beautiful holiday for some people but for others an occasion to organize political provocation,” Aliyeva told Azeri reporters. “One must be prepared.” Opponents might interpret that as a veiled threat. But authorities will likely shy away from cracking down during the contest: international media would beam any images of violence around the world instantly. That would leave Azerbaijan out of tune with Eurovision—a contest founded to unite Europe through song after the carnage of World War II. Literally speaking, contestants don’t always manage to achieve harmony. This year’s acts include an Austrian rap group performing its song “Shake Your Booty” and a Cypriot songstress who is best heard in Auto-Tune. If the ideals of Eurovision rub off on Baku, though, perhaps more Azeris will be able to use their voices one day . http://williamleeadams.com/2012/05/04/selling-azerbaijan-at-eurovision-2012/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu May 17 12:27:33 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 16:27:33 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC Talking Points for Enhanced Cooperation workshop In-Reply-To: References: <4FB50343.7060903@itforchange.net>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E6145@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Izumi, Let's not get too shy all of a sudden. If you get 30 seconds to reiterate/reconfirm IGC's position on enhanced cooperation referencing the 2010 statement, that's good. If you get a minute then you can ad lib something more with words like 'democratic, global' that I'm sure IGC members would all agree on. I doubt we can engage the deeper dialogue on the meaning of multistakeholder or democratic or even reach a new consensus definition on enhanced cooperation, by tomorrow. So agreed prepping a more formal IGC text in advance is tough. But hey you're our co-coordinator, if you get a chance, wing it (American slang for - improvise) - and then we can all complain about you afterward ; ) Lee ________________________________________ From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] on behalf of Izumi AIZU [iza at anr.org] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 11:58 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Talking Points for Enhanced Cooperation workshop It seems that even minimal approach, or "bottom-line" is not getting broad support, if I am not mistaken, among IGC members. And no strong desire to make a statement. Being a coordinator, I am at your disposal, just try to reflect the view of our caucus. So, unless there is some more sign of support of making short statement outlined in my previous message, I will not try to make an IGC statement tomorrow. (we are not sure if participants will be given any slot, assuming so). For the record, IGC made this statement in Nov. 2010. http://www.igcaucus.org/node/43 izumi 2012/5/17 parminder : > > > On Thursday 17 May 2012 01:43 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote > > ----------- > For the process towards Enhanced Cooperation, IGC like to state the > following: > > 1. we are encouraged to see the constructive dialogue around EC is > proceeding > > 2. our “bottom-line” is, keep the principles endorsed by the Tunis > Agenda, especially, to hold to the principles of: > - democratic global governance > - multi-stakeholder participation, the need for IG forums where all > stakeholders are equally, and effectively represented > > > I have often tried to initiate a discussion on this list about what is meant > by equal participation of all stakeholders in actual decision making > process/ level but discussion never got too far... we first need to know > what we are talking about here before asking for it..... Wolfgang and > Bertrand, and i think at some time, Marilia, made the distinction on this > list about the decision inputting and shaping and decision making levels/ > stages........ so where all do we want equal participation. Does it mean > that a google or Microsoft rep will sign a privacy or data flow/ protection > treaty is one is to be made, and thus will have a veto on it... I am not > sure what equally represented means here, so if you can clarify maybe we can > find a good text to go with... parminder > > --------- > > Please give your feedback until tomorrow morning, Geneva Time, and I will > do my best, together with our colleagues here in Geneva, to reflect our view > as much as possible. > > Thanks, > > izumi > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu May 17 12:34:38 2012 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 18:34:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] India's proposal for a 50 member UN committee for Internet Related Policies In-Reply-To: <4FB5227C.2080202@ITforChange.net> References: <4FB5227C.2080202@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: Guru, I like the discretion with which you do not mention that the op-ed in the Hindu is actually from Parminder and not an op-ed by the newspaper itself as your wording seemed to imply if one did not follow the link ;-) probably just a question of modesty. But anyway, the discussion is getting interesting .... let's hope oversimplifications - on all sides - will not prevent doing useful work for the benefit of all. Looking forward to the discussions tomorrow and afterwards. Best Bertrand On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Guru गुरु wrote: > ** > Yes, its good that the Indian press is now also paying attention to the > larger challenge of Internet governance - of the implications of the > current undemocratic regimes and processes.... > > The Hindu is one of India's most respected and sober dailies and its Op-Ed > today has an article on the issue. The Op-Ed page also carries the civil > society statement, which now has more than 50 institutions from across the > world endorsing it. (statement also available in chinese, spanish, french > and portuguese on > http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_statement_on_democratic_internet) > > Link to the Joint civil society statement - in The Hindu Op-Ed : > http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article3426290.ece > Link to the article - The Hindu Op-Ed : > http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article3426292.ece > > As the article and the statement explain, many of us have been crying > 'Govt takeover' too often and too long... and it is high time we **also** > discuss the emperor's robes (sorry for mixed metaphors:-) ) > > regards > Guru > > > > On 16/05/12 22:11, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > India Today, one of the most > > respected news magazines in Inda and > > > > > Headlines Today, its Television channel today criticized > > India's > > > > > current proposal for "web takeover" > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/india-wants-internet-watchdog-proposes-50-nation-regulator-to-un/1/189032.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The good news is that the press is beginning to pay attention to what our > Government is doing on its own, without due consultation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sivasubramanian M ISOC India Chennai > > http://isocindiachennai.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > facebook: goo.gl/1VvIG > LinkedIn: > > goo.gl/eUt7s > > > > > > Twitter: http://goo.gl/kaQ3a > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 shailam at yahoo.com Thu May 17 13:08:09 2012 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 10:08:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Concerns about hidden cameras in Azerbaijan hotel rooms In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2177321@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <78DA47DB-AFAD-4C21-94C6-780094C0F7D9@privaterra.org> <4FB496DA.6040804@apc.org> <9b73a44e-692d-4aed-a344-72c0c9e3cfad@email.android.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2177321@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <1337274489.72606.YahooMailNeo@web161906.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Hi All Notwithstanding speculation that some IGF attendees are having a more interesting time than others, we should be concerned that hotel rooms may have hidden cameras. We do need to have IGF powers that be, look into it and ensure that this is not the case. This may be off putting to potential attendees! Shaila   The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! ..................... the renaissance of composure ! ________________________________ From: Milton L Mueller To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 7:16 AM Subject: RE: [governance] Concerns about hidden cameras in Azerbaijan hotel rooms Avri, Robert is right. You are really missing the point. The point is not that they would make videos of run of the mill IGF attendees such as you and me for fun. Rather, the hotel-room cameras a) show that hotel operators may be tools of the state surveillance apparatus; b) the sex tapes are used to embarrass/blackmail journalists and politicians who might criticize or oppose the government. That DOES affect the "conditions of people living in Azerbaijan." You might try reading the press release that Robert distributed and not just the headline. > -----Original Message----- > Seriously my point was that us being surveyed in a Azerbaijani hotel, > was not the important point. Rather the conditions people living in > Azerbaijan is the important issue, not that some one might watch us or > might make a sex video of our activities. > > 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 katycarvt at gmail.com Thu May 17 13:18:47 2012 From: katycarvt at gmail.com (Katy P) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 13:18:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] Concerns about hidden cameras in Azerbaijan hotel rooms In-Reply-To: <1337274489.72606.YahooMailNeo@web161906.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <78DA47DB-AFAD-4C21-94C6-780094C0F7D9@privaterra.org> <4FB496DA.6040804@apc.org> <9b73a44e-692d-4aed-a344-72c0c9e3cfad@email.android.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2177321@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1337274489.72606.YahooMailNeo@web161906.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: This report seems to imply that the hotels, probably for liability reasons, say that they think that they're doing their best. But in reality, if the security or maintainence people can be bribed (and certainly they can), there is nothing any organization can do to stop it. On May 17, 2012 1:16 PM, "shaila mistry" wrote: > Hi All > Notwithstanding speculation that some IGF attendees are having a more > interesting time than others, we should be concerned that hotel rooms may > have hidden cameras. > We do need to have IGF powers that be, look into it and ensure that this > is not the case. This may be off putting to potential attendees! > Shaila > > *The journey begins sooner than you anticipate !* > *..................... the renaissance of composure ! > * > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Milton L Mueller > *To:* "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; > Avri Doria > *Sent:* Thursday, May 17, 2012 7:16 AM > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Concerns about hidden cameras in Azerbaijan > hotel rooms > > Avri, Robert is right. You are really missing the point. The point is not > that they would make videos of run of the mill IGF attendees such as you > and me for fun. Rather, the hotel-room cameras a) show that hotel operators > may be tools of the state surveillance apparatus; b) the sex tapes are used > to embarrass/blackmail journalists and politicians who might criticize or > oppose the government. That DOES affect the "conditions of people living in > Azerbaijan." You might try reading the press release that Robert > distributed and not just the headline. > > > -----Original Message----- > > Seriously my point was that us being surveyed in a Azerbaijani hotel, > > was not the important point. Rather the conditions people living in > > Azerbaijan is the important issue, not that some one might watch us or > > might make a sex video of our activities. > > > > avri > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Thu May 17 13:22:14 2012 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 10:22:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Concerns about hidden cameras in Azerbaijan hotel rooms In-Reply-To: References: <78DA47DB-AFAD-4C21-94C6-780094C0F7D9@privaterra.org> <4FB496DA.6040804@apc.org> <9b73a44e-692d-4aed-a344-72c0c9e3cfad@email.android.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2177321@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1337274489.72606.YahooMailNeo@web161906.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1337275334.45352.YahooMailNeo@web161901.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Well I guess we can show our support for human rights by "active non participation" ie not attending !   The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! ..................... the renaissance of composure ! ________________________________ From: Katy P To: shaila mistry ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: Avri Doria ; Milton L Mueller Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 10:18 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Concerns about hidden cameras in Azerbaijan hotel rooms This report seems to imply that the hotels, probably for liability reasons, say that they think that they're doing their best. But in reality, if the security or maintainence people can be bribed (and certainly they can), there is nothing any organization can do to stop it. On May 17, 2012 1:16 PM, "shaila mistry" wrote: Hi All >Notwithstanding speculation that some IGF attendees are having a more interesting time than others, we should be concerned that hotel rooms may have hidden cameras. >We do need to have IGF powers that be, look into it and ensure that this is not the case. This may be off putting to potential attendees! > >Shaila >  >The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! >..................... the renaissance of composure ! > > > > >________________________________ > From: Milton L Mueller >To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Avri Doria >Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 7:16 AM >Subject: RE: [governance] Concerns about hidden cameras in Azerbaijan hotel rooms > >Avri, Robert is right. You are really missing the point. The point is not that they would make videos of run of the mill IGF attendees such as you and me for fun. Rather, the hotel-room cameras a) show that hotel operators may be tools of the state surveillance apparatus; b) the sex tapes are used to embarrass/blackmail journalists and politicians who might criticize or oppose the government. That DOES affect the "conditions of people living in Azerbaijan." You might try reading the press release that Robert distributed and not just the headline. > >> -----Original Message----- >> Seriously my point was that us being surveyed in a Azerbaijani hotel, >> was not the important point. Rather the conditions people living in >> Azerbaijan is the important issue, not that some one might watch us or >> might make a sex video of our activities. >> >> avri >> > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu May 17 13:24:16 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 18:24:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] Workshop judgments In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21772F3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217564A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21772F3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21772F3 at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, at 14:06:18 on Thu, 17 May 2012, Milton L Mueller writes >[Milton L Mueller] > I do not believe that any individual or organization can properly >organize and run more than 2 IGF workshops if a high quality standard >is maintained. What's so difficult about organising multiple IGF workshops? The ITU seems to have organised a whole WSIS week (and many other stakeholders have organised from one-day to one-week conferences perfectly well). -- 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 May 17 14:45:12 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 19:45:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] Concerns about hidden cameras in Azerbaijan hotel rooms In-Reply-To: References: <78DA47DB-AFAD-4C21-94C6-780094C0F7D9@privaterra.org> <4FB496DA.6040804@apc.org> Message-ID: In message , at 11:35:58 on Thu, 17 May 2012, Robert Guerra writes >Seriously folks, the reports of systematic surveillance, intimidation >and violation of human rights in Azerbaijan is no joking matter. I >would have expected a more serious conversation on the issue, and how >the IGC might want to react. The IGC should certainly define its position of the issue. Including whether or not its prime objective is improving Internet Governance or the Governance of a particular host country. If the IGC has ambitions that more countries in the world should emulate the freedoms of the Internet, perhaps concentrating on freeing the Internet (so that it can be that example to others) should be the main priority. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu May 17 16:42:06 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 05:42:06 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC Talking Points for Enhanced Cooperation workshop In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E6145@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4FB50343.7060903@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E6145@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Thanks Lee for the encouragement. The reason I brought this up even at the last minute is, as the co-coordinator, I would rather like to be criticized for what I did than what I did NOT do. Yet, if you look at the program tomorrow, there we have Anriette, Parminder, and Marilia as the speakers. Other are Mr Toure, SG of ITU, Mr. Nigel Hickson, Vice President for Europe, ICANN, Markus Kummer, and Marilyne Cade. So with three speakers from CS, both diverse views and also some common areas will be presented. After the initial one our of these prsentations, second session of 1 hour and third session of three hours are all devoted to "General Discussion" where I expect many attendees should be able to make comments. I may try some ad hoc thing, will be careful in presenting these, not "represent" IGC nor present full consensus at all. Any more advices? izumi 2012/5/18 Lee W McKnight : > Izumi, > > Let's not get too shy all of a sudden. If you get 30 seconds to reiterate/reconfirm IGC's position on enhanced cooperation referencing the 2010 statement, that's good. > > If you get a minute then you can ad lib something more with words like 'democratic, global' that I'm sure IGC members would all agree on. > > I doubt we can engage the deeper dialogue on the meaning of multistakeholder or democratic or even reach a new consensus definition on enhanced cooperation, by tomorrow. > > So agreed prepping a more formal IGC text in advance is tough. > > But hey you're our co-coordinator, if you get a chance, wing it (American slang for - improvise) - and then we can all complain about you afterward ; ) > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] on behalf of Izumi AIZU [iza at anr.org] > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 11:58 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Talking Points for Enhanced Cooperation workshop > > It seems that even minimal approach, or "bottom-line" is not getting > broad support, > if I am not mistaken, among IGC members. And no strong desire to make > a statement. > Being a coordinator, I am at your disposal, just try to reflect the > view of our caucus. > > So, unless there is some more sign of support of making short > statement outlined in my previous message, I will not try to make an > IGC statement tomorrow. (we are not sure > if participants will be given any slot, assuming so). > > For the record, IGC made this statement in Nov. 2010. > > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/43 > > izumi > > > 2012/5/17 parminder : >> >> >> On Thursday 17 May 2012 01:43 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote >> >> ----------- >> For the process towards Enhanced Cooperation, IGC like to state the >> following: >> >> 1. we are encouraged to see the constructive dialogue around EC is >> proceeding >> >> 2. our “bottom-line” is, keep the principles endorsed by the Tunis >> Agenda, especially, to hold to the principles of: >> - democratic global governance >> - multi-stakeholder participation, the need for IG forums where all >> stakeholders are equally, and effectively represented >> >> >> I have often tried to initiate a discussion on this list about what is meant >> by equal participation of all stakeholders in actual decision making >> process/ level but discussion never got too far... we first need to know >> what we are talking about here before asking for it..... Wolfgang and >> Bertrand, and i think at some time, Marilia, made the distinction on this >> list about the decision inputting and shaping and decision making levels/ >> stages........  so where all do we want equal participation. Does it mean >> that a google or Microsoft rep will sign a privacy or data flow/ protection >> treaty is one is to be made, and thus will have a veto on it... I am not >> sure what equally represented means here, so if you can clarify maybe we can >> find a good text to go with... parminder >> >> --------- >> >> Please give your feedback until tomorrow morning, Geneva Time, and I will >> do my best, together with our colleagues here in Geneva, to reflect our view >> as much as possible. >> >> Thanks, >> >> izumi >> >> > > --                      >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu May 17 17:40:55 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 23:40:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] Concerns about hidden cameras in Azerbaijan hotel rooms In-Reply-To: References: <78DA47DB-AFAD-4C21-94C6-780094C0F7D9@privaterra.org> <4FB496DA.6040804@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi, I do not beleive we can sacrifice one for the other. avri Roland Perry wrote: >In message , at >11:35:58 on Thu, 17 May 2012, Robert Guerra >writes >>Seriously folks, the reports of systematic surveillance, intimidation >>and violation of human rights in Azerbaijan is no joking matter. I >>would have expected a more serious conversation on the issue, and how >>the IGC might want to react. > >The IGC should certainly define its position of the issue. > >Including whether or not its prime objective is improving Internet >Governance or the Governance of a particular host country. > >If the IGC has ambitions that more countries in the world should >emulate >the freedoms of the Internet, perhaps concentrating on freeing the >Internet (so that it can be that example to others) should be the main >priority. >-- >Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu May 17 18:40:19 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 18:40:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC Talking Points for Enhanced Cooperation workshop In-Reply-To: References: <4FB50343.7060903@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E6145@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Only "break a leg" theatrical slang for deliver your usual excellent performance. And by "performance" I'm not being snide. I very much admire the way you always seem to find the words to be diplomatic yet make the point strongly and clearly. Good luck! Deirdre On 17 May 2012 16:42, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Thanks Lee for the encouragement. > > The reason I brought this up even at the last minute is, as the > co-coordinator, > I would rather like to be criticized for what I did than what I did NOT do. > > Yet, if you look at the program tomorrow, there we have Anriette, > Parminder, > and Marilia as the speakers. Other are Mr Toure, SG of ITU, Mr. Nigel > Hickson, > Vice President for Europe, ICANN, Markus Kummer, and Marilyne Cade. > So with three speakers from CS, both diverse views and also some common > areas will be presented. > > After the initial one our of these prsentations, second session of 1 hour > and > third session of three hours are all devoted to "General Discussion" where > I expect many attendees should be able to make comments. I may try > some ad hoc thing, will be careful in presenting these, not "represent" IGC > nor present full consensus at all. > > Any more advices? > > izumi > > > > 2012/5/18 Lee W McKnight : > > Izumi, > > > > Let's not get too shy all of a sudden. If you get 30 seconds to > reiterate/reconfirm IGC's position on enhanced cooperation referencing the > 2010 statement, that's good. > > > > If you get a minute then you can ad lib something more with words like > 'democratic, global' that I'm sure IGC members would all agree on. > > > > I doubt we can engage the deeper dialogue on the meaning of > multistakeholder or democratic or even reach a new consensus definition on > enhanced cooperation, by tomorrow. > > > > So agreed prepping a more formal IGC text in advance is tough. > > > > But hey you're our co-coordinator, if you get a chance, wing it > (American slang for - improvise) - and then we can all complain about you > afterward ; ) > > > > Lee > > ________________________________________ > > From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] on behalf of Izumi AIZU > [iza at anr.org] > > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 11:58 AM > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder > > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Talking Points for Enhanced Cooperation > workshop > > > > It seems that even minimal approach, or "bottom-line" is not getting > > broad support, > > if I am not mistaken, among IGC members. And no strong desire to make > > a statement. > > Being a coordinator, I am at your disposal, just try to reflect the > > view of our caucus. > > > > So, unless there is some more sign of support of making short > > statement outlined in my previous message, I will not try to make an > > IGC statement tomorrow. (we are not sure > > if participants will be given any slot, assuming so). > > > > For the record, IGC made this statement in Nov. 2010. > > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/43 > > > > izumi > > > > > > 2012/5/17 parminder : > >> > >> > >> On Thursday 17 May 2012 01:43 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote > >> > >> ----------- > >> For the process towards Enhanced Cooperation, IGC like to state the > >> following: > >> > >> 1. we are encouraged to see the constructive dialogue around EC is > >> proceeding > >> > >> 2. our “bottom-line” is, keep the principles endorsed by the Tunis > >> Agenda, especially, to hold to the principles of: > >> - democratic global governance > >> - multi-stakeholder participation, the need for IG forums where all > >> stakeholders are equally, and effectively represented > >> > >> > >> I have often tried to initiate a discussion on this list about what is > meant > >> by equal participation of all stakeholders in actual decision making > >> process/ level but discussion never got too far... we first need to know > >> what we are talking about here before asking for it..... Wolfgang and > >> Bertrand, and i think at some time, Marilia, made the distinction on > this > >> list about the decision inputting and shaping and decision making > levels/ > >> stages........ so where all do we want equal participation. Does it > mean > >> that a google or Microsoft rep will sign a privacy or data flow/ > protection > >> treaty is one is to be made, and thus will have a veto on it... I am not > >> sure what equally represented means here, so if you can clarify maybe > we can > >> find a good text to go with... parminder > >> > >> --------- > >> > >> Please give your feedback until tomorrow morning, Geneva Time, and I > will > >> do my best, together with our colleagues here in Geneva, to reflect our > view > >> as much as possible. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> izumi > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 dvbirve at yandex.ru Thu May 17 18:49:42 2012 From: dvbirve at yandex.ru (Shcherbovich Andrey) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 02:49:42 +0400 Subject: [governance] Concerns about hidden cameras in Azerbaijan hotel rooms In-Reply-To: <1337275334.45352.YahooMailNeo@web161901.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <78DA47DB-AFAD-4C21-94C6-780094C0F7D9@privaterra.org> <4FB496DA.6040804@apc.org> <9b73a44e-692d-4aed-a344-72c0c9e3cfad@email.android.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2177321@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1337274489.72606.YahooMailNeo@web161906.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1337275334.45352.YahooMailNeo@web161901.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <162151337294982@web26g.yandex.ru> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Guru at ITforChange.net Thu May 17 21:33:02 2012 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 07:03:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's proposal for a 50 member UN committee for Internet Related Policies In-Reply-To: References: <4FB5227C.2080202@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <4FB5A6CE.60107@ITforChange.net> Dear Bertrand, Wikipedia says " An *op-ed*, abbreviated from *opposite the editorial page *^[1] (though often mistaken for *opinion-editorial*), is a newspaper article that expreses the opinions of a named writer who is usually unaffiliated with the newspaper's editorial board " The Hindu as I mentioned is a reputed and sober daily and their op-ed is usually solicited by the paper. So their carrying the civil society statement and Parminders write-up on why CIRP is an opportunity to democratise global internet governance is also a recognition of this position. As in the very recent case of UNCTAD, the concerted attempt by powerful countries to undermine global democracy possibilities needs to be resisted... see recent article in Frontline (a weekly publication from the same group)- http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/20120601291005300.htm , we have also seen similar debates in WIPO etc and this is a dire need in IG. regards, Guru ps - I like the way you mention your hope that 'over-simplification - on all sides - will not prevent doing useful work for the benefit of all', probably just a question of superiority, I guess :-) On 17/05/12 22:04, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Guru, > > I like the discretion with which you do not mention that the op-ed in > the Hindu is actually from Parminder and not an op-ed by the newspaper > itself as your wording seemed to imply if one did not follow the link > ;-) probably just a question of modesty. > > But anyway, the discussion is getting interesting .... let's hope > oversimplifications - on all sides - will not prevent doing useful > work for the benefit of all. > Looking forward to the discussions tomorrow and afterwards. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Guru गुरु > wrote: > > Yes, its good that the Indian press is now also paying attention > to the larger challenge of Internet governance - of the > implications of the current undemocratic regimes and processes.... > > The Hindu is one of India's most respected and sober dailies and > its Op-Ed today has an article on the issue. The Op-Ed page also > carries the civil society statement, which now has more than 50 > institutions from across the world endorsing it. (statement also > available in chinese, spanish, french and portuguese on > http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_statement_on_democratic_internet > ) > > Link to the Joint civil society statement - in The Hindu Op-Ed : > http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article3426290.ece > Link to the article - The Hindu Op-Ed : > http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article3426292.ece > > As the article and the statement explain, many of us have been > crying 'Govt takeover' too often and too long... and it is high > time we **_also_** discuss the emperor's robes (sorry for mixed > metaphors:-) ) > > regards > Guru > > > > On 16/05/12 22:11, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > India Today, one of the most > > > > respected news magazines in Inda and > > > > > > > > > Headlines Today, its Television channel today criticized > > > > India's > > > > > > > > > current proposal for "web takeover" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/india-wants-internet-watchdog-proposes-50-nation-regulator-to-un/1/189032.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The good news is that the press is beginning to pay attention to > what our Government is doing on its own, without due consultation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sivasubramanian M ISOC India Chennai > > > > http://isocindiachennai.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > facebook: goo.gl/1VvIG > > LinkedIn: > > > > goo.gl/eUt7s > > > > > > > > > > > Twitter: http://goo.gl/kaQ3a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 jac at apcwomen.org Fri May 18 01:13:56 2012 From: jac at apcwomen.org (Jac sm Kee) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 13:13:56 +0800 Subject: [governance] Visit to spain SCAM In-Reply-To: References: <1337124739.58225.YahooMailClassic@web125802.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4FB5DA94.9030408@apcwomen.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 to share a best practice documented by AWARE, a women's rights organisation in singapore. there's been a fair number of cases of long-term cons in dating relationships - where men start up long-distance relationships with women and then promising to meet them, but then come across personal difficulty (money being stolen, business deal needing to go through first, ex-wife harassing for money etc etc etc), so asking the victim to wire over chunks of money which gets bigger and bigger through time until they get fed up, or realise it's a con, by which time money has been lost and they have to start the bewildering process of getting redress. so western union has started asking their clients before wiring money about: do you know this person personally, did you start an online relationship, this could be a con, letting them know about cases they have encountered and managing to prevent some of these cases from happening. sometimes people just dont know about this, and when are asked some key questions and informed about common cons at the point of decision making, it really helps to build awareness and can be an effective form of prevention. faster than the cumbersome cyber security units at least, who also infuse much of their investigation with a certain level of stereotyped and sexist responses. j On 16/05/2012 20:15, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > - Once I had friends over for dinner and I received an email > purporting to be from one of my friends from her legitimate email > account stating that she was stuck in the United Kingdom and needed > me to wire money over. What was amusing was that I showed her the > email I received and she was shocked/angry/embarrassed; - I then > forwarded the email to our Cyber Crimes Unit in Fiji and also > googled the closest Police Station next to where she was supposed > to have wired the money and reported it to their cyber crimes unit. > They could not attend to it because it was a common occurrence or > perhaps because they felt like it was not their problem or that I > was not a UK national; > > Countries have regional and international cooperation through the > various Treaties in relation to law enforcement....but often the > average internet user whose privacy has been invaded has no > recourse because he/she is dealing with an "invisible enemy". > > Kind Regards, > > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Ginger Paque > wrote: > >> I know of Zeeshan Shoki since 2009 as an online person from the >> University of Karachi, interested in IG. I have seen other email >> accounts hacked this way, so I have some sympathy/empathy. As he >> recovers his accounts, I hope he will update us on what happened, >> if nothing else, so we can learn from his experience. >> >> If however, he is having serious problems with his email account >> being compromised, he might not be reading this thread, or be >> aware that the email was propagated through it. >> >> Cheers... Ginger >> >> >> >> > - -- 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/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPtdqTAAoJEKpQzmPAS5FmRcUH/jX1rADpUAh/qcP0IxMxVPqs 08JgPmKmucX1Di3ZdOAWkvzmTuSnWRkj3bRM/p3QEFJI/z/nlok80QgVtWSld7Hu dPYSym6G1A04RGo98E98dnxefRboW+A4GDslwzJ3zWI9y5hkw2CUgWBfpPIkupKA igLnLtfLwB4TyZG1ue7ohEyEQOPACfoLGBg8ErDKujP6PjX9nW0xK46BZNmwmMAL jaCQpk77IqwtiYYO7bcg587GzRlGHNv8INXD8Ym3L7cHfNmsyG0JT0MNr0MqB7iR oiK9mkLGXa+OZ0aGRJzBZt75DTykU6YA2KjJC/GBwIv674q+nOwaZUqw8a5alGk= =yaua -----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 jac at apcwomen.org Fri May 18 01:25:44 2012 From: jac at apcwomen.org (Jac sm Kee) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 13:25:44 +0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [liberationtech] Telecommunications minister has ordered the use of domain names ending with .ir" belonging to Iran In-Reply-To: <46DA1E9D088549C69BDF1319CF01DCB4@UserVAIO> References: <46DA1E9D088549C69BDF1319CF01DCB4@UserVAIO> Message-ID: <4FB5DD58.4050406@apcwomen.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 just to add to this. this is how it is affecting on-the-ground work on sexual rights in the country: http://www.apc.org/en/news/iran039s-new-quotcleanquot-national-internet-will j On 13/05/2012 06:25, michael gurstein wrote: > > -----Original Message----- From: > liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu > [mailto:liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of > SiNA Rabbani Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 3:05 PM To: > liberationtech at mailman.stanford.edu Subject: [liberationtech] > Telecommunications minister has ordered the use of domain names > ending with .ir" belonging to Iran ... > > http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jzh5OHjE_YOFj7PeAz8thcxLD > > XHg > >> TEHRAN - Iran's telecommunications ministry has barred local >> banks, insurance firms and telephone operators from using >> foreign-sourced emails to communicate with clients, a specialist >> weekly said on Saturday. >> >> "The telecommunications minister has ordered the use of domain >> names ending with .ir" belonging to Iran, Asr Ertebatat >> reported. >> >> The order prohibits banks, insurance firms and telephone firms >> using foreign hosts for their sites or to inform their clients >> using foreign providers such as Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail or MSN, it >> said. >> >> The weekly said that individuals seeking to communicate with such >> firms must now use email addresses ending with iran.ir, post.ir >> or chmail.ir. >> >> Entities linked to the Iranian government must use addresses >> ending in gov.ir or .ir, while universities should use emails >> ending in ac.ir or .ir, the report added. >> >> Iran has announced that as of May a national information network >> will be used to replace the Internet in the daily management of >> the administration of state entities, the banking system and >> public enterprises. >> >> Officially, the launch of the "Iranian Internet" aims to secure >> communications by making them independent from foreign Internet >> operators. >> >> Iranian authorities announced in December having repatriated 90% >> of official websites and encouraged Iranian companies to do the >> same. >> >> For the past two years, Tehran has been slapped with Western >> economic and financial sanctions due to its controversial nuclear >> programme. >> >> The regime also regularly accuses the West of using the web for >> an "undeclared war" to destabilise it, and Telecommunications >> Minister Reza Taghipour has argued that Google and Yahoo posed a >> "threat to national security." >> >> With over 36 million Internet users out of the population of 75 >> million, electronic media played a major role in the popular >> protests which rocked the country after the disputed re-election >> of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2009. >> >> The authorities have since cut off or reduced Internet >> connections and speed. >> >> The telecommunications ministry in April, however, denied that >> the authority has decided to cut outside Internet connections to >> support the development of Iran's own intranet. >> >> Earlier this year, access to foreign-sourced emails was cut >> without explanation, disrupting the operations of many companies >> and millions of Iranians while prompting sharp criticism within >> the regime. >> >> Since the unrest of 2009, authorities have sharply reduced the >> available bandwidth of the Internet and blocked access to tens of >> thousands of foreign websites, including opposition sites. >> >> US President Barack Obama on March accused Iran of imposing an >> "electronic curtain" of censorship, announcing steps to use >> software and social media to help Iranians communicate online. > > > - -- 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/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPtd1XAAoJEKpQzmPAS5FmWuMH/Rkk1VHCcoIU3q6VXwRCJ0+j hpyQI8QnKL0DwO64eG9q2aR7WREgYyJ6rbcuDarPop6raTCjpT80fQ8W/XXzYXYg dF5FTfjLdqT7KlGqzyZT+m/aH1BvtCt6tqTVIj2/5dbTI1Is75u5f0p92gIo+ywW hZud661/rLOdxWGAmFAJDtJfHS9d0DTZPmdv+u+4nVHFgkG8xjKHFTeDIZiDF9KC vnDwWDzFTnUh1QZ1q+3JMPrtQ1q3iaPxItgk/DCDWBdbpQ/Jeu+nlKLgNiCV7KDP qbrGrMoE13hxG8Xm0wLZ1i+bSLLREXjbZsu+5xiMD6EEPpeflxVzMGiJaeEqa2k= =elPG -----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 avri at acm.org Fri May 18 02:01:59 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 08:01:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] India's proposal for a 50 member UN committee for Internet Related Policies In-Reply-To: <4FB5A6CE.60107@ITforChange.net> References: <4FB5227C.2080202@ITforChange.net> <4FB5A6CE.60107@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: Hi, Without getting into the discussion over the merits of the marketing campaign for Parminder's proposal, I have to admit I just do not understand how turning over a process that according to the agreed langauge of the Tunis Agenda (paras 67-72) should be within IGF's scope to the CSTD or some other government dominated body increases democratization. In most every possible way I can think of, this appears to be a step backward. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri May 18 03:12:52 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 08:12:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] Concerns about hidden cameras in Azerbaijan hotel rooms In-Reply-To: References: <78DA47DB-AFAD-4C21-94C6-780094C0F7D9@privaterra.org> <4FB496DA.6040804@apc.org> Message-ID: In message , at 23:40:55 on Thu, 17 May 2012, Avri Doria writes >Hi, > >I do not beleive we can sacrifice one for the other. What I'm trying to discover is whether or not the IGC feels it has a mandate, or a mission, to accelerate change in the host country. If the answer's yes, might it even be counter-productive to (eg) organise a boycot of, or protest at, this year's event. >Roland Perry wrote: > >>In message , at >>11:35:58 on Thu, 17 May 2012, Robert Guerra >>writes >>>Seriously folks, the reports of systematic surveillance, intimidation >>>and violation of human rights in Azerbaijan is no joking matter. I >>>would have expected a more serious conversation on the issue, and how >>>the IGC might want to react. >> >>The IGC should certainly define its position of the issue. >> >>Including whether or not its prime objective is improving Internet >>Governance or the Governance of a particular host country. >> >>If the IGC has ambitions that more countries in the world should >>emulate >>the freedoms of the Internet, perhaps concentrating on freeing the >>Internet (so that it can be that example to others) should be the main >>priority. >>-- >>Roland Perry > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Fri May 18 03:18:25 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 09:18:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] India's proposal for a 50 member UN committee for Internet Related Policies In-Reply-To: References: <4FB5227C.2080202@ITforChange.net> <4FB5A6CE.60107@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: 4 quick comments: - Agree with Avri's that Parminder's proposals seems to be inconsistent with the agreed to language of the Tunis Agenda (paras 67-72). The proposal is a dangerous step back, one that shifts discussion away from the IGF, and reduces the effective opportunity for non-governmental actors to be involved in Internet Governance. During the WSIS process all non-governmental actors fought really hard to be "allowed in the room" with govts. Your proposal, I fear would reverse that and shift the discussion and decision making to bodies where rules of procedure are far more restrictive and exclusionary. - Parminder, in your article you mention that you have the support of civil society. Just blasting your views everywhere has the media thinking all of civil society agrees with your views. There is , well, considerable disagreement with many of your points. Please recognize that and recognize that and stop insinuating that you have a broad level of support. - Having a differences of opinion and being able to debate and discuss and find areas where we there might be common ground is a discussion I look forward to.. thanks robbert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2012-05-18, at 8:01 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Without getting into the discussion over the merits of the marketing campaign for Parminder's proposal, I have to admit I just do not understand how turning over a process that according to the agreed langauge of the Tunis Agenda (paras 67-72) should be within IGF's scope to the CSTD or some other government dominated body increases democratization. > > In most every possible way I can think of, this appears to be a step backward. > > > > 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 sana.pryhod at gmail.com Fri May 18 03:24:32 2012 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 10:24:32 +0300 Subject: [governance] MAG Meeting, Day 2, Afternoon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Izumi, My best congratulations on great job! It was very useful and interesting to follow the whole process of discussion with your notes - thank you very-very much! Best regards, Oksana 2012/5/17 michael gurstein : > Just one point... > > "Izumi: Principle level: Treat "remote" participants equal to physical > participants as much as possible." > > In the discussion of several months ago on remote participation the point > was made (although perhaps not in these words) that it was important to > recognize that people participating remotely were not "equal" in their > opportunities for participation and in practice never would be. What is > important as a principle is to recognize the differences in opportunities > for participation remotely as compared to f2f and to build in mechanisms to > ensure that the "outcomes" achievable from participation whether remote or > f2f were as "equal" as possible. > > A subtle point perhaps but one that I think is crucial as it provides > direction for the design of the overall IGF not simply of processes of > "participation" but also of the desired/anticipated outcomes of the IGF > itself. > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi > AIZU > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 8:44 AM > To: governance > Subject: [governance] MAG Meeting, Day 2, Afternoon > > > Hi all, > > The MAG meeting finished at around 15:30. > The overall mood is not bad, positive. > > Here is my note for the afternoon session. > > I plan to report the Enhanced cooperation workshop tomorrow. > > And many thanks for the encouraging comments. > > izumi > > --------- > > Afternoon Session > 14:20 - > > Remote participation > Technical issues - pass to the Secretariat > > institutional element >  remote hubs > > Izumi > Emphasized the importance of Remote participation. > Will send technical details to secretariat. > > > Robert Guerra > > Vladimir > > Kieren > > Nurani > > > Chengetai > Current practice > integrate RP, improve > current plan - to offer the same service as last year and previous year > every single room has equipment, translation provide interactive > > Technical aspect > Last year, we had17 remote panelists > Baku - preparing for EuroVision - more bandwidth > Patrik Falstrom, will help, now consulting with network infrastructure All > are in the host country requirement > > For remote moderators - indications are there > they can approach the secretariat > > Students will work as remote moderators, planning > Fulltime job - not for Bernard this time > > We encourage you to come, to create Remote hubs > Contact Bernard Sadaka > Remote participation training > > Welcome volunteers > > New things to use - eTube? etc >  we are having renewal of website > welcome suggestions for new tools, platform > Suggest for separate mailing list for MAG members on RP >  if going to use tags, we have to have ontology for the tags, > > Challenge - need more participants > > Kieren > WebX requires download software - barrier > Nairobi - Camera is good quality > Live-stream is very good - video works better > > > Izumi > Principle level: > Treat "remote" participants equal to physical participants as much as > possible. > > Can we overcome the Time zone - GMT - > 10am to 6 pm there is  3 to 11 pm  in Japan > > Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote participants to > intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those physically present in > Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. > > Good opportunity to Demonstrate the State of the art of Internet technology > > Is "remote" the right word?  physically in distant, yes, but philosophically > should be close, not too remote. > > > Aysha > link with National and Regional IGFs > > Vladimir > Thank you Aysha for remiding this > > Robert > > Chair > We will implement this Host Country Agreement fully, > Your advices and comments are very useful for us and will keep your advices > and comments in our preparatory process. In all parts of MSH, will prepare. > We will try together with Secretariat, you, UN DESA, all that. > > Vladimir > Capacity Building Track of IGF > > training a day before > > Constance > concentrate the effort with existing material by the community > > Izumi > Just as MAG member > On side event - be treated equally as much as possible without harming the > prerogative of the host community too much:  GIGAnet  Human rights > roundtable > > > Anriette > > Paul > thank everyone concerned > online evaluation > > Boston Consulting report - Internet Economy > 2013 - G20 - > $1M budget for Secretariat - critical >  we are supporting the IGF > IGF is continue beyond the second phase >  consensus- both in line with CSTD and others, > CSTD useful - but also to evolve > respect - > appointed bit to late to MAG > no clear opportunity for review or improvement > it would have been more empowering - > MAC renew process could happen earlier in future >  right after IGF to get up to speed > creation of Program Paper > > missed opportunity - to make the best use of the group here > > Marilyn > Acknowledge major improvement in IGF and MAG meeting > MAG agreed to become more open and inclusive - no longer closed > 1) Role of MAG - think carefully about being as inclusive and concerned, > about making sure non-MAG members and new players have every opportunity to > fully participate Do not prioritize open space to MAG-event > > 2) CSTD WG on IGF > Many of government participants and all non-gov members truly experienced > IGF - > > Cecil Mccain > As IGF evolved and MAG improves, > had discussion with Diplo - candidate to assist > 1)  we need to scoring tools augment current tools, objective minimum > requirement > 2) Data mining - > for future IGF - to have clear picture of what impact IGF will have > > Izumi > I agree with Marilyn - that MAG is tasked to facilitate - with all IGF > community to make IGF relevant. - like CSTD WG > > Agree with most of what Paul said including the renewal timing of MAG, > orientation would be very helpful. > > Support online evaluation - suggested multi-lingual capability seem very > attractive > > Way forward - no September meeting?  any alternative measures Three times > meeting a year? Feb, May and ?? > > CSTD WG  -recommends better outcome message > we don't have to wait until GA approve everything - >  MAG as bottom-up voluntary > I thank you all > > Felix > IG is subset of most dynamic industry - ICT > > > Chengetai - Final Remarks > continue online > (to izumi) no support for September meeting > > Chair > Very fruitful meeting > help the preparation > Will be comfortable in Baku > Thanks to everyone, special thanks to Secretariat > > MAG Meeting finished at 15:32 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 18 03:32:08 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 08:32:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's proposal for a 50 member UN committee for Internet Related Policies In-Reply-To: References: <4FB5227C.2080202@ITforChange.net> <4FB5A6CE.60107@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <+SIWGvS4rftPFAIn@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 08:01:59 on Fri, 18 May 2012, Avri Doria writes >Without getting into the discussion over the merits of the marketing >campaign for Parminder's proposal, I have to admit I just do not >understand how turning over a process that according to the agreed >langauge of the Tunis Agenda (paras 67-72) should be within IGF's >scope to the CSTD or some other government dominated body increases >democratization. Nitin was always very clear that EC and IGF were separate processes. The annual reports mentioned in para 71 have always been a matter for the CSTD. The IGF has never been about producing a deliverable (an outcome), so is surely not suited, nor intended, to fulfil the role of the process mentioned in paragraph 70. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri May 18 03:37:59 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 16:37:59 +0900 Subject: [governance] MAG Meeting, Day 2, Afternoon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Mike, Thank you very much for the comments below. My whole intention is very close to what you think. That's why I also asked if the term "remote" is the right word. And I also brought the time zone to attention. In any case, I agree that what is most important is not to agree on abstract principle level [only], but rather to realize the desired substance, or outcome in your words. Just to add, the atmosphere of the room towards the end of morning session was, "just finish one remaining minor point on the agenda, remote participation, maybe in 10 minutes or perhaps 25 min, then adjourn the whole meeting and thus have free afternoon" - the Chair indicated that and I saw many were almost in agreement. Knowing that CS believes Remote Participation is crucial part of IGF, I took the floor and asked to rethink. I also added that there are folks who were not able to come to morning session due to other engagement at WSIS who plan to come to the room in the afternoon. It will be unfair for them to change the agenda without giving no prior notice. I sort of insisted. Well, MAG meeting is over. Some said MAG came a long way, after the meeting, that it became open to observers, and say starting yesterday afternoon, the floor was given to non-MAG members without any procedure. They were treated "almost" equal to MAG members in the room. Of course we still have long way to go, to make MSH more meaningful and to make the voices of civil society to be heard more substantively. That is where we need more work I really feel now. Thank you for all the interest, support and your own voices! izumi 2012/5/18 michael gurstein : > Just one point... > > "Izumi: Principle level: Treat "remote" participants equal to physical > participants as much as possible." > > In the discussion of several months ago on remote participation the point > was made (although perhaps not in these words) that it was important to > recognize that people participating remotely were not "equal" in their > opportunities for participation and in practice never would be. What is > important as a principle is to recognize the differences in opportunities > for participation remotely as compared to f2f and to build in mechanisms to > ensure that the "outcomes" achievable from participation whether remote or > f2f were as "equal" as possible. > > A subtle point perhaps but one that I think is crucial as it provides > direction for the design of the overall IGF not simply of processes of > "participation" but also of the desired/anticipated outcomes of the IGF > itself. > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi > AIZU > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 8:44 AM > To: governance > Subject: [governance] MAG Meeting, Day 2, Afternoon > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri May 18 03:44:34 2012 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 09:44:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] India's proposal for a 50 member UN committee for Internet Related Policies In-Reply-To: <4FB5A6CE.60107@ITforChange.net> References: <4FB5227C.2080202@ITforChange.net> <4FB5A6CE.60107@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: Dear Guru, It was a wink, as I know you know :-) By the way, Parminder's paper moves the discussion from the diplomatic debate to the more political arena and it clearly is a part of the discussion. As a matter of fact, I am a bit surprised that the IGC list did not harbor a deeper debate on these issues, as was the case in the past. As for my hope about oversimplifications not clouding the debate, you know I am sincere when I say "from all sides". Let's try to both speak and listen. Let's see how the discussions go today and next week. Best B. On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Guru गुरु wrote: > ** > Dear Bertrand, > > Wikipedia says " An *op-ed*, abbreviated from *opposite the editorial page > *[1] (though often > mistaken for *opinion-editorial*), is a newspaperarticle that expreses the opinions of a named > writer who is usually unaffiliated > with the newspaper's editorial board > " > > The Hindu as I mentioned is a reputed and sober daily and their op-ed is > usually solicited by the paper. So their carrying the civil society > statement and Parminders write-up on why CIRP is an opportunity to > democratise global internet governance is also a recognition of this > position. > > As in the very recent case of UNCTAD, the concerted attempt by powerful > countries to undermine global democracy possibilities needs to be > resisted... see recent article in Frontline (a weekly publication from the > same group)- http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/20120601291005300.htm, we have also seen similar debates in WIPO etc and this is a dire need in > IG. > > regards, > Guru > ps - I like the way you mention your hope that 'over-simplification - on > all sides - will not prevent doing useful work for the benefit of all', > probably just a question of superiority, I guess :-) > > > > On 17/05/12 22:04, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > Guru, > > I like the discretion with which you do not mention that the op-ed in > the Hindu is actually from Parminder and not an op-ed by the newspaper > itself as your wording seemed to imply if one did not follow the link ;-) > probably just a question of modesty. > > But anyway, the discussion is getting interesting .... let's hope > oversimplifications - on all sides - will not prevent doing useful work for > the benefit of all. > Looking forward to the discussions tomorrow and afterwards. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Guru गुरु wrote: > >> Yes, its good that the Indian press is now also paying attention to the >> larger challenge of Internet governance - of the implications of the >> current undemocratic regimes and processes.... >> >> The Hindu is one of India's most respected and sober dailies and its >> Op-Ed today has an article on the issue. The Op-Ed page also carries the >> civil society statement, which now has more than 50 institutions from >> across the world endorsing it. (statement also available in chinese, >> spanish, french and portuguese on >> http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_statement_on_democratic_internet) >> >> Link to the Joint civil society statement - in The Hindu Op-Ed : >> http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article3426290.ece >> Link to the article - The Hindu Op-Ed : >> http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article3426292.ece >> >> As the article and the statement explain, many of us have been crying >> 'Govt takeover' too often and too long... and it is high time we **also** >> discuss the emperor's robes (sorry for mixed metaphors:-) ) >> >> regards >> Guru >> >> >> >> On 16/05/12 22:11, Sivasubramanian M wrote: >> > India Today, one of the most >> >> >> >> respected news magazines in Inda and >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Headlines Today, its Television channel today criticized >> >> >> >> India's >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > current proposal for "web takeover" >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/india-wants-internet-watchdog-proposes-50-nation-regulator-to-un/1/189032.html >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> The good news is that the press is beginning to pay attention to what our >> Government is doing on its own, without due consultation. >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Sivasubramanian M ISOC India Chennai >> >> >> >> http://isocindiachennai.org >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > facebook: goo.gl/1VvIG >> >> LinkedIn: >> >> >> >> goo.gl/eUt7s >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> Twitter: http://goo.gl/kaQ3a >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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") > > -- ____________________ 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Fri May 18 04:02:41 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 16:02:41 +0800 Subject: [governance] India's proposal for a 50 member UN committee for Internet Related Policies In-Reply-To: <+SIWGvS4rftPFAIn@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <4FB5227C.2080202@ITforChange.net> <4FB5A6CE.60107@ITforChange.net> <+SIWGvS4rftPFAIn@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <4FB60221.6060403@ciroap.org> On 18/05/12 15:32, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , > at 08:01:59 on Fri, 18 May 2012, Avri Doria writes >> Without getting into the discussion over the merits of the marketing >> campaign for Parminder's proposal, I have to admit I just do not >> understand how turning over a process that according to the agreed >> langauge of the Tunis Agenda (paras 67-72) should be within IGF's >> scope to the CSTD or some other government dominated body increases >> democratization. > > Nitin was always very clear that EC and IGF were separate processes. Which confused many of us, because he was so clearly wrong about that. The EC and IGF paragraphs of the Tunis Agenda are inseparable. In any case, this curious contention appeared to have fallen by the wayside when finally EC was discussed at the Hyderabad meeting. Indeed if anything, that discussion marked too much of an about face, in which suddenly EC not only was *part* of the IGF process, but was *fulfilled* by that process and the other existing mechanisms for stakeholder cooperation. > The IGF has never been about producing a deliverable (an outcome), so > is surely not suited, nor intended, to fulfil the role of the process > mentioned in paragraph 70. Whilst I don't accept that, in any case there is nothing to say that the IGF could not host a more substantive EC mechanism, in lieu of creating a new UN body such as the CIRP to do so, or hosting it at the ITU. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer* Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Follow @ConsumersInt Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- 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 avri at acm.org Fri May 18 04:24:52 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 10:24:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] India's proposal for a 50 member UN committee for Internet Related Policies In-Reply-To: <+SIWGvS4rftPFAIn@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <4FB5227C.2080202@ITforChange.net> <4FB5A6CE.60107@ITforChange.net> <+SIWGvS4rftPFAIn@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <8b161c99-51d9-4e26-95e0-1b1d2dddfc4a@email.android.com> Hi, Just because Nitin was clear does not mean that was a correct interpretation. And add far as I can tell he its no longer leading the effort or defining how we should interpret the TA. It does indicate that he did not wish to take up that topic. And given the difficulty of setting up the IGF in the easily years, that was a reasonable pragmatic decision. I always found Nitin to be a very pragmatic leader, though I did not always agree with him, but as I was a member of the secretariat team at that time, it was not my place to argue with that interpretation then. I am not a secretariat member now, and have not been one for over a year, I therefore no longer feel I need to argue from authority but can do my own exegesis. And the fact that the IGF has not chosen to get into outcomes in the past does not mean that it should not do so in the future, especially if we take the CSTD report into account as well as what appears to be a new attitude in the new MAG. As the IGF matures it becomes capable of making recommendations and of establish other outcomes. This its not the IGF of 2006. I personally do not see any other reasonable interpretation of the progression TA 67-72 despite the normal diplomatic ambiguity the TA is famous for. 67 calls for the creation of a forum 68 declares the equal role of governments and the cooperation of government with ail other stakeholders in the development of Internet public policy 69 calls for enhanced cooperation with governments having an equal footing 70 calls for the development of principles for policy development in cooperation relevant international organizations 71 calls for the UN to initiate a process involving all stakeholders and to report yearly on progress 72 gets into the nitty gritty of convening the forum it called for in para 67 So, the discussion of EC falls inside the discussion of the forum to be created. While it appears to be a specific project with its own yearly status reporting requirements, a separate mechanism is not defined. I believe that its because no separate mechanism or modality was required. When the UN was originally confused about how to go about the process of EC, I believe it is because they were reading 69 outside of its proper context of 67-72. So at this point instead of creating a new mechanism, with all the attendant birth pangs and time that this takes, we should instead start letting the IGF do the work it seems to me it was mandated to do. avrI Roland Perry wrote: >In message , at > >08:01:59 on Fri, 18 May 2012, Avri Doria writes >>Without getting into the discussion over the merits of the marketing >>campaign for Parminder's proposal, I have to admit I just do not >>understand how turning over a process that according to the agreed >>langauge of the Tunis Agenda (paras 67-72) should be within IGF's >>scope to the CSTD or some other government dominated body increases >>democratization. > >Nitin was always very clear that EC and IGF were separate processes. > >The annual reports mentioned in para 71 have always been a matter for >the CSTD. > >The IGF has never been about producing a deliverable (an outcome), so >is >surely not suited, nor intended, to fulfil the role of the process >mentioned in paragraph 70. >-- >Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri May 18 05:43:42 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 18:43:42 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation Note 1 Message-ID: Stated 30 min ago, here is my memo 1. CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation on Public Policy Issues Pertaining to the Internet May 18 11:15 Some 300+ people attending. Quite a few. Chair Mr. Fortunato de la Pera, Undersecretary, Department of Science and Technology, Phillipines Alexander Oncoto, on behalf of Hamadoun Toure, Secretary-General, ITU This meeting is an opportunity for all stakeholders – to implement the consensus of Tunis Agenda para 35-g para 69 and 71 Resolution 102 of PP in Mexico para 71 and 78 IGF and EC are two distinct processes – very important ITU has started its process of EC “Dedicated Group” established PP adopted resolution, open to all member states, open to all stakeholders Jun 8, all member states are invited to this meeting, serve as forum where member states can discuss Internet-related public policy matters Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director, PAC Reflction – more people are connected, more people are connected. IT matters more – than 2005 Copyright in one affect other country to access information sensorship in oe country affects others in othe country Internet – ownership is dispersed, some are by private sector, some by government appilcations and content are users people are not happy with current arrangement of EC some goverments feel excluded civil society or small groups all feel excluded, want to be more effective lack the consensus – like HR what is Public Interenst we were not done as mandated by Tunis Agenda discussion on EC – has not happened – that’s why we are Our proposal – myself and a netowkr of CS organizations need to establish a Working Group on EC, in similar way as WGIG work closely with IGF, also associated with other bodies such as CSTD but not belongs to IGF, essential to be fully MSH, able to participate equally and free difficulty; Definition of EC “in their respective roles” “on an equal footing” - what do they mean? “multi-lateral and multi-stakeholder” WG to take mapping on existing IG institutions output should be Delcraration of some kind, on consensus, on fundamental means to be cooperative MSH Internet Governance Legitimacy is essential Leadership, also – such as WGIG Interaction and Feedback this WG should not work in isolation, work with Inter-governmental bodies and other forum looking for – take fresh approach to a new, more comfortable approach Parminder Singh Glad to see we have finally decided to treat this important of WSIS mandate, in earnest Trying to figure out what are sticky areas – go directly to those areas but before going there, there are two important questions, to be confronted - are there enough important public policy issues to be solved at the global level - if so, what mechanism be appropriate - how to deal with MSH US study on Cyber security OECD CoE – cross-border-- Despite the US claim of historical role We all have this democratic – all countries should have seat on equal footing MSH – elephant in the room we must confront one must admit institutionalizing representativity democratic – not easy be dealt with evolving – proposals – treat all stakeholders on equal footing – this proposition problematic how to operationalize ? put Google or MS to put them in same position with Governments? if so that will marginalize the democracy, the biggest political system give much power to business role of civil society is different participation of CS – to articulate public interest such us e CS actors – do not like to claim equal opportunity at decision making Technical community must understand that needs and demands of public policy decisions are different from making decisions on technical matters These are different roles of stakeholders start discussion here differential roles of different actors – will close the gap of EC we have not reached the boundaries of ideological .. - start with discuss on what kind of roles to play - what kind of mechanism - structure of MSH Conclude – Civil Society - promising structure India proposa is good to start EC setting up CSTD WG on EC is right direction ---- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 18 06:13:08 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 19:13:08 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD meeting on EC, Memo 2 Message-ID: Nigel Hickson, Vice President of Policy, ICANN There are many examples of Enhanced Cooperation talking about – CSTD WG, other meetings, etc Looking forward, it’s important not to throw away of the product of these works Internet is chairng how we work and live We all have part to play, everyone can have voices in this process We need to foster MSH approach, enhance various cooperation let us not move away from these for a not put governance of Internet purely governmental, Markus Kummer, Vice President, ISOC IT was nearly 10 years ago we started WSIS In july, non^governmental stakeholders banging the door today Multistakeholder coopraton is a norm, in our view, it is not an option, but a must key architecture of Internet – network of network, without central control based on open and interoperable standard allows innovation without permission at the edges these principles produced unprecedented benefits Its governance should reflect this fundamental architecture Internet model or Internet Ecosystem Open, bottom-up freely accessible MSH for public and technical policies Tunis Agenda – para – Since Tunis, Internet more doubled Earthquake in Haiti, Tsunami in Japan – Internet was the only medium of communication existed no common understanding of “Enhanced Cooperation” Marilia Maciel CS, Brazil I have not participated in WSIS process. I like to share some perceptions of landscape, from the window of center of research from South. – We need to see the reality – to understand each other for dialogue. Internet is not no man’s land – regulation accumulated, technical and other With some recent changes, I see some concern – mechanisms of EC could be one way privatization of regulation – customized platform etc, consequesnt – on free flow of information, but also regime of governance dicipline of several aspect of citizens – no opportunity on this platform ask private regulation – no way to scrutinize lateral arrangements particularly on Notrhern hepmisphere itself is valuable exersice, produces asymmetric regime why actors from developing countries – on access while other actors working on free speech, etc A platform of harmonization of these is the only way to avoid fragmentation of regulation to forsre openness, freedom, universality of rights recnt politicization of Internet governance and erosion of MSH in high-level problem – no participation of non-governental actors this will lead erosing of MSg, may not be at IGF, Erosion can be overcome by making MSH decision making any change should bring, transparency, accountability ,balance to stakeholders, according to tunis agenda uncomfortable to place EC under existing UN mechanism IGF has positive spillover certain conditions – non-governmental actors more than 30 CS – on World Conferenc on International Telecommunication no remote participation, cost to participate this statement be directed to member states IF MSH is really the principle, they should defend same conditions in Internet discussions this process can be linked to UN, but new kind of shared discussion should it be soft law or hard law, etc It is time to come and face this issue – clarification feasible decision making process this is not a simple task, and support the creation of a WG Wolfgang mentioned many times, we need innovation on International policy making Marilyn Cade Enhanced Cooperation is already undersay. Is it perfect? No. But we must build it from where we are. what can we contribute for the betterment of the users regardless of where they live in IGF also needs to be improved - CSTD WG on IGF improvement EC should go hand in hand with EC I am not convinced that restructuring is the way to go improving these is the way Proposal – to proceed to calls for WG A few years ago UN SG invited reports CSTD could call for submissions from International and intergovernmental organization, call, convene one-day meeting parallel CSTD inter-sessional meeting this fall Another meeting on Feb parallel in IGF consultation then CSTD can decide if we need WG or not end of prepared presentation ---- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 18 06:29:57 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 18:29:57 +0800 Subject: [governance] India's proposal for a 50 member UN committee for Internet Related Policies In-Reply-To: <+SIWGvS4rftPFAIn@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <4FB5227C.2080202@ITforChange.net> <4FB5A6CE.60107@ITforChange.net> <+SIWGvS4rftPFAIn@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <4FB624A5.1040507@ciroap.org> Resending without digital signature. It's been reported to me that the list is messing up my emails and making them blank, and I think the digital signature is to blame. On 18/05/12 15:32, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , > at 08:01:59 on Fri, 18 May 2012, Avri Doria writes >> Without getting into the discussion over the merits of the marketing >> campaign for Parminder's proposal, I have to admit I just do not >> understand how turning over a process that according to the agreed >> langauge of the Tunis Agenda (paras 67-72) should be within IGF's >> scope to the CSTD or some other government dominated body increases >> democratization. > > Nitin was always very clear that EC and IGF were separate processes. Which confused many of us, because he was so clearly wrong about that. The EC and IGF paragraphs of the Tunis Agenda are inseparable. In any case, this curious contention appeared to have fallen by the wayside when finally EC was discussed at the Hyderabad meeting. Indeed if anything, that discussion marked too much of an about face, in which suddenly EC not only was *part* of the IGF process, but was *fulfilled* by that process and the other existing mechanisms for stakeholder cooperation. > The IGF has never been about producing a deliverable (an outcome), so > is surely not suited, nor intended, to fulfil the role of the process > mentioned in paragraph 70. Whilst I don't accept that, in any case there is nothing to say that the IGF could not host a more substantive EC mechanism, in lieu of creating a new UN body such as the CIRP to do so, or hosting it at the ITU. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer* Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Follow @ConsumersInt Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri May 18 06:30:29 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 18:30:29 +0800 Subject: [governance] Proposal for an IGF working group on EC In-Reply-To: <4FB3BF9C.5090708@apc.org> References: <1337124739.58225.YahooMailClassic@web125802.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D18A375FC@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <1337166591.6096.YahooMailNeo@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4FB3BF9C.5090708@apc.org> Message-ID: <4FB624C5.5070707@ciroap.org> Resending without digital signature. It's been reported to me that the list is messing up my emails and making them blank, and I think the digital signature is to blame. On 16/05/12 22:54, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Attached (and below) is a statement and proposal on EC that we hope to > discuss further, online, and then also in the CSTD consultation on > enhanced cooperation on Friday 18 May here in Geneva. Note that this is > not yet an official APC position. Members are still discussing it. Thanks for the opportunity to give feedback on this draft statement Anriette (which I am re-attaching for the benefit of the CC recipients). Personally and wearing my Consumers International hat, we are convinced of the need for all stakeholders to collaboratively develop a better global norm-setting framework for addressing border-crossing public policy issues concerning the Internet. India's CIRP model was welcome as the first serious proposal to respond to the enhanced cooperation mandate from WSIS, which had otherwise been deliberately neglected by all stakeholders who were either privileged under the status quo, or were too risk-averse to sanction the consideration of more globally democratic alternatives. However, it would be premature to endorse the CIRP model (as the IT for Change statement does too much for our liking), before all stakeholders have had an opportunity to collaborate on improving it, in a setting such as the CSTD working group that the IT for Change statement (to its credit) calls for, or the IGF working group that APC is proposing to call for through this statement. Such a group, whether at the CSTD or the IGF, may be able to reach consensus on a less traditional institutional form, that is further from the UK-linked multilateral body that the CIRP represents, and closer to a balanced network of stakeholders in which power over Internet policy development is shared, as in a consociation. This ultimately would be a better outcome for civil society. In either case, the first step is the formation of such a multi-stakeholder working group, and we therefore wholeheartedly support both the APC statement and the IT for Change statement in that regard. Our member in Geneva, Romain Houéhou, will be expressing these sentiments during the consultation meeting. -- *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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri May 18 06:41:44 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 11:41:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's proposal for a 50 member UN committee for Internet Related Policies In-Reply-To: <8b161c99-51d9-4e26-95e0-1b1d2dddfc4a@email.android.com> References: <4FB5227C.2080202@ITforChange.net> <4FB5A6CE.60107@ITforChange.net> <+SIWGvS4rftPFAIn@internetpolicyagency.com> <8b161c99-51d9-4e26-95e0-1b1d2dddfc4a@email.android.com> Message-ID: In message <8b161c99-51d9-4e26-95e0-1b1d2dddfc4a at email.android.com>, at 10:24:52 on Fri, 18 May 2012, Avri Doria writes I believe the trail starts at: 51 ... facilitate know-how transfer and exchange of best practices, in order to enhance the participation of developing countries and all stakeholders in Internet governance mechanisms. 52 In order to ensure effective participation in global Internet governance, we urge international organizations, including intergovernmental organizations, where relevant, to ensure that all stakeholders, particularly from developing countries, have the opportunity to participate in policy decision-making relating to Internet governance, and to promote and facilitate such participation. >67 calls for the creation of a forum >68 declares the equal role of governments and the cooperation of government >with ail other stakeholders in the development of Internet public policy It doesn't mention cooperation, but: "the need for development of public policy by governments in consultation with all stakeholders." >69 calls for enhanced cooperation with governments having an equal footing It "further recognises", ie This is a different thing from 67. And is where the concept of EC (rather than merely cooperation or consultation) is introduced, "to enable governments ... to carry out their roles and responsibilities". >70 calls for the development of principles for policy development in >cooperation relevant international organizations And the venue for that... is within the existing (relevant) international organisations. Who are called upon to create an *environment* which facilitates the *development* (not discussion) of public policy principles. (nb And not called upon to form an IGF). >71 calls for the UN to initiate a process involving all stakeholders and >to report yearly on progress Initiate by Q1/2006, before the start of the IGF. The relevant organisations, later identified by UNDESA and asked to report on their "performance" were: ICANN, ITU, W3C, CoE, ISOC, OECD, UNESCO, WIPO, NRO, IETF. The reports were sent to CSTD for their review (eg:) Note also that the people asked to report on their progress with EC were those listed, and not "all stakeholders". The multistakeholderism arises from those organisations being tasked to throw themselves more open to all stakeholders. >72 gets into the nitty gritty of convening the forum it called for in para 67 No, the nitty gritty for the EC process (and is various forums as listed above) is described in para 70 & 71. (and to some extent 52. Whereas 51 is delivered by the IGF). 72 talks about what the IGF can do as a contribution towards EC, especially in terms of capacity building and information exchange. Note that 72(b) tasks it to be non-duplicative, and to that extent should not be discussing ITU business, ICANN business etc. >So, the discussion of EC falls inside the discussion of the forum to be created. No, the new forum (the IGF) falls within EC. I was hired by the RIR community for five years to pursue its own programme of EC - which included involvement in the IGF, but was much more than that (you can read the reports). In particular my brief was to make the RIRs' existing process more multistakeholder by working with governments, regulators, law enforcement and Parliamentarians, and to deliver capacity building on issues relevant to the RIR part of the ecosystem, and to encourage those folks to become more involved in the RIR bottom-up policy making process. Other "relevant organisations" had (to a greater or lesser extent) similar outreach programmes to deliver their contribution to EC. >While it appears to be a specific project with its own yearly status >reporting requirements, a separate mechanism is not defined. The mechanism is engaging the help of the "relevant organisations" to do expand their role, as described in 70 & 71. ps. FWIW I don't think EC can be delivered by setting up one new Intergovernmental body (with 50 members or not), nor can it be delivered by handing the whole thing over to just one of the "relevant organisations" - eg A subcommittee of the ITU. On the other hand, if there are any organisations who think they've been left off the "list of ten relevant ones", they should step forward. -- 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 May 18 06:50:10 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 11:50:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's proposal for a 50 member UN committee for Internet Related Policies In-Reply-To: <4FB624A5.1040507@ciroap.org> References: <4FB5227C.2080202@ITforChange.net> <4FB5A6CE.60107@ITforChange.net> <+SIWGvS4rftPFAIn@internetpolicyagency.com> <4FB624A5.1040507@ciroap.org> Message-ID: In message <4FB624A5.1040507 at ciroap.org>, at 18:29:57 on Fri, 18 May 2012, Jeremy Malcolm writes >Resending without digital signature.  It's been reported to me that the >list is messing up my emails and making them blank, and I think the >digital signature is to blame I got it OK the first time, thanks. Same reply as to Avri. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri May 18 07:13:35 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 20:13:35 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD Meeting on EC, Memo 3 Message-ID: Betty King, US Ambassador, Distributed Internet requires distributed actions, no single institution is needed US appreciated steps, both in and outside UN system after WSIS We are pleased to see IGF mandate extended for another 5 years periodical review of Tunis agenda US is pleased that government cooperation on internet public policy – increased EC on critical Intenet public policy, capacity building, all occurring ICANN partnership to promote linguistic ITU One more – next Wednesday at CSTD session, Expert Panel on Universal Service fund to harness rural community practical terms –how ICT served help bridge digital divide Masdame,? Ambassador of Egypt Abdura, Saudi Arabia Ambassador respond to the false aeelgations – to print media, “UN seeks to control the Internet” I was the member of WGIS The ability to control the Internet Domain name is in the house of single country – to a company follow that country law Sudan – not affected by ITU, we further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation “on equal footing” – I repeat South Africa Zane WSIS marked the watershed of UN history gathering the different stakeholders issue about equal footing is mis-leading government and others are not treated equally SA – must be governed by governments of all current status-quo dominance, Proposes WG at ITU (or new body) UK Mark Carbell where EC is happening MSH is fully embeded in all of our consciousness I would see some value of CSTD to have some function to map out invite to submit a report to next session that is UK position Brazil, Ambassador, Director of Science and Technology some of the points were already made Brazil supports the establishment of a process or platform, however we call, for Enhanced Cooperation we should congratulate with the outcomes – with these formats however, even with improved format, IGF is never meant to the substitute of EC we thought there is clear focus on EC not covered with other bodies Cyber Security - There is no international organization taking care of that Another criteria The processes adopted the creation of WGIG provides good model, we would consider that. Use par 50 – which could be replicated – going forward Ask the Secretary General, to investigate - for the implementations of this concept. 13:10 Lunch -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find 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 May 18 07:29:49 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 23:29:49 +1200 Subject: [governance] CSTD Meeting on EC, Memo 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks very useful. I just have a few questions in-line On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 11:13 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Betty King, US Ambassador, > > Distributed Internet requires distributed actions, no single > institution is needed > US appreciated steps, both in and outside UN system after WSIS > We are pleased to see IGF mandate extended for another 5 years > > periodical review of Tunis agenda > > US is pleased that government cooperation on internet public policy – > increased > EC on critical Intenet public policy, capacity building, all occurring > ICANN partnership to promote linguistic > [What do they mean when they say linguistic? Are they referring to IDNs?] One more – next Wednesday at CSTD session, Expert Panel on Universal > Service fund to harness rural community > practical terms –how ICT served help bridge digital divide > > [This will be great because it affects and impacts the issue of "access". However, it will be good to get 2 diversely polarised views on Universal Service from the German Telco experience and the Universal Service advocates experience and to see various alternative models and sustainability. It will be good to also explore the PPP dimensions and utilize the expertise within the Private Sector. Whilst studies show consistently that ICT is an enabler for economic growth - it is also a tool for "Power and Control"Iran for example, their government deliberately gives the individuals negligible speeds which is literally not useful nor conducive to communication and they are driven by fear that there will be a repeat of Egypt or Tunisia. Masdame,? Ambassador of Egypt > > Abdura, Saudi Arabia Ambassador > respond to the false aeelgations – to print media, “UN seeks to > control the Internet” > I was the member of WGIS > > The ability to control the Internet Domain name is in the house of > single country – to a company follow that country law > Sudan – not affected by ITU, > > > we further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation > “on equal footing” – I repeat > > > South Africa > Zane > WSIS marked the watershed of UN history > gathering the different stakeholders > > > issue about equal footing is mis-leading > government and others are not treated equally > > SA – must be governed by governments of all > current status-quo dominance, > Proposes WG at ITU (or new body) > > > UK > Mark Carbell > where EC is happening > MSH is fully embeded in all of our consciousness > I would see some value of CSTD to have some function to map out > invite to submit a report to next session > that is UK position > > Brazil, Ambassador, Director of Science and Technology > some of the points were already made > Brazil supports the establishment of a process or platform, however we > call, for Enhanced Cooperation > > we should congratulate with the outcomes – with these formats > > however, even with improved format, IGF is never meant to the substitute > of EC > we thought there is clear focus on EC not covered with other bodies > > Cyber Security - There is no international organization taking care of that > > Another criteria > > The processes adopted the creation of WGIG provides good model, we > would consider that. Use par 50 – which could be replicated – going > forward > Ask the Secretary General, to investigate - for the implementations > of this concept. > > 13:10 > Lunch > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and 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 mueller at syr.edu Fri May 18 09:06:38 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 13:06:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] India's proposal for a 50 member UN committee for Internet Related Policies In-Reply-To: References: <4FB5227C.2080202@ITforChange.net> <4FB5A6CE.60107@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178AF9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Agreed, Also, Parminder's manifesto basically rests its case for governmental/intergovernmental takeover of IG functions on the grounds that we need economic regulation to protect us from "monopolies." I note that neither he nor anyone else pursuing this line has responded to my informed challenge (header: reality check on economics) Are these advocates willing to subject their economic populism to rational discourse and scrutiny? > -----Original Message----- > Without getting into the discussion over the merits of the marketing > campaign for Parminder's proposal, I have to admit I just do not understand > how turning over a process that according to the agreed langauge of the > Tunis Agenda (paras 67-72) should be within IGF's scope to the CSTD or some > other government dominated body increases democratization. > > In most every possible way I can think of, this appears to be a step backward. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 18 09:41:53 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 21:41:53 +0800 Subject: [governance] India's proposal for a 50 member UN committee for Internet Related Policies Message-ID: Monopolies aren't the only firms who act against the global public interest(s), so too do run-of-the-mill firms in a competitive market. Not all of their abuses are checked by competition law. Other regulation such as consumer protection law is also needed, and this is often ineffective in cross-border commerce. Moreover, consumer law in some jurisdictions is quite lax - and I would have to include the US here. For example, the use of lengthy and legalistic terms and conditions that detract from consumer rights is rife online, and this is something that US law explicitly allows. In other jurisdictions, there is regulation of unfair contract terms, recognising the fictitious nature of freedom of contract between consumers and large firms. But the dominance of US online businesses effectively trumps these protections elsewhere in the world. Milton L Mueller wrote: >Agreed, >Also, Parminder's manifesto basically rests its case for governmental/intergovernmental takeover of IG functions on the grounds that we need economic regulation to protect us from "monopolies." I note that neither he nor anyone else pursuing this line has responded to my informed challenge (header: reality check on economics) >Are these advocates willing to subject their economic populism to rational discourse and scrutiny? > >> -----Original Message----- >> Without getting into the discussion over the merits of the marketing >> campaign for Parminder's proposal, I have to admit I just do not understand >> how turning over a process that according to the agreed langauge of the >> Tunis Agenda (paras 67-72) should be within IGF's scope to the CSTD or some >> other government dominated body increases democratization. >> >> In most every possible way I can think of, this appears to be a step backward. >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 18 09:41:37 2012 From: isolatednet at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 19:11:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's proposal for a 50 member UN committee for Internet Related Policies In-Reply-To: References: <4FB5227C.2080202@ITforChange.net> <4FB5A6CE.60107@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > - Parminder, in your article you mention that you have the support of > civil society. Just blasting your views everywhere has the media thinking > all of civil society agrees with your views. There is , well, considerable > disagreement with many of your points. Please recognize that and recognize > that and stop insinuating that you have a broad level of support. Parminder seems to have given the impression to The Hindu that he is an Authority on the subject of Internet Governance as "*He has been a special adviser to the Chair of U.N. Internet Governance Forum and has been coordinator of the premier global civil society network in the internet governance arena, the Internet Governance Caucus. He has worked extensively on development issues with respect to global Internet governance" *And a claim that he has the support of Civil Society would have an effect on the unsuspecting reader that the Civil Society is of the same opinion. At least the Government of India would think so. My comments as an individual on the article at page http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article3426292.ece is as below: Internet Governance is being discussed in a multi-stakeholder framework, a framework where Business, Governments, Civil Society, International Organizations and the Academic Community is seated equally. This is the 6th year of the Internet Governance Forum as the multi-stakeholder forum. The author champions the idea of a multi-lateral framework of Governments deciding on how the user will use the Internet and how the Governments would control it, largely in exclusion of Business and other stakeholders. This idea is wrapped up as a proposal to "democratize" the "US controlled" Internet Governance presently "subject to" the "policies of rich country clubs", an incediary argument with a ploy to transfer the technical and policy funcitons of the Internet to the International Telecommunications Union which would then control the Internet in the UN environment and thereby have total and complete control of all communications.* Parminder works for IT for Change which appears to lead an "ITU for Change" campaign.* from: Sivasubramanian M Posted on: May 17, 2012 at 20:13 IST -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 18 09:44:24 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 22:44:24 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC Statement for CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation Message-ID: In 20 min or so, CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation will resume, and listening to the presentations by Anriette, Parminder and Marilia this morning and also withthe hallway conversation, I plan to make the follow statement. If you have compelling comments, please do not hesitate to send here. Please be "constructive" - if you don't like some words, offer alternative, for example. Until last moment, I will do my best to accommodate. Sorry for this last minute effort. izumi ---- I am one of the two co-coordinators of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus which was established during the first phase of WSIS in 2003 as part of all CS families, and as remaining few mostly engaged in IGF activities. We are encouraged to see the constructive dialogue around EC here today. However, we are also quite disappointed today to see that during the General Discussion, priority was given to CSTD member states government and all other stakeholders, civil society one of them, were put on hold, or in the second class until late afternoon. We made the following consensus statement to the UN consultation on Enhanced Cooperation 15 November 2010: “The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus regards the process towards enhanced cooperation as a vital step towards addressing the "many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda para 68).” We are proud that the Civil Society of the planet today is as diverse as the mankind. We have quite a few active members from the South, - three civil society speakers this morning, Anriette, Parminder and Marilia are all active member of our caucus, and they are all from the south. We have also many members from the north, North as well as from the East and the West as well as gender and other diversities. When it comes to specifics, our diversity is often reflected in our different views, as was shown from our three excellent speakers this morning. Well now, 18 months later, our “bottom-line” is, - keep the principles endorsed by the Tunis Agenda, especially, to hold to the principles of: Many CS members support the principle of democratic global governance and the need for IG forums where all stakeholders are equally, and effectively represented. We hope to see the further productive dialogue, one way or other in a truly open forum allowing all stakeholders to reach consensus on equal footing of this difficult challenge of Enhanced Cooperation. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 18 09:53:10 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 09:53:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC Statement for CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Looks good :-) Deirdre On 18 May 2012 09:44, Izumi AIZU wrote: > In 20 min or so, CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation will resume, > and listening to the presentations by Anriette, Parminder and Marilia > this morning > and also withthe hallway conversation, I plan to make the follow statement. > > If you have compelling comments, please do not hesitate to send here. > Please be "constructive" - if you don't like some words, offer alternative, > for example. > Until last moment, I will do my best to accommodate. > > Sorry for this last minute effort. > > izumi > > ---- > > I am one of the two co-coordinators of the Civil Society Internet > Governance Caucus which was established during the first phase of WSIS > in 2003 as part of all CS families, and as remaining few mostly > engaged in IGF activities. > > We are encouraged to see the constructive dialogue around EC here today. > However, we are also quite disappointed today to see that during the > General Discussion, priority was given to CSTD member states > government and all other stakeholders, civil society one of them, were > put on hold, or in the second class until late afternoon. > > We made the following consensus statement to the UN consultation on > Enhanced Cooperation 15 November 2010: > “The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus regards the process > towards enhanced cooperation as a vital step towards addressing the > "many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require > attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" > (Tunis Agenda para 68).” > > We are proud that the Civil Society of the planet today is as diverse > as the mankind. We have quite a few active members from the South, - > three civil society speakers this morning, Anriette, Parminder and > Marilia are all active member of our caucus, and they are all from the > south. We have also many members from the north, North as well as from > the East and the West as well as gender and other diversities. > > When it comes to specifics, our diversity is often reflected in our > different views, as was shown from our three excellent speakers this > morning. > > Well now, 18 months later, our “bottom-line” is, > - keep the principles endorsed by the Tunis Agenda, especially, to > hold to the principles of: > > Many CS members support the principle of democratic global governance > and the need for IG forums where all stakeholders are equally, and > effectively represented. > > We hope to see the further productive dialogue, one way or other in a > truly open forum allowing all stakeholders to reach consensus on equal > footing of this difficult challenge of Enhanced Cooperation. > > Thank you. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri May 18 10:34:49 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 23:34:49 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD Meeting on EC, Memo 3, Afternoon Message-ID: Only governments are given floor, and may not have time for others to say anything. IF that happnes, very bad, and proves that CSTD is not the best place to continue this discussion. Anyway, please read the air here before we may be given the floor. ---- 15:55 Canada Heather on EC civil society, private sector, tech community contributions are vital improving inclusiveness strong participant of enhanced cooperation initiatives, including IGF, are necessary to progress capacity building a priority GAC – 135 members Ask the chair to give assurance to give sufficient time here to non-governmental members. Chair provided to translator until 6 pm Algeria We heard two contradictory messages, need for -many speakers voiced doubt Why prejudge UN – even it has not started! UN to look at such important matter as Internet Governance. This morning, a speaker of government took the position – his stance there is a new position, message – they are ready for the fight. Ready to enter into debate. We hope this is a new position and approach. Good news. Algeria is ready to debate, provide arguments, restructure the reorganization of the Internet. In 2004, there were too innovative in that climate, but now we are ready in the light of all the changes that occurred recently. We are in favor of the need to give each and everyone the place that befalls him, the Internet Governance. Ambassador of India Internet is a living entity, expanding and evolving continuously EC process has to be brought to various fora including IBSA at EC consultation in Nov 2010 and CSTD, ECOSOC and UN GA. There are many cross-cutting policy issues, privacy, piracy, etc. India made a proposal to setup a Committee on Internet Related Policies in line with Tunis agenda. India will be pragmatic and flexible in this approach. Iran Question - Composition of the panel this morning Why there was no one from the government on the panel? At the end of Wsis negotiation process, facing the dilemma how to reach consensus – two parallel – one is IGF and another is EC. ask for the unfulfilled part of the Tunis mandate. IGF is lucky enough and flourished, congratulate it, will try to contribute to its success. But the second one has not been fulfilled. After the review on the desirability of continuation of IGF one is Improvement, second one – to provide new demand and momentum for EC, neglected fulfill the mandate, it’s negotiation, not forum So our proposal is to create a inter-governmental mechanism in UN, to fulfil the mandate to negotiate at appropriate level as speedy as possible, af Chair the government to chose one was difficult Belgium implementation efforts should be enhanced within existing institutions in MSH Sudan Minister need for the respect of freedom in searching and requiring, collecting and disseminating information – further stated in UDHR difficulty in downloading open source material, not able to obtain Window or other MS license urge all stakeholder, to reaffirm the right of individuals Domain names – two paras be reflected ICANN is owned by USG it be government owned Arabic domain name- not able to achieve yet Switzerland Thomas spending hours of repeating these two divergent views, not coming closer consultations in 2012, missed the opportunity it does not make sense to continue this much longer try to agree on next step to Enhanced Cooperation Swiss – compromise, to hold interactive multi-stakeholder consultation EC is started or not does not matter in our opinion We plea to all stakeholders for the next step. We plea to all stakeholders for the next step. on IGF, urge governments and others to seriously consider the MSH funding in MSH process. support Canada’s urge to give the floor to non-gov members. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 18 10:49:08 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 23:49:08 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC Statement for CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <26419.1337351635@fmai.org> References: <26419.1337351635@fmai.org> Message-ID: Tanks Tijani and others, in about 20 - 30 minutes, we are likely to be given the floor. I may make last-minute ad-hoc change, but will be minimal. izumi 2012/5/18 Tijani BEN JEMAA : > Looks well Izumi > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > --                      >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri May 18 11:26:47 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 00:26:47 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC Statement for CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <26419.1337351635@fmai.org> Message-ID: All, Izumi Aizu This is close to what I read just 10 min ago: [Chair intervened in the middle of my talk, go to EC, but I responded back that that is about EC] IGC Statement for CSTED Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation Thank you Chair person for finally giving the floor. I say “Finally”. My name is Izumi Aizu living in Tokyo and also in global cyberspace at the same time like many of you. I am one of the two co-coordinators of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus which was established during the first phase of WSIS in 2003 as part of all CS families, and is remaining engaged in Internet Governance related activities such as IGF, CSTD WG on IGF improvements and this meeting. We are encouraged to see the evidence of constructive dialogue around EC here. However, we are also very disappointed today to see that priority was given to governments and all non-governmental stakeholders, civil society one of them, were put on hold, or in the second class until this late afternoon. This is neither on equal footing or respecting the roles. We will not accept this working modality if that is the next step on EC since it is not really MSH at all. We are proud that the Civil Society on the planet today is as diverse as the mankind. We have quite a few active members from the South, - three civil society speakers this morning, Anriette, Parminder and Marilia are all active member of our caucus, and they are all from the south. We have also many members from the north, North as well as from the East and the West as well as gender and other diversities. When it comes to specifics, our diversity is often reflected in our different views, as was shown from our three excellent speakers this morning. We share the similar challenges to governments and other stakeholders. But now our “bottom-line” is, - keep the principles endorsed by the Tunis Agenda, especially, to hold to the principles – that means - Many CS members support the principle of OPEN, Multi-stakeholder global governance and the need for IG forums where all stakeholders are equally, and effectively represented not only in its participation, but also to the decision making or consensus building Some WG proposals we heard today seems to have broad support among CS, yet there are different opinions in its functions, anchorage, and operational modality. I think devils are in the details. We hope to see the further productive dialogue, one way or other in a truly open forum allowing all stakeholders to reach consensus on equal footing of this difficult challenge of Enhanced Cooperation. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 18 11:51:56 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 00:51:56 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD meeting on EC, Memo 4 Message-ID: At one point, around 4:30, Chair started to give floor to government and non-government actors alternatively. So we got the floor, finally. ----- Switzerland Thomas spending hours of repeating these two divergent views, not coming closer consultations in 2012, missed the opportunity it does not make sense to continue this much longer try to agree on next step to Enhanced Cooperation Swiss – compromise, to hold interactive multi-stakeholder consultation EC is started or not does not matter in our opinion We plea to all stakeholders for the next step. on IGF, urge governments and others to seriously consider the MSH cunding in MSH process. support Canada’s urge to give the floor to non-gov members. EC not entirely sure on beginning and ending of EC beneficial to move more substantial analysis suggest – evidence-based policy making (of European commission) scientific approach – initiated by mostly CS organizations Vice President of EC –Khros? Portugal Luis conceptual exercise of refine the definition 1) trigger the input of MSH – in written form 2) develop a thorough process of assembling to provide the concrete evidence base ground, by either CSTD or UNESCO as part of WSIS review process proceed with Synthesis, eventually setting up Working Group such a group be productive objective mapping Naoko Seta, MIC, Japan Comment on Internet Governance Internet has operated steadily, already became infra by private-sector led framework, however, it is also true- on cyber security, privacy in order to maintain growth current MSH is very important, in which gov, private sector and CS to play respective roles assure openness and freedom, for reliable Internet for everyone Finland recognize Internet as global resource many development challenges remain, especially for the benefit of LDC and those most marginalized Panel showed there is no shared understanding on EC, Finland to remain at 2010 position find out what real problems does not believe changing the current mechanism, changing DNS brings risks only sustainable way to improve is to make them happen from inside Sri Lanka equal footing of Inter-governmental setting Nigeria, Jimson, business, via phone Aysha Hassan EC is more than inter-government process. remain sensitive for limited time, financial and other resources Mexico support all stakeholders participation Bertrand de la Chappell echo with Switzerland on formulation of our argument WGIG - IG – limited to CIR or not, Tech Management by private sec? WGIG answered to these questions Debate about EC – delicate words “in their respected roles” Enhanced cooperation[s] - plural? respected roles, Parminder’s - WG proposal – made, and heard concerned waste of time? additional cost? I don’t want to take sides. two points to make now – 1) WG functions correctly if they do involve different stakeholders Brazil rightly proposed to use WGIG format, there is large convergence 2) those who don’t want are requested for funding In closing, highlight further points: 1) scope of WG – different things – better common shared understanding 2) mapping of different ECs 3) notion – overarching principles on how to conduct EC where to attach and how to Chair how open this WG methodology, and how to accept input how to, or not, articulate the IGF process It’s time to move from a ping poing game of affirming variable interpretations. Peru WG is the best idea Izumi Aizu IGC Statement for CSTED Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation Thank you Chair person for finally giving the floor. I say “Finally”. My name is Izumi Aizu living in Tokyo and also in global cyberspace at the same time like many of you. I am one of the two co-coordinators of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus which was established during the first phase of WSIS in 2003 as part of all CS families, and is remaining engaged in Internet Governance related activities such as IGF, CSTD WG on IGF improvements and this meeting. We are encouraged to see the evidence of constructive dialogue around EC here. However, we are also very disappointed today to see that priority was given to governments and all non-governmental stakeholders, civil society one of them, were put on hold, or in the second class until this late afternoon. This is neither on equal footing or respecting the roles. We will not accept this working modality if that is the next step on EC since it is not really MSH at all. We are proud that the Civil Society on the planet today is as diverse as the mankind. We have quite a few active members from the South, - three civil society speakers this morning, Anriette, Parminder and Marilia are all active member of our caucus, and they are all from the south. We have also many members from the north, North as well as from the East and the West as well as gender and other diversities. When it comes to specifics, our diversity is often reflected in our different views, as was shown from our three excellent speakers this morning. We share the similar challenges to governments and other stakeholders. But now our “bottom-line” is, - keep the principles endorsed by the Tunis Agenda, especially, to hold to the principles – that means - Many CS members support the principle of OPEN, Multi-stakeholder global governance and the need for IG forums where all stakeholders are equally, and effectively represented not only in its participation, but also to the decision making or consensus building Some WG proposals we heard today seems to have broad support among CS, yet there are different opinions in its functions, anchorage, and operational modality. I think devils are in the details. We hope to see the further productive dialogue, one way or other in a truly open forum allowing all stakeholders to reach consensus on equal footing of this difficult challenge of Enhanced Cooperation. Thank you. Kuwait Third World Network representing 50 CS organizations. undermining – UN multilateral environment Civil society be given adequate avenues substantive role CIR – access be transferred form US gov to an appropriate democratic mechanisms UN based mechanism on the basis of subsidiarity princples, innovative on the principles of human liberty, equality and fraternity UN is the appropriate place for developing countries CSTD to be instituted for EC Internet be governed democratically China Ministry of Information Industry Internet became one of most important infrastructure. However, in the process of development, generated issues such as cyber security IG also became important global topic. Hence sharing exeperince and mutual support have all the more important and urgent. Countries should on equality of principle, cooperation and spirit – romote orderry and healthy developent. China is ready to work with all governents on EC Support internantional mechanism, mutli-lateral, transparent and democratic equitable distribution of CIRs, stable functioning of internet According to tunis Agenda, International Public policy issues are in the domain of national security, have the right and responsibility Stakeholder to conduct open consultations. Unfortunately such have not produced any progress. ECOSOC resolution, government and stakeholders effectively perform functions to produce results. We hope discussion next week will elaborate Computer Communication Industry Association Nick Ashton-Hart most innovative companies, like to associate with ICC Basis positive, practical impact to real people CSTD WG – if this lead to real value to people it does not look like this WG pass this test in contrast WGIG add value, why we supported MSH with capital M, works, all parties have equal opportunity to be heard it works UK and Canada made the case UN system increased access and collaboration of non-governmental sector since beginning, ITU system fall behind other UN process Report on Eminent Persons on Civil Society participation in 2004 “dialogue with civil society – will make UN more effective2 UNSG Banh Ki-bun, demand new kind of cooperation. Mecatin? Africa Represent Consumer International -with 150 countries we support the formation of WG, civil society can participate WG will be MSH, democratic, transparent, complement with those already developed for improvements of IGF Avri Doria Individual Civil Society member Software engineer With resolution UN GA unfortunately torn apart IGF is not responsible on EC, EC occurred nonetheless Forward steps were taken in EC Unfortunately, many of interventions today were nearly identical to the ones before 2006 – opportunity were lost. IGF may not ready today to handle EC, but may be so, eg CIR It is ready to handle EC now. no better mechanism could be found than IGF with its maturity it should be done in the context of IGF, or very least, in its context in any case, everyone to participate on equal footing ---- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at consensus.pro Fri May 18 12:01:30 2012 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 16:01:30 +0000 Subject: [governance] CCIA Intervention at CSTD Enhanced Cooperation debate Message-ID: <0000013760aeb241-85e7b2d3-ab41-4265-b1ac-3e0792a92f11-000000@email.amazonses.com> Dear list members, In case it is of interest, CCIA's intervention is pasted below. --- Intervention of CCIA at the Special Session of the Commission for Science and Technology for Development on Enhanced Cooperation on public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, 18th May 2012 Mr. Chairman, CCIA thanks you for your leadership today, and the Secretariat for its excellent preparatory work on this important meeting. For those that are not familiar with us, the Computer & Communications Industry Association’s members represent a broad cross-section of the ICT sector’s most innovative companies. We would like to associate ourselves with the comments of ICC BASIS and provide a few additional comments. Mr. Chairman, ‘enhanced cooperation’ means many different things to different stakeholders. Like so many other speakers today, we believe the most valuable kind of cooperation is that which has a positive, practical impact for real people. Our members know that they thrive only where they offer real value to real people. This is why we approach the proposal for a new CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation by asking ourselves if this is likely to lead to practical benefits for real people, and if it will provide significant added-value in development terms, particularly important given the mandate of the CSTD. From what we have heard, it does not look like this working group would pass these tests. In contrast, the working group on the improvement of the IGF was clearly focussed on developing practical improvements that do add value, which is why we supported it and why we welcome its report. Mr. Chairman, Multi Stakeholderism, with a capital M, is what works, and that means processes where all parties have an equal chance to be heard and to affect outcomes. It is absolutely fundamental, absolutely essential, to the development of the Internet as the marvellous tool for economic and social development that that it is and which it can become. Previous speakers, including the distinguished delegates of the United Kingdom and Canada, have outlined so many excellent examples of success made possible by this model that it is redundant to add more. The United Nations system overall has steadily increased the access of and collaboration with the non-governmental/private sector world since its foundation - though the ITU’s political processes, including the WCIT preparatory process, have fallen far behind the rest of the UN system in this respect. The Economic and Social Council to which the CSTD reports has often led the way by repeatedly choosing to embed non-state actors in formal processes. The Report of the Panel of Eminent Persons on United Nations–Civil Society Relations from 2004 has many excellent conclusions such as: “The most powerful case for reaching out beyond its constituency of central Governments and enhancing dialogue and cooperation with civil society is that doing so will make the United Nations more effective.” The UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said in 2009 that: "Our times demand a new definition of leadership - global leadership. They demand a new constellation of international cooperation - governments, civil society and the private sector, working together for a collective global good." He’s right. Thank you Mr. Chairman. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Geneva Representative Computer & Communcations Industry Association (CCIA) Tel: +41 (22) 362 02 38 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430 email: nashton at ccianet.org Skype: nashtonhart http://www.ccianet.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 18 12:06:29 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 01:06:29 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD Meeting on EC, Memo 5 Message-ID: Here's the last portion of the Memo. meeting finished at 18:03. Martin Boyle Nominet, EC has been going on – in many relevant organizations Support study including Portugal and Switzerland Medrine on Environment issues Cameroon only 5 % of Cameroonians have access to Internet many connect at Cybercafe, due to lack of modem and USB not sufficient to provide for greater access, but to reduce digital divide with other African countries on IG, questions arises, whether CS/NGO have a stake at all on what it will take place, in WG most people access from Internet café since there are no enough fixed line modems NGO, in Geneva ?? UAE with friends, citizen of UAE, users common view is – we are happy that our government takes comprehensive view – takes all views USA we liked to indicate our appreciation – we have listened very carefully fundamental principle, that could be applied for going forward on EC what are these principles indicate – derive from many colleagues struck at one point – recurring theme great success of Internet owe, decentralization and MSH one said everyone is creating Internet policy maker should promote and protect free flow of info online – choice with limited interference Internet policy making should be conducted in transparency and accountability, fair process Third, Cameroon, showed find practical solutions – to find challenges on this principle secure online cooperation, understand best practices access to legitimate content look forward for continued discussion, on this important Chair Share points: observation -^ EC takes place, but there still exist gaps, not sufficient different stakeholders have different roles, should be able to perform roles desire on MSH, must not an option, government have hand in EC private and public interest – expect transparency and accountability Suggested to study good cooperation taking place move closer – evidence-based policy/decision making, mapping our policies recommended that there be Intern-governmental mechanism to fulfill mandate building on existing process, WG be started Conclude in line with Swiss delegate, to find next step CSTD, May 22, this will be discussed. [applause] Adjourned at 18:03 ---- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri May 18 12:11:15 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 12:11:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] India's proposal for a 50 member UN committee for Internet Related Policies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Monopolies aren't the only firms who act against the global public interest(s), so too do run-of-the-mill firms in a competitive market. both monopolies and "run of the mill" firms are also end-users in the sense that they are allowed to run their networks and set their ToS as they wish. >Not all of their abuses are checked by competition law. Not all are abusive. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Fri May 18 12:51:19 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 16:51:19 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: reality check on economics Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > Monopolies aren't the only firms who act against the global public interest(s), > so too do run-of-the-mill firms in a competitive market. Typically, a competitive market means that consumers can avoid or punish such firms by abandoning them because of their bad practices. Of course, theft and fraud require punitive action regardless of whether the market in question is competitive, but in 99% of all cases, unless there is market power or monopoly, the case for governmental action is very weak indeed. Moreover, I do not see run-of-the-mill firms and run of the mill consumer protection issues being targeted in these sweeping statements calling for "democratic" governance of the internet - I see specific leading companies being called monopolies. > Other regulation such as consumer > protection law is also needed, and this is often ineffective in cross-border > commerce. Moreover, consumer law in some jurisdictions is quite lax - and I > would have to include the US here. For example, the use of lengthy and > legalistic terms and conditions that detract from consumer rights is rife > online, and this is something that US law explicitly allows. In other Indeed, that is a continuing point of controversy. But there is an additional burden of proof: at what political level is it best to alter such things? There is a robust culture and tradition of consumer activism in the US. What makes you think consumers will get a better deal at a global level? > jurisdictions, there is regulation of unfair contract terms, recognising the > fictitious nature of freedom of contract between consumers and large firms. > But the dominance of US online businesses effectively trumps these > protections elsewhere in the world. But if these markets are competitive then no one is requiring consumers to use those online businesses, no? So we are back to the problem of monopoly -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Fri May 18 16:32:18 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 17:32:18 -0300 Subject: RES: [governance] CCIA Intervention at CSTD Enhanced Cooperation debate In-Reply-To: <0000013760aeb241-85e7b2d3-ab41-4265-b1ac-3e0792a92f11-000000@email.amazonses.com> References: <0000013760aeb241-85e7b2d3-ab41-4265-b1ac-3e0792a92f11-000000@email.amazonses.com> Message-ID: <031d01cd3535$58e58cb0$0ab0a610$@uol.com.br> Quite interesting. I shared with icann alumni group. I don´t know if you know, but from Steve´s seating as chair we the alumni finally has a regular breakfast with the board every meeting, to exchange ideas, strategic thoughts or simple suggestions related to ICANN problems and future. It has been a very productive meeting kisses. vanda De: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Em nome de Nick Ashton-Hart Enviada em: sexta-feira, 18 de maio de 2012 13:02 Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Assunto: [governance] CCIA Intervention at CSTD Enhanced Cooperation debate Dear list members, In case it is of interest, CCIA's intervention is pasted below. --- Intervention of CCIA at the Special Session of the Commission for Science and Technology for Development on Enhanced Cooperation on public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, 18th May 2012 Mr. Chairman, CCIA thanks you for your leadership today, and the Secretariat for its excellent preparatory work on this important meeting. For those that are not familiar with us, the Computer & Communications Industry Association’s members represent a broad cross-section of the ICT sector’s most innovative companies. We would like to associate ourselves with the comments of ICC BASIS and provide a few additional comments. Mr. Chairman, ‘enhanced cooperation’ means many different things to different stakeholders. Like so many other speakers today, we believe the most valuable kind of cooperation is that which has a positive, practical impact for real people. Our members know that they thrive only where they offer real value to real people. This is why we approach the proposal for a new CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation by asking ourselves if this is likely to lead to practical benefits for real people, and if it will provide significant added-value in development terms, particularly important given the mandate of the CSTD. From what we have heard, it does not look like this working group would pass these tests. In contrast, the working group on the improvement of the IGF was clearly focussed on developing practical improvements that do add value, which is why we supported it and why we welcome its report. Mr. Chairman, Multi Stakeholderism, with a capital M, is what works, and that means processes where all parties have an equal chance to be heard and to affect outcomes. It is absolutely fundamental, absolutely essential, to the development of the Internet as the marvellous tool for economic and social development that that it is and which it can become. Previous speakers, including the distinguished delegates of the United Kingdom and Canada, have outlined so many excellent examples of success made possible by this model that it is redundant to add more. The United Nations system overall has steadily increased the access of and collaboration with the non-governmental/private sector world since its foundation - though the ITU’s political processes, including the WCIT preparatory process, have fallen far behind the rest of the UN system in this respect. The Economic and Social Council to which the CSTD reports has often led the way by repeatedly choosing to embed non-state actors in formal processes. The Report of the Panel of Eminent Persons on United Nations–Civil Society Relations from 2004 has many excellent conclusions such as: “The most powerful case for reaching out beyond its constituency of central Governments and enhancing dialogue and cooperation with civil society is that doing so will make the United Nations more effective.” The UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said in 2009 that: "Our times demand a new definition of leadership - global leadership. They demand a new constellation of international cooperation - governments, civil society and the private sector, working together for a collective global good." He’s right. Thank you Mr. Chairman. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Geneva Representative Computer & Communcations Industry Association (CCIA) Tel: +41 (22) 362 02 38 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430 email: nashton at ccianet.org Skype: nashtonhart http://www.ccianet.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 18 20:39:59 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 08:39:59 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <8FFA3EA3-DB0D-4E51-9DC4-D7B821EB2AB3@ciroap.org> On 19/05/2012, at 12:51 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> Monopolies aren't the only firms who act against the global public interest(s), >> so too do run-of-the-mill firms in a competitive market. > > Typically, a competitive market means that consumers can avoid or punish such firms by abandoning them because of their bad practices. s/Typically/Theoretically/ > Moreover, I do not see run-of-the-mill firms and run of the mill consumer protection issues being targeted in these sweeping statements calling for "democratic" governance of the internet - I see specific leading companies being called monopolies. Sure, I agree with you that that is inaccurate. But I think all that is meant, in non-specialist terms, is that those leading companies have dominant market power, so that what competition exists is ineffective. Sometimes this market power is first mover advantage, sometimes dumb luck, usually network effects. I'm not convinced that Skype has the best VoIP service, Facebook the best social networking platform or Twitter the best microblog. But because they are so entrenched, Microsoft can add interception capability to Skype (see http://skype-open-source.blogspot.com/), Facebook can encroach further and further upon our privacy, and Twitter can... do bad stuff that thankfully they haven't tried yet. >> would have to include the US here. For example, the use of lengthy and >> legalistic terms and conditions that detract from consumer rights is rife >> online, and this is something that US law explicitly allows. In other > > Indeed, that is a continuing point of controversy. But there is an additional burden of proof: at what political level is it best to alter such things? > There is a robust culture and tradition of consumer activism in the US. What makes you think consumers will get a better deal at a global level? We (by which I mean, the stakeholders collectively at the global level) might want to be able to agree on some set of principles for online businesses that operate across borders, that would set minimum standards for consumer protection that may exceed those in the country from which the business operates. If the business doesn't want to adhere to those standards, it can still operate domestically. In practice this already happens to some extent, eg. with EU privacy law and the safe harbor, but what about the rest of the world? >> jurisdictions, there is regulation of unfair contract terms, recognising the >> fictitious nature of freedom of contract between consumers and large firms. >> But the dominance of US online businesses effectively trumps these >> protections elsewhere in the world. > > But if these markets are competitive then no one is requiring consumers to use those online businesses, no? So we are back to the problem of monopoly Not all of the abuses of their market power affect competition in the marketplace; they may "just" affect consumer or broader human rights, so competition law does not come into play. On 19/05/2012, at 12:11 AM, McTim wrote: > On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> Monopolies aren't the only firms who act against the global public interest(s), so too do run-of-the-mill firms in a competitive market. > > both monopolies and "run of the mill" firms are also end-users in the > sense that they are allowed to run their networks and set their ToS as > they wish. To the extent that they are allowed to do so. What constraints are placed upon them doing so is a policy decision. >> Not all of their abuses are checked by competition law. > > Not all are abusive. Not all abuses are abusive? My mind is spinning. -- 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 sana.pryhod at gmail.com Sat May 19 03:12:01 2012 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 10:12:01 +0300 Subject: [governance] CSTD Meeting on EC, Memo 3, Afternoon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Izumi, Could you please check Ukraine's participation in this meeting? I send official requests for information on this issue to our Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but I did not receive any answer. Thank you very much in advance, Best regards, Oksana 2012/5/18 Izumi AIZU : > Only governments are given floor, and may not have time for others to say > anything. IF that happnes, very bad, and proves that CSTD is not the best > place to continue this discussion. > > Anyway, please read the air here before we may be given the floor. > > > ---- > > 15:55 > Canada > Heather > on EC > civil society, private sector, tech community contributions are vital > improving inclusiveness > strong participant of enhanced cooperation initiatives, including IGF, > are necessary to progress > capacity building a priority > > GAC – 135 members > > Ask the chair to give assurance to give sufficient time here to > non-governmental members. > > Chair > provided to translator until 6 pm > > Algeria > We heard two contradictory messages, > need for -many speakers voiced doubt > Why prejudge UN – even it has not started! > UN to look at such important matter as Internet Governance. > This morning, a speaker of government took the position – his stance > there is a new position, message – they are ready for the fight. Ready > to enter into debate. We hope this is a new position and approach. > Good news. > Algeria is ready to debate, provide arguments, restructure the > reorganization of the Internet. > In 2004, there were too innovative in that climate, but now we are > ready in the light of all the changes that occurred recently. > We are in favor of the need to give each and everyone the place that > befalls him, the Internet Governance. > > Ambassador of India > Internet is a living entity, expanding and evolving continuously > EC process has to be brought to various fora including IBSA at EC > consultation in Nov 2010 and CSTD, ECOSOC and UN GA. > There are many cross-cutting policy issues, privacy, piracy, etc. > India made a proposal to setup a Committee on Internet Related > Policies in line with Tunis agenda. > India will be pragmatic and flexible in this approach. > > Iran > Question - Composition of the panel this morning > Why there was no one from the government on the panel? > At the end of Wsis negotiation process, facing the dilemma how to > reach consensus – two parallel – one is IGF and another is EC. > ask for the unfulfilled part of the Tunis mandate. > IGF is lucky enough and flourished, congratulate it, will try to > contribute to its success. > But the second one has not been fulfilled. > After the review on the desirability of continuation of IGF >  one is Improvement, >  second one – to provide new demand and momentum for EC, neglected > fulfill the mandate, it’s negotiation, not forum > So our proposal is to create a inter-governmental mechanism in UN, to > fulfil the mandate to negotiate at appropriate level > as speedy as possible, af > > Chair > the government to chose one was difficult > > Belgium > implementation efforts should be enhanced within existing institutions in MSH > > Sudan Minister > need for the respect of freedom in searching and requiring, collecting > and disseminating information – further stated in UDHR > difficulty in downloading open source material, not able to obtain > Window or other MS license > urge all stakeholder, to reaffirm the right of individuals > Domain names – two paras be reflected > ICANN is owned by USG > it be government owned >  Arabic domain name- not able to achieve yet > > Switzerland > Thomas > spending hours of repeating these two divergent views, not coming closer > consultations in 2012, missed the opportunity > it does not make sense to continue this much longer > try to agree on next step to Enhanced Cooperation > Swiss – compromise, to hold interactive multi-stakeholder consultation > EC is started or not does not matter in our opinion > We plea to all stakeholders for the next step. > > We plea to all stakeholders for the next step. > > on IGF, urge governments and others to seriously consider the MSH > funding in MSH process. > > support Canada’s urge to give the floor to non-gov members. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Sat May 19 03:25:33 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 16:25:33 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD Meeting on EC, Memo 3, Afternoon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, I do not have access to the participants info, and I have not seen anyone representing Ukraine in the room. I will ask the secretariat. izumi 2012/5/19 Oksana Prykhodko : > Dear Izumi, > > Could you please check Ukraine's participation in this meeting? > > I send official requests for information on this issue to our Ministry > of Foreign Affairs, but I did not receive any answer. > > Thank you very much in advance, > Best regards, > Oksana > > 2012/5/18 Izumi AIZU : >> Only governments are given floor, and may not have time for others to say >> anything. IF that happnes, very bad, and proves that CSTD is not the best >> place to continue this discussion. >> >> Anyway, please read the air here before we may be given the floor. >> >> >> ---- >> >> 15:55 >> Canada >> Heather >> on EC >> civil society, private sector, tech community contributions are vital >> improving inclusiveness >> strong participant of enhanced cooperation initiatives, including IGF, >> are necessary to progress >> capacity building a priority >> >> GAC – 135 members >> >> Ask the chair to give assurance to give sufficient time here to >> non-governmental members. >> >> Chair >> provided to translator until 6 pm >> >> Algeria >> We heard two contradictory messages, >> need for -many speakers voiced doubt >> Why prejudge UN – even it has not started! >> UN to look at such important matter as Internet Governance. >> This morning, a speaker of government took the position – his stance >> there is a new position, message – they are ready for the fight. Ready >> to enter into debate. We hope this is a new position and approach. >> Good news. >> Algeria is ready to debate, provide arguments, restructure the >> reorganization of the Internet. >> In 2004, there were too innovative in that climate, but now we are >> ready in the light of all the changes that occurred recently. >> We are in favor of the need to give each and everyone the place that >> befalls him, the Internet Governance. >> >> Ambassador of India >> Internet is a living entity, expanding and evolving continuously >> EC process has to be brought to various fora including IBSA at EC >> consultation in Nov 2010 and CSTD, ECOSOC and UN GA. >> There are many cross-cutting policy issues, privacy, piracy, etc. >> India made a proposal to setup a Committee on Internet Related >> Policies in line with Tunis agenda. >> India will be pragmatic and flexible in this approach. >> >> Iran >> Question - Composition of the panel this morning >> Why there was no one from the government on the panel? >> At the end of Wsis negotiation process, facing the dilemma how to >> reach consensus – two parallel – one is IGF and another is EC. >> ask for the unfulfilled part of the Tunis mandate. >> IGF is lucky enough and flourished, congratulate it, will try to >> contribute to its success. >> But the second one has not been fulfilled. >> After the review on the desirability of continuation of IGF >>  one is Improvement, >>  second one – to provide new demand and momentum for EC, neglected >> fulfill the mandate, it’s negotiation, not forum >> So our proposal is to create a inter-governmental mechanism in UN, to >> fulfil the mandate to negotiate at appropriate level >> as speedy as possible, af >> >> Chair >> the government to chose one was difficult >> >> Belgium >> implementation efforts should be enhanced within existing institutions in MSH >> >> Sudan Minister >> need for the respect of freedom in searching and requiring, collecting >> and disseminating information – further stated in UDHR >> difficulty in downloading open source material, not able to obtain >> Window or other MS license >> urge all stakeholder, to reaffirm the right of individuals >> Domain names – two paras be reflected >> ICANN is owned by USG >> it be government owned >>  Arabic domain name- not able to achieve yet >> >> Switzerland >> Thomas >> spending hours of repeating these two divergent views, not coming closer >> consultations in 2012, missed the opportunity >> it does not make sense to continue this much longer >> try to agree on next step to Enhanced Cooperation >> Swiss – compromise, to hold interactive multi-stakeholder consultation >> EC is started or not does not matter in our opinion >> We plea to all stakeholders for the next step. >> >> We plea to all stakeholders for the next step. >> >> on IGF, urge governments and others to seriously consider the MSH >> funding in MSH process. >> >> support Canada’s urge to give the floor to non-gov members. >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > --                      >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sana.pryhod at gmail.com Sat May 19 03:35:36 2012 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 10:35:36 +0300 Subject: [governance] CSTD Meeting on EC, Memo 3, Afternoon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you very much! Good luck and best regards! Oksana 2012/5/19 Izumi AIZU : > Hi, > > I do not have access to the participants info, and I have not seen anyone > representing Ukraine in the room. I will ask the secretariat. > > izumi > > 2012/5/19 Oksana Prykhodko : >> Dear Izumi, >> >> Could you please check Ukraine's participation in this meeting? >> >> I send official requests for information on this issue to our Ministry >> of Foreign Affairs, but I did not receive any answer. >> >> Thank you very much in advance, >> Best regards, >> Oksana >> >> 2012/5/18 Izumi AIZU : >>> Only governments are given floor, and may not have time for others to say >>> anything. IF that happnes, very bad, and proves that CSTD is not the best >>> place to continue this discussion. >>> >>> Anyway, please read the air here before we may be given the floor. >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> >>> 15:55 >>> Canada >>> Heather >>> on EC >>> civil society, private sector, tech community contributions are vital >>> improving inclusiveness >>> strong participant of enhanced cooperation initiatives, including IGF, >>> are necessary to progress >>> capacity building a priority >>> >>> GAC – 135 members >>> >>> Ask the chair to give assurance to give sufficient time here to >>> non-governmental members. >>> >>> Chair >>> provided to translator until 6 pm >>> >>> Algeria >>> We heard two contradictory messages, >>> need for -many speakers voiced doubt >>> Why prejudge UN – even it has not started! >>> UN to look at such important matter as Internet Governance. >>> This morning, a speaker of government took the position – his stance >>> there is a new position, message – they are ready for the fight. Ready >>> to enter into debate. We hope this is a new position and approach. >>> Good news. >>> Algeria is ready to debate, provide arguments, restructure the >>> reorganization of the Internet. >>> In 2004, there were too innovative in that climate, but now we are >>> ready in the light of all the changes that occurred recently. >>> We are in favor of the need to give each and everyone the place that >>> befalls him, the Internet Governance. >>> >>> Ambassador of India >>> Internet is a living entity, expanding and evolving continuously >>> EC process has to be brought to various fora including IBSA at EC >>> consultation in Nov 2010 and CSTD, ECOSOC and UN GA. >>> There are many cross-cutting policy issues, privacy, piracy, etc. >>> India made a proposal to setup a Committee on Internet Related >>> Policies in line with Tunis agenda. >>> India will be pragmatic and flexible in this approach. >>> >>> Iran >>> Question - Composition of the panel this morning >>> Why there was no one from the government on the panel? >>> At the end of Wsis negotiation process, facing the dilemma how to >>> reach consensus – two parallel – one is IGF and another is EC. >>> ask for the unfulfilled part of the Tunis mandate. >>> IGF is lucky enough and flourished, congratulate it, will try to >>> contribute to its success. >>> But the second one has not been fulfilled. >>> After the review on the desirability of continuation of IGF >>>  one is Improvement, >>>  second one – to provide new demand and momentum for EC, neglected >>> fulfill the mandate, it’s negotiation, not forum >>> So our proposal is to create a inter-governmental mechanism in UN, to >>> fulfil the mandate to negotiate at appropriate level >>> as speedy as possible, af >>> >>> Chair >>> the government to chose one was difficult >>> >>> Belgium >>> implementation efforts should be enhanced within existing institutions in MSH >>> >>> Sudan Minister >>> need for the respect of freedom in searching and requiring, collecting >>> and disseminating information – further stated in UDHR >>> difficulty in downloading open source material, not able to obtain >>> Window or other MS license >>> urge all stakeholder, to reaffirm the right of individuals >>> Domain names – two paras be reflected >>> ICANN is owned by USG >>> it be government owned >>>  Arabic domain name- not able to achieve yet >>> >>> Switzerland >>> Thomas >>> spending hours of repeating these two divergent views, not coming closer >>> consultations in 2012, missed the opportunity >>> it does not make sense to continue this much longer >>> try to agree on next step to Enhanced Cooperation >>> Swiss – compromise, to hold interactive multi-stakeholder consultation >>> EC is started or not does not matter in our opinion >>> We plea to all stakeholders for the next step. >>> >>> We plea to all stakeholders for the next step. >>> >>> on IGF, urge governments and others to seriously consider the MSH >>> funding in MSH process. >>> >>> support Canada’s urge to give the floor to non-gov members. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> > > > > -- >                      >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Sat May 19 03:57:04 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 16:57:04 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC Statement for CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <26419.1337351635@fmai.org> Message-ID: Dear list, Though I wrote below "CS IGC Statement" and I introduced myself as one of the co-coordinators of the CS IGC, I did not explicitly said "Here is the IGC statement" if I remember correctly. There might be the transcript archive to check, but I don't know if that is available. I did not say "I speak only for myself". I am sure people in the room did think I was representing the IGC. So, if I gave you the wrong impression that it was an IGC Statement with full consensus of the list, it was not. I thought that was clear from my presentation and also texts I read, but I like to clarify that here again. Thank you, and I will leave Geneve in two hours time. izumi 2012/5/19 Izumi AIZU : > All, > > Izumi Aizu > This is close to what I read just 10 min ago: > > [Chair intervened in the middle of my talk, go to EC, but I responded back that > that is about EC] > > IGC Statement for CSTED Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation > > Thank you Chair person for finally giving the floor. I say “Finally”. > My name is Izumi Aizu living in Tokyo and also in global cyberspace at > the same time like many of you. > I am one of the two co-coordinators of the Civil Society Internet > Governance Caucus which was established during the first phase of WSIS > in 2003 as part of all CS families, and is remaining engaged in > Internet Governance related activities such as IGF, CSTD WG on IGF > improvements and this meeting. > > We are encouraged to see the evidence of constructive dialogue around > EC here. However, we are also very disappointed today to see that > priority was given to governments and all non-governmental > stakeholders, civil society one of them, were put on hold, or in the > second class until this late afternoon. This is neither on equal > footing or respecting the roles. We will not accept this working > modality if that is the next step on EC since it is not really MSH at > all. > > We are proud that the Civil Society on the planet today is as diverse > as the mankind. We have quite a few active members from the South, - > three civil society speakers this morning, Anriette, Parminder and > Marilia are all active member of our caucus, and they are all from the > south. We have also many members from the north, North as well as from > the East and the West as well as gender and other diversities. > > When it comes to specifics, our diversity is often reflected in our > different views, as was shown from our three excellent speakers this > morning. We share the similar challenges to governments and other > stakeholders. > > But now our “bottom-line” is, > - keep the principles endorsed by the Tunis Agenda, especially, to > hold to the principles – that means - > > Many CS members support the principle of OPEN, Multi-stakeholder > global governance and the need for IG forums where all stakeholders > are equally, and effectively represented not only in its > participation, but also to the decision making or consensus building > > Some WG proposals we heard today seems to have broad support among CS, > yet there are different opinions in its functions, anchorage, and > operational modality. I think devils are in the details. > > We hope to see the further productive dialogue, one way or other in a > truly open forum allowing all stakeholders to reach consensus on equal > footing of this difficult challenge of Enhanced Cooperation. > > Thank you. --                      >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat May 19 04:25:00 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 10:25:00 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] IGC Statement for CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation References: <26419.1337351635@fmai.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD40@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Izumi great statement. Thanks a lot. Very good work. It has my full support. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU Gesendet: Sa 19.05.2012 09:57 An: governance Betreff: Re: [governance] IGC Statement for CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation Dear list, Though I wrote below "CS IGC Statement" and I introduced myself as one of the co-coordinators of the CS IGC, I did not explicitly said "Here is the IGC statement" if I remember correctly. There might be the transcript archive to check, but I don't know if that is available. I did not say "I speak only for myself". I am sure people in the room did think I was representing the IGC. So, if I gave you the wrong impression that it was an IGC Statement with full consensus of the list, it was not. I thought that was clear from my presentation and also texts I read, but I like to clarify that here again. Thank you, and I will leave Geneve in two hours time. izumi 2012/5/19 Izumi AIZU : > All, > > Izumi Aizu > This is close to what I read just 10 min ago: > > [Chair intervened in the middle of my talk, go to EC, but I responded back that > that is about EC] > > IGC Statement for CSTED Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation > > Thank you Chair person for finally giving the floor. I say "Finally". > My name is Izumi Aizu living in Tokyo and also in global cyberspace at > the same time like many of you. > I am one of the two co-coordinators of the Civil Society Internet > Governance Caucus which was established during the first phase of WSIS > in 2003 as part of all CS families, and is remaining engaged in > Internet Governance related activities such as IGF, CSTD WG on IGF > improvements and this meeting. > > We are encouraged to see the evidence of constructive dialogue around > EC here. However, we are also very disappointed today to see that > priority was given to governments and all non-governmental > stakeholders, civil society one of them, were put on hold, or in the > second class until this late afternoon. This is neither on equal > footing or respecting the roles. We will not accept this working > modality if that is the next step on EC since it is not really MSH at > all. > > We are proud that the Civil Society on the planet today is as diverse > as the mankind. We have quite a few active members from the South, - > three civil society speakers this morning, Anriette, Parminder and > Marilia are all active member of our caucus, and they are all from the > south. We have also many members from the north, North as well as from > the East and the West as well as gender and other diversities. > > When it comes to specifics, our diversity is often reflected in our > different views, as was shown from our three excellent speakers this > morning. We share the similar challenges to governments and other > stakeholders. > > But now our "bottom-line" is, > - keep the principles endorsed by the Tunis Agenda, especially, to > hold to the principles - that means - > > Many CS members support the principle of OPEN, Multi-stakeholder > global governance and the need for IG forums where all stakeholders > are equally, and effectively represented not only in its > participation, but also to the decision making or consensus building > > Some WG proposals we heard today seems to have broad support among CS, > yet there are different opinions in its functions, anchorage, and > operational modality. I think devils are in the details. > > We hope to see the further productive dialogue, one way or other in a > truly open forum allowing all stakeholders to reach consensus on equal > footing of this difficult challenge of Enhanced Cooperation. > > Thank you. -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat May 19 08:17:20 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 00:17:20 +1200 Subject: [governance] IGC Statement for CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD40@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <26419.1337351635@fmai.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD40@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Awesome statement Izumi :) On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 8:25 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > Hi Izumi > > great statement. Thanks a lot. Very good work. It has my full support. > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU > Gesendet: Sa 19.05.2012 09:57 > An: governance > Betreff: Re: [governance] IGC Statement for CSTD Meeting on > Enhanced Cooperation > > > > Dear list, > Though I wrote below "CS IGC Statement" and I introduced myself as one of > the > co-coordinators of the CS IGC, I did not explicitly said "Here is the > IGC statement" > if I remember correctly. There might be the transcript archive to check, > but I > don't know if that is available. I did not say "I speak only for myself". > I am sure people in the room did think I was representing the IGC. > > So, if I gave you the wrong impression that it was an IGC Statement with > full consensus of the list, it was not. I thought that was clear from > my presentation > and also texts I read, but I like to clarify that here again. > > Thank you, and I will leave Geneve in two hours time. > > izumi > > > > > 2012/5/19 Izumi AIZU : > > All, > > > > Izumi Aizu > > This is close to what I read just 10 min ago: > > > > [Chair intervened in the middle of my talk, go to EC, but I responded > back that > > that is about EC] > > > > IGC Statement for CSTED Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation > > > > Thank you Chair person for finally giving the floor. I say "Finally". > > My name is Izumi Aizu living in Tokyo and also in global cyberspace at > > the same time like many of you. > > I am one of the two co-coordinators of the Civil Society Internet > > Governance Caucus which was established during the first phase of WSIS > > in 2003 as part of all CS families, and is remaining engaged in > > Internet Governance related activities such as IGF, CSTD WG on IGF > > improvements and this meeting. > > > > We are encouraged to see the evidence of constructive dialogue around > > EC here. However, we are also very disappointed today to see that > > priority was given to governments and all non-governmental > > stakeholders, civil society one of them, were put on hold, or in the > > second class until this late afternoon. This is neither on equal > > footing or respecting the roles. We will not accept this working > > modality if that is the next step on EC since it is not really MSH at > > all. > > > > We are proud that the Civil Society on the planet today is as diverse > > as the mankind. We have quite a few active members from the South, - > > three civil society speakers this morning, Anriette, Parminder and > > Marilia are all active member of our caucus, and they are all from the > > south. We have also many members from the north, North as well as from > > the East and the West as well as gender and other diversities. > > > > When it comes to specifics, our diversity is often reflected in our > > different views, as was shown from our three excellent speakers this > > morning. We share the similar challenges to governments and other > > stakeholders. > > > > But now our "bottom-line" is, > > - keep the principles endorsed by the Tunis Agenda, especially, to > > hold to the principles - that means - > > > > Many CS members support the principle of OPEN, Multi-stakeholder > > global governance and the need for IG forums where all stakeholders > > are equally, and effectively represented not only in its > > participation, but also to the decision making or consensus building > > > > Some WG proposals we heard today seems to have broad support among CS, > > yet there are different opinions in its functions, anchorage, and > > operational modality. I think devils are in the details. > > > > We hope to see the further productive dialogue, one way or other in a > > truly open forum allowing all stakeholders to reach consensus on equal > > footing of this difficult challenge of Enhanced Cooperation. > > > > Thank you. > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat May 19 10:12:40 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 07:12:40 -0700 Subject: [governance] CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation Note 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: If available, I think it would be useful if Anriette and Parminder could circulate the full text of their remarks as below to the list. We've seen Izumi's comments as well as Avri's already. It would be good to see the full range of interventions from CS. M -----Original Message----- From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 2:44 AM To: governance Subject: [governance] CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation Note 1 Stated 30 min ago, here is my memo 1. CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation on Public Policy Issues Pertaining to the Internet May 18 11:15 Some 300+ people attending. Quite a few. Chair Mr. Fortunato de la Pera, Undersecretary, Department of Science and Technology, Phillipines Alexander Oncoto, on behalf of Hamadoun Toure, Secretary-General, ITU This meeting is an opportunity for all stakeholders - to implement the consensus of Tunis Agenda para 35-g para 69 and 71 Resolution 102 of PP in Mexico para 71 and 78 IGF and EC are two distinct processes - very important ITU has started its process of EC "Dedicated Group" established PP adopted resolution, open to all member states, open to all stakeholders Jun 8, all member states are invited to this meeting, serve as forum where member states can discuss Internet-related public policy matters Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director, PAC Reflction - more people are connected, more people are connected. IT matters more - than 2005 Copyright in one affect other country to access information sensorship in oe country affects others in othe country Internet - ownership is dispersed, some are by private sector, some by government appilcations and content are users people are not happy with current arrangement of EC some goverments feel excluded civil society or small groups all feel excluded, want to be more effective lack the consensus - like HR what is Public Interenst we were not done as mandated by Tunis Agenda discussion on EC - has not happened - that's why we are Our proposal - myself and a netowkr of CS organizations need to establish a Working Group on EC, in similar way as WGIG work closely with IGF, also associated with other bodies such as CSTD but not belongs to IGF, essential to be fully MSH, able to participate equally and free difficulty; Definition of EC "in their respective roles" "on an equal footing" - what do they mean? "multi-lateral and multi-stakeholder" WG to take mapping on existing IG institutions output should be Delcraration of some kind, on consensus, on fundamental means to be cooperative MSH Internet Governance Legitimacy is essential Leadership, also - such as WGIG Interaction and Feedback this WG should not work in isolation, work with Inter-governmental bodies and other forum looking for - take fresh approach to a new, more comfortable approach Parminder Singh Glad to see we have finally decided to treat this important of WSIS mandate, in earnest Trying to figure out what are sticky areas - go directly to those areas but before going there, there are two important questions, to be confronted - are there enough important public policy issues to be solved at the global level - if so, what mechanism be appropriate - how to deal with MSH US study on Cyber security OECD CoE - cross-border-- Despite the US claim of historical role We all have this democratic - all countries should have seat on equal footing MSH - elephant in the room we must confront one must admit institutionalizing representativity democratic - not easy be dealt with evolving - proposals - treat all stakeholders on equal footing - this proposition problematic how to operationalize ? put Google or MS to put them in same position with Governments? if so that will marginalize the democracy, the biggest political system give much power to business role of civil society is different participation of CS - to articulate public interest such us e CS actors - do not like to claim equal opportunity at decision making Technical community must understand that needs and demands of public policy decisions are different from making decisions on technical matters These are different roles of stakeholders start discussion here differential roles of different actors - will close the gap of EC we have not reached the boundaries of ideological .. - start with discuss on what kind of roles to play - what kind of mechanism - structure of MSH Conclude - Civil Society - promising structure India proposa is good to start EC setting up CSTD WG on EC is right direction ---- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat May 19 10:18:28 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 22:18:28 +0800 Subject: [governance] CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation Note 1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2BCC1FFE-BF0D-46C7-B91F-2793F842A3A5@ciroap.org> On 19/05/2012, at 10:12 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > If available, I think it would be useful if Anriette and Parminder could > circulate the full text of their remarks as below to the list. We've seen > Izumi's comments as well as Avri's already. It would be good to see the full > range of interventions from CS. Then here is Consumers International's (English and French): My name is Romain Houéhou, from the African ICT Consumer Network, and also representing Consumers International today. Consumers International is the worldwide federation of consumer groups with 220 members in 115 countries. Consumers have little access to Internet policy-making processes, but are the first to feel the impact of those policies. For example, much of the content that is available on the Internet in America and Europe and that consumers there take for granted, cannot be accessed in Africa or other developing regions, because of licensing decisions that executives of multinational corporations have made. Online services that American companies control are not designed to suit the devices that we use or the networks we access. We cannot participate in online commerce like the rest of the world, because the leading online payment processors will not accept our money. Decisions about our online privacy and security are made in Brussels, San Francisco and Washington DC. In these and many other areas where our voices should be heard, the rich and powerful remain firmly in control. Even the IGF is not heard by these policy-makers. This is why a new process of enhanced cooperation in Internet public policy making is urgently needed. The Internet is not the property of developed country governments and US-based multinationals. It is the common property of all, rich and poor, able and disabled, black and white, woman and man. We therefore support the formation of a working group to design concrete mechanisms by which civil society can participate in the development of global public policies for the Internet. The working group would be multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent, and its recommendations would complement those already developed for the improvement of the Internet Governance Forum. We look forward to participating in such a working group, as representatives of the global consumer movement. Mon nom est Romain Houéhou, du réseau africain de consommation TIC et également représentant de Consumers International aujourd'hui. Consumers International est la Fédération mondiale des associations de consommateurs avec 220 membres dans 115 pays. Les consommateurs ont peu accès aux processus d'élaboration des politiques Internet, mais sont les premiers à ressentir l'impact de ces politiques. Par exemple, beaucoup de contenu qui est disponible sur l'Internet en Amérique et en Europe et que les consommateurs de la bas les prennent gratuit , ne sont pas accessibles en Afrique ou d'autres régions en développement, pour raison de licences des décisions qui sont faites par les dirigeants de sociétés multinationales. Services en ligne qui sont contrôles par les entreprises américaines ne sont pas conçus pour adapter les dispositifs que nous utilisons ou les réseaux que nous accédons. Nous ne pouvons pas participer au commerce en ligne comme le reste du monde, parce que les processeurs de paiement en ligne n’accepteront pas notre argent. Les décisions sur notre vie privée en ligne et la sécurité sont prises à Bruxelles, San Francisco et Washington DC. Dans ceci et bien d'autres domaines où nos voix doivent être entendues, les riches et les puissants restent fermement dans le contrôle. Même l'IGF n'est pas entendu par ces décideurs. C'est pourquoi il est urgent d qu’un nouveau processus de renforcement de la coopération dans l'élaboration de politiques publiques Internet soient mises en place. L'Internet n'est pas la propriété de gouvernements des pays développés et des multinationales basées aux États-Unis. C'est le bien commun de tous, riches et pauvres, mesure et personnes handicapées, noir et blancs, homme et femme. Nous soutenons donc la formation d'un groupe de travail pour la conception de mécanismes concrets par lequel la société civile peut participer à l'élaboration de politiques publiques mondiales pour l'Internet. Le groupe de travail serait multipartite, démocratique et transparent, et ses recommandations viendront compléter ceux déjà mis au point pour l'amélioration de la gouvernance d'Internet. Nous somme prêt à participer dans tel groupe de travail, en tant que représentants du mouvement mondial des consommateurs. -- 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 anriette at apc.org Sat May 19 10:32:51 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 16:32:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation Note 1 Message-ID: I was not reading a statement. Will try to write up somthing from my notes. Anriette Sent from my phone -------- Original message -------- Subject: RE: [governance] CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation Note 1 From: michael gurstein To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,'Izumi AIZU' CC: If available, I think it would be useful if Anriette and Parminder could circulate the full text of their remarks as below to the list.  We've seen Izumi's comments as well as Avri's already. It would be good to see the full range of interventions from CS. M -----Original Message----- From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 2:44 AM To: governance Subject: [governance] CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation Note 1 Stated 30 min ago, here is my memo 1. CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation on Public Policy Issues Pertaining to the Internet May 18  11:15 Some 300+ people attending. Quite a few. Chair Mr. Fortunato de la Pera, Undersecretary, Department of Science and Technology, Phillipines Alexander Oncoto, on behalf of Hamadoun Toure, Secretary-General, ITU This meeting is an opportunity for all stakeholders - to implement the consensus of Tunis Agenda para 35-g para 69 and 71 Resolution 102 of PP in Mexico para 71 and 78 IGF and EC are two distinct processes - very important ITU has started its process of EC "Dedicated Group" established PP adopted resolution, open to all member states, open to all stakeholders Jun 8, all member states are invited to this meeting, serve as forum where member states can discuss Internet-related public policy matters Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director, PAC Reflction - more people are connected, more people are connected. IT matters more - than 2005 Copyright in one affect other country to access information sensorship in oe country affects others in othe country Internet - ownership is dispersed, some are by private sector, some by government appilcations and content are users people are not happy with current arrangement of EC some goverments feel excluded civil society or small groups all feel excluded, want to be more effective lack the consensus - like HR what is Public Interenst we were not done as mandated by Tunis Agenda discussion on EC - has not happened - that's why we are Our proposal - myself and a netowkr of CS organizations need to establish a Working Group on EC, in similar way as WGIG work closely with IGF, also associated with other bodies such as CSTD but not belongs to IGF, essential to be fully MSH, able to participate equally and free difficulty; Definition of EC "in their respective roles" "on an equal footing"  - what do they mean? "multi-lateral and multi-stakeholder" WG to take mapping on existing IG institutions output should be Delcraration of some kind, on consensus, on fundamental means to be cooperative MSH Internet Governance Legitimacy is essential Leadership, also - such as WGIG Interaction and Feedback  this WG should not work in isolation, work with Inter-governmental bodies and other forum looking for - take fresh approach to a new, more comfortable approach Parminder Singh Glad to see we have finally decided to treat this important of WSIS mandate, in earnest Trying to figure out what are sticky areas - go directly to those areas but before going there, there are two important questions, to be confronted - are there enough important public policy issues to be solved at the global level - if so, what mechanism be appropriate -  how to deal with MSH US study on Cyber security OECD CoE - cross-border-- Despite the US claim of historical role We all have this democratic - all countries should have seat on equal footing MSH - elephant in the room we must confront one must admit institutionalizing representativity democratic - not easy be dealt with evolving - proposals - treat all stakeholders on equal footing - this proposition problematic  how to operationalize ?  put Google or MS to put them in same position with Governments?  if so that will marginalize the democracy, the biggest political system give much power to business role of civil society is different   participation of CS - to articulate public interest   such us e CS actors - do not like to claim equal opportunity at decision making Technical community must understand that needs and demands of public policy decisions are different from making decisions on technical matters These are different roles of stakeholders start discussion here differential roles of different actors - will close the gap of EC we have not reached the boundaries of ideological .. - start with discuss on what kind of roles to play - what kind of mechanism - structure of MSH Conclude - Civil Society  - promising structure India proposa is good to start EC setting up CSTD WG on EC is right direction ---- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 19 10:38:12 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 20:08:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation Note 1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FB7B054.7020907@itforchange.net> My remarks at the opening panel are enclosed.... parminder * CSTD meeting on enhanced cooperation on pubic policy issues pertaining to the Internet**,*May 18, Geneva /Parminder Jeet Singh, IT for Change, India / First of all I must say how glad I am that we have finally sat down to discuss in the right earnest the very important WSIS mandate of 'enhanced cooperation' on public policies pertaining to the Internet. I am sure that today's meeting makes a beginning that would have a lasting impact on democraticing global Internet governance. *The key questions about enhanced cooperation, and the elephant in the room* We all know that 'enhanced cooperation' is a very complex and a much contested area. Before we begin to sort out how to operationalize 'enhanced cooperation', we need to discuss what is meant by this term, and also why has progress on this mandate been so difficult. In this regard, there are two important basic questions, and what I call as one very large elephant in the room. These two important questions are; Are there enough important and urgent global public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and, if there indeed are, it brings up the second question, what institutional system would best address them and how. And the the elephant in the room that I mentioned is multistakeholderism, an issue tied to what, who and how of EC. Let me briefly engage with these key issues that frame a purposive and worthwhile discussion on EC. Talking to people nowadays, one hardly finds anyone, at least anyone informed well-enough, who is not quick to admit that Internet is big, and it is global; and that, therefore, public policy issues around it are big and global too. Pick up the International Strategy for Cyberspace of the US, browse through OECD's pronouncements in this area or look at the CoE experts' report 'cross border Internet' or, for that matter, any other well- researched document about global Internet governance. They leave us in no doubt about the existence of important global public issues pertaining to the Internet. Therefore, I dont think we should waste too much time on this question -- there are indeed very critical global Internet related policy issues, and they keep getting more critical and complex by the day. Global public interest demands that these global public policy be addressed in an appropriate and timely manner. With the Internet in its formative stages, and its basic architecture getting set, which in turn determining the structure of a new social order, we do not have the luxury of dithering and wasting valuable time. Next, we come to the question, who should address these critical global policy issues and how. And now the problem begins! Lets first map out where power resides or rather is concentrated in the Internet system today, and who at present takes critical decisions about the global Internet. Any such power mapping will reveal that the greatest power resides in the US, both with its government and its monopoly Internet companies, and increasingly, in their close mutual relationship. I would not be able to go into the detail in this matter here. Then there is the next concentric circle which includes a few most powerful countries; operating through OECD's, and also CoE's, Internet policy making mechanisms, which have a very active calender of activities and future plans. Such is the global nature of the Internet that whether it is the unilateral law or executive power of the US, private decisions of global monopoly Internet companies, or policy principles developed by the OECD, they tend to quickly spread and entrench across the Internet's architecture to take up global reach and application. The most telling observation of Lawrence Lessig is important to recall here. With the Internet, architecture is policy. If we do not have the right public policies, the architecture of the Internet itself becomes the policy. And thus we, I mean the rest of the world not involved with Internet governance decisions, get politically determined by the outside. Undoubtedly, governments exercise immense power over the Internet within their national boundaries, and there are very important issues about how this power is exercised at present. However, today our concern here is mainly the power over the global Internet and the issue of its democratisation. Also, I remain of the firm belief that global democratization of Internet governance will always have a positive role in its democratisation within national borders. Notwithstanding the claims by the US of a 'historic role' vis a vis the Internet, or citing of the privilege by the OECD of being the major global economic bloc, it should not be difficult to argue, because we all have this basic democratic urge and spirit - that every country should be present at the global policy table on an equal footing. And, one can see such a thing happen only in the UN or UN like body. Perhaps since this 'all countries should be present' justification of changing the status quo is difficult to argue against, almost all arguments against change are centred on the issue multistakeholderism -- what I had identified as the elephant in the room, that we must confront, well, frontally. *What does 'democratic and multistakeholder' mean in operational terms* One admits that institutionalizing representativity is never easy -- and remains the central concern of democratic thought and practice. Governments purport to represent people and public interest, but there are indeed significant gaps in the chains of representativity from the people to governments, and further to the global governance spaces. In some cases such gaps are more acute than in others, and this 'governance problem' has to be dealt in an appropriate, evolving and contextual manner. However we cant knock off democracy just because we dont have it well enough yet. I say this with regard to, I understand, there being proposals on the table that want all stakeholders to be treated on an equal footing in any enhanced cooperation mechanism, whereby, apparently, that they should have the same or similar roles. I find this proposition very problematic. While one will like to know more details of how exactly is such an 'equal footing' proposition meant to work in practice, prima facie it seems to throw up very problematic issues vis a vis some basic principles of democracy. For instance, is it desired by such proposals, to put it somewhat bluntly, that a representative of Google or Microsoft should be voting on policy making at the same level as a government representative? If it is so intended, we are indeed going past the ideals and principles of democracy that has been the single most powerful political ideology and force of the last few centuries, and we must seriously debate this intended shift. In the alluring haze of multistakeholderism, we must not forget that big businesses expressly represent private interests, and mostly of those who already have much greater economic and social power. Similarly, the role of civil society is different from both the governments and business. Participation of civil society deepens democracy. It adds greater range, diversity and depth to articulation of public interest. Unlike business, civil society essentially represents public interest - in its differentiated shades and even internal tensions. Yet, such is the way in which civil society's legitimacy and role is structured, civil society actors will not like to claim an equal role to government representatives in actual decision-making processes. Like business brings valuable expertise about society's production systems to the table, the technical community brings expertise on technologies. In addition, many of the technical community are adherent upholders of some public interest values and principles, in which regard they are just a specialized section of the civil society. But the technical community must understand that the needs and demands of decisions making for larger public policy issues can be significant;y different from those for making technical decisions. Here, I have only briefly touched upon the different roles of different stakeholders. What I mean to underline in the urgent need to address this issue openly and earnestly, by all sides. Tunis agenda asked for any mechanism of enhanced cooperation to be innovative. Yes, we do have this opportunity here to improve global governance system so that they better serve global public interest. Internet has transformed so many social arenas, and it must have its impact on global governance systems as well. But let us seek these changes while staying within the long cherished norms and principles of democracy and public interest, and not, in our enthusiasm for change, breach them. If we can agree on the principles that govern such a nuanced understanding of a differential role - and I stress this phrase /' differential role'/ - of different stakeholders, we would have crossed perhaps the most significant block that prevents progress on this issue of enhanced cooperation, which is of immense and epochal significance to global public interest, and to the future of our social systems, as an information society matures. In this regard, while we need not remain too closely stuck to the Tunis Agenda definition of the respective roles of stakeholders, we also must not breach the boundaries of democratic ideology and practice, and the distinction between public and private interest. *Steps to take towards agreeing to an enhanced cooperation mechanism* In my view, we should approach the enhanced cooperation conundrum through the following steps. First we agree on the need and justification for a new mechanism for enhanced cooperation, which I think should not be difficult since everyone seems to accept that there are indeed critical global Internet related public policy issues. Next, we need to figure out what functions a new mechanism must perform to meet this important and urgent need. Thirdly, we come to the structure of the new mechanism, where it should not be difficult to accept that all countries must be represented equally. However, the role of different stakeholders, as I discussed, would be the key question to agree upon. If we have a focused, open and principled, discussion on this issue, I am sure we can overcome this key 'problem area'. At least, it is useful to know that this is the key 'problem area' with regard to moving the dialogue and process of enhanced cooperation forward. Once we have the justification, functions and the overall structure of a new mechanism on EC, it will be that much easier to find the appropriate location of such a mechanism. EC discussions seem too quickly to veer towards this sticky point, of whether such a mechanism should be inside the UN, ITU, or somewhere else altogether. Agreeing to keep such a discussion and decision for the last may be a good way to move out of the logjam in which the enhanced cooperation issue is caught today. This way we do not get too early into institutional politics that can cloud discussion about real basic issues which are more important to first address and sort out. To conclude, I must say that many of us in the civil society have received India's proposal for a UN Committee on Internet-Related Polices with much interest. It follows the Tunis mandate and principles for an appropriate body for enhanced cooperation, and has proposed a promising structuring for the role of different stakeholders, especially if seen in conjunction with India's 2010 proposal for strengthening the IGF. Of course, the proposal can indeed do with many improvements. We think that India's proposal is a good basis to start a dialogue on how to operationalize enhanced cooperation. In this regard, setting up a CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation should be a good first step in this direction. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Parminder EC CSTD.doc Type: application/msword Size: 33280 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Parminder EC CSTD.odt Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text Size: 45079 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sat May 19 12:35:30 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 13:35:30 -0300 Subject: [governance] CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation Note 1 In-Reply-To: <4FB7B054.7020907@itforchange.net> References: <4FB7B054.7020907@itforchange.net> Message-ID: My intervention is below. I hope to be able to make some more comments about the meeting soon. Best wishes, Marília *CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation* *May 18th, 2012* * * *Marília Maciel* Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation - Brazil I did not personally take part in both phases of WSIS, Geneva and Tunis, so I think it is more appropriate that I leave to the many of you who have the important comments that need to be made about the words expressed in the Tunis Agenda. Instead, I would like to share some perceptions about the landscape that I see today, when I look at the Internet governance regime from the window of my center of research in the South of globe. I highlight my location on purpose because the place where our personal windows are naturally have an impact on the landscape that we see, on the way that we perceive reality, and we need to acknowledge that in order to be able to bridge positions and to engage in a dialogue in which we can understand one another: When I look out of this window I realize that the Internet is not a no man’s land. Layers of regulation have been accumulating: regulation by the architecture, by norms, by economic forces. And the regime developed successfully for many years. But now I see, with concern, three main changes that took place recently on the IG regime that need to be addressed, and probably a mechanism of enhanced cooperation would be useful to tackle some of them First of all, there is an accelerated process privatization of regulation. The open public Internet as we knew it is getting narrower. The experience of “the Internet” that many people have today takes place inside closed platforms in a customized fashion. This certainly brings implications to freedom of information and to cultural diversity. But it also brings considerable implications to the governance of this regime. The terms of use of these platforms, developed and modified unilaterally, are juridical instruments of transnational nature that discipline several aspects of the lives of citizens worldwide with no opportunities for democratic discussion and no real chance to “opt out”. Individuals are forced to accept this private regulation without a chance to scrutinize it. The second development that has taken place recently is the emergence of regional and plurilateral arrangements, particularly on the North of the globe, for the discussion and decision-making of issues related to IG. These fora are producing common interpretations, principles of regulation, soft law, etc. This is in itself a valuable exercise, but this exercise is producing an asymmetric regime: while many developing countries are focused on achieving access to the Internet, other countries are shaping the way that privacy, e-commerce, intellectual property and online digital enforcement, to name just a few, are being dealt with. These policies are being formulated by only a fraction of the world population and they are narrowing down policy options for developing countries in the future. A platform for harmonization of these initiatives with others that will eventually emerge in the South is the only way to avoid fragmentation of regulation. And we should bear in mind that fragmentation would go against many of the issues we have ben trying to foster, such as openness, freedoms and the universality of rights The third development that I see with concern is the recent politicization of the topic of Internet Governance. Internet governance is an increasingly important global issue and this is illustrated by large number high-level events that took place recently about these theme. The problem is that these events are taking place with the exclusion of non-governmental actors or with very narrow channels for their participation, leading to an erosion of multistakeholderism. Maybe this is still not happening on the base of the regime, on the level of the IGF. But there is an erosion as we move towards higher political levels. So we cannot be mislead by the illusion that, by doing nothing, by making no changes, we are promoting multistakeholderism. This erosion can only be curbed by formalized decision-making procedures that take into account multistakeholder participation Given the three recent developments that I mentioned – privatization of regulation, purilateral decision-making and politicization and current erosion of multistakeholderism - I think that a change on the current configuration of the regime is needed, but any such change needs to foster transparency, accountability and multistakeholder participation. And this is why I currently feel uncomfortable with the idea of placing enhanced cooperation under an existing UN organization. Although meaningful steps have been taken in the UN to open its processes to non-governmental actors, some basic preconditions for meaningful non-governmental involvement are still missing. As an example, more than 30 civil society and academic organizations have recently presented a statement, asking to have access to relevant documents about the World Conference on International Telecommunications including, the preparatory materials, and called the attention to the lack of meaningful channels for participation, to the secrecy of documents and to the inexistence of channels for remote participation. In fact, I think that the same statement could be sent to member states that, after all, are the ones with power to change procedures in ITU. Several governments have argued that they support multistakeholderism in IGF. If this is really a fundamental principal, I think they would agree that discussions elsewhere related to the Internet should count on multistakehodler involvement. My final message would be that yes, we need a mechanism of enhanced cooperation in which developed, developing countries and the other stakeholders can work together in a shared process. But this mechanism also needs to improve transparency, accountability, balance between North and South, and should be based on multistakeholder participation. This process could be related to the UN, but it should be a new kind of shared decision-making process. Of course, there are pieces missing from the conceptual puzzle of a mechanism of EC: What should be the topics discussed? What should be the type of the outcome of a mechanism of enhanced cooperation? Documents that provide framework for action? Documents that tackle concrete situations? Would it produce soft law (non-binding recommendations)? Hard law? Do we need a new body? A new body in the UN structure? There are many questions that need to be answered, but, most of all, maybe the time has come for us to face the question of what are the respective roles and responsibilities of each stakeholder group in this regime, something that the WGIG began to do some years ago. Each one has a different nature, and different justifications underlay the need for their participation. The clarification of this point may be key to developing a feasible shared decision making processes among stakeholders. It is not a simple task. It is one that requires more time of discussion to mature ideas. That is why the suggestion of creating a Working group on enhanced cooperation seems the most appropriate way forward. A WG with freedom to think out of the box and to create a new shared process among actors and not simply to seek to ascribe itself to what already exists. As professor Wolfgang Kleinwachter has mentioned on several occasions, we need innovation and creativity in international politics. I would agree with that, and would add that we especially need it today and for the years to come in the Internet Governance regime. Thank you. On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 11:38 AM, parminder wrote: > ** > My remarks at the opening panel are enclosed.... parminder > > * > CSTD meeting on enhanced cooperation on pubic policy issues pertaining to > the Internet**,*May 18, Geneva > > *Parminder Jeet Singh, IT for Change, India > > * > First of all I must say how glad I am that we have finally sat down to > discuss in the right earnest the very important WSIS mandate of 'enhanced > cooperation' on public policies pertaining to the Internet. I am sure that > today's meeting makes a beginning that would have a lasting impact on > democraticing global Internet governance. > > *The key questions about enhanced cooperation, and the elephant in the > room* > We all know that 'enhanced cooperation' is a very complex and a much > contested area. Before we begin to sort out how to operationalize 'enhanced > cooperation', we need to discuss what is meant by this term, and also why > has progress on this mandate been so difficult. In this regard, there are > two important basic questions, and what I call as one very large elephant > in the room. These two important questions are; Are there enough important > and urgent global public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and, if > there indeed are, it brings up the second question, what institutional > system would best address them and how. And the the elephant in the room > that I mentioned is multistakeholderism, an issue tied to what, who and > how of EC. Let me briefly engage with these key issues that frame a > purposive and worthwhile discussion on EC. > > Talking to people nowadays, one hardly finds anyone, at least anyone > informed well-enough, who is not quick to admit that Internet is big, and > it is global; and that, therefore, public policy issues around it are big > and global too. Pick up the International Strategy for Cyberspace of the > US, browse through OECD's pronouncements in this area or look at the CoE > experts' report 'cross border Internet' or, for that matter, any other > well- researched document about global Internet governance. They leave us > in no doubt about the existence of important global public issues > pertaining to the Internet. Therefore, I dont think we should waste too > much time on this question – there are indeed very critical global Internet > related policy issues, and they keep getting more critical and complex by > the day. Global public interest demands that these global public policy be > addressed in an appropriate and timely manner. With the Internet in its > formative stages, and its basic architecture getting set, which in turn > determining the structure of a new social order, we do not have the luxury > of dithering and wasting valuable time. > > Next, we come to the question, who should address these critical global > policy issues and how. And now the problem begins! Lets first map out where > power resides or rather is concentrated in the Internet system today, and > who at present takes critical decisions about the global Internet. Any such > power mapping will reveal that the greatest power resides in the US, both > with its government and its monopoly Internet companies, and increasingly, > in their close mutual relationship. I would not be able to go into the > detail in this matter here. Then there is the next concentric circle which > includes a few most powerful countries; operating through OECD's, and also > CoE's, Internet policy making mechanisms, which have a very active > calender of activities and future plans. Such is the global nature of the > Internet that whether it is the unilateral law or executive power of the > US, private decisions of global monopoly Internet companies, or policy > principles developed by the OECD, they tend to quickly spread and entrench > across the Internet's architecture to take up global reach and application. > The most telling observation of Lawrence Lessig is important to recall > here. With the Internet, architecture is policy. If we do not have the > right public policies, the architecture of the Internet itself becomes the > policy. And thus we, I mean the rest of the world not involved with > Internet governance decisions, get politically determined by the outside. > > Undoubtedly, governments exercise immense power over the Internet within > their national boundaries, and there are very important issues about how > this power is exercised at present. However, today our concern here is > mainly the power over the global Internet and the issue of its > democratisation. Also, I remain of the firm belief that global > democratization of Internet governance will always have a positive role in > its democratisation within national borders. > > Notwithstanding the claims by the US of a 'historic role' vis a vis the > Internet, or citing of the privilege by the OECD of being the major global > economic bloc, it should not be difficult to argue, because we all have > this basic democratic urge and spirit - that every country should be > present at the global policy table on an equal footing. And, one can see > such a thing happen only in the UN or UN like body. Perhaps since this > 'all countries should be present' justification of changing the status quo > is difficult to argue against, almost all arguments against change are > centred on the issue multistakeholderism – what I had identified as the > elephant in the room, that we must confront, well, frontally. > > *What does 'democratic and multistakeholder' mean in operational terms* > One admits that institutionalizing representativity is never easy – and > remains the central concern of democratic thought and practice. Governments > purport to represent people and public interest, but there are indeed > significant gaps in the chains of representativity from the people to > governments, and further to the global governance spaces. In some cases > such gaps are more acute than in others, and this 'governance problem' has > to be dealt in an appropriate, evolving and contextual manner. However we > cant knock off democracy just because we dont have it well enough yet. > > I say this with regard to, I understand, there being proposals on the > table that want all stakeholders to be treated on an equal footing in any > enhanced cooperation mechanism, whereby, apparently, that they should have > the same or similar roles. I find this proposition very problematic. While > one will like to know more details of how exactly is such an 'equal > footing' proposition meant to work in practice, prima facie it seems to > throw up very problematic issues vis a vis some basic principles of > democracy. For instance, is it desired by such proposals, to put it > somewhat bluntly, that a representative of Google or Microsoft should be > voting on policy making at the same level as a government representative? > If it is so intended, we are indeed going past the ideals and principles of > democracy that has been the single most powerful political ideology and > force of the last few centuries, and we must seriously debate this intended > shift. In the alluring haze of multistakeholderism, we must not forget that > big businesses expressly represent private interests, and mostly of those > who already have much greater economic and social power. > > Similarly, the role of civil society is different from both the > governments and business. Participation of civil society deepens democracy. > It adds greater range, diversity and depth to articulation of public > interest. Unlike business, civil society essentially represents public > interest - in its differentiated shades and even internal tensions. Yet, > such is the way in which civil society's legitimacy and role is structured, > civil society actors will not like to claim an equal role to government > representatives in actual decision-making processes. > > Like business brings valuable expertise about society's production systems > to the table, the technical community brings expertise on technologies. In > addition, many of the technical community are adherent upholders of some > public interest values and principles, in which regard they are just a > specialized section of the civil society. But the technical community must > understand that the needs and demands of decisions making for larger public > policy issues can be significant;y different from those for making > technical decisions. > > Here, I have only briefly touched upon the different roles of different > stakeholders. What I mean to underline in the urgent need to address this > issue openly and earnestly, by all sides. Tunis agenda asked for any > mechanism of enhanced cooperation to be innovative. Yes, we do have this > opportunity here to improve global governance system so that they better > serve global public interest. Internet has transformed so many social > arenas, and it must have its impact on global governance systems as well. > But let us seek these changes while staying within the long cherished norms > and principles of democracy and public interest, and not, in our enthusiasm > for change, breach them. > > If we can agree on the principles that govern such a nuanced understanding > of a differential role - and I stress this phrase *' differential role'*- of different stakeholders, we would have crossed perhaps the most > significant block that prevents progress on this issue of enhanced > cooperation, which is of immense and epochal significance to global public > interest, and to the future of our social systems, as an information > society matures. In this regard, while we need not remain too closely stuck > to the Tunis Agenda definition of the respective roles of stakeholders, we > also must not breach the boundaries of democratic ideology and practice, > and the distinction between public and private interest. > > *Steps to take towards agreeing to an enhanced cooperation mechanism* > In my view, we should approach the enhanced cooperation conundrum through > the following steps. First we agree on the need and justification for a new > mechanism for enhanced cooperation, which I think should not be difficult > since everyone seems to accept that there are indeed critical global > Internet related public policy issues. Next, we need to figure out what > functions a new mechanism must perform to meet this important and urgent > need. Thirdly, we come to the structure of the new mechanism, where it > should not be difficult to accept that all countries must be represented > equally. However, the role of different stakeholders, as I discussed, would > be the key question to agree upon. If we have a focused, open and > principled, discussion on this issue, I am sure we can overcome this key > 'problem area'. At least, it is useful to know that this is the key > 'problem area' with regard to moving the dialogue and process of enhanced > cooperation forward. > > Once we have the justification, functions and the overall structure of a > new mechanism on EC, it will be that much easier to find the appropriate > location of such a mechanism. EC discussions seem too quickly to veer > towards this sticky point, of whether such a mechanism should be inside the > UN, ITU, or somewhere else altogether. Agreeing to keep such a discussion > and decision for the last may be a good way to move out of the logjam in > which the enhanced cooperation issue is caught today. This way we do not > get too early into institutional politics that can cloud discussion about > real basic issues which are more important to first address and sort out. > > To conclude, I must say that many of us in the civil society have received > India's proposal for a UN Committee on Internet-Related Polices with much > interest. It follows the Tunis mandate and principles for an appropriate > body for enhanced cooperation, and has proposed a promising structuring for > the role of different stakeholders, especially if seen in conjunction with > India's 2010 proposal for strengthening the IGF. Of course, the proposal > can indeed do with many improvements. We think that India's proposal is a > good basis to start a dialogue on how to operationalize enhanced > cooperation. In this regard, setting up a CSTD working group on enhanced > cooperation should be a good first step in this direction. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Sat May 19 13:31:03 2012 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn) Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 18:31:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC Statement for CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation Message-ID: <4eb4d511-036b-4cf1-93bf-c0fb54f64e6d@planet.tn> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From angelacdaly at gmail.com Sat May 19 16:01:54 2012 From: angelacdaly at gmail.com (Angela Daly) Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 15:01:54 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <8FFA3EA3-DB0D-4E51-9DC4-D7B821EB2AB3@ciroap.org> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8FFA3EA3-DB0D-4E51-9DC4-D7B821EB2AB3@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I am a member of this list but rarely comment, however this whole topic of the effectiveness of competition law/consumer protection is precisely what I research on, so thought I would throw in my 2 pence/cents as well. One of the problems in my opinion with these legal regimes is that they were generally designed prior to the mass (commercial) use of the Internet, and cannot always deal well with the problems users in particular may face as a result of economic dominance or concentration. Competition law is highly neoclassically economics-based, and does not do well with e.g. the 'non-economic' consequences of an accumulation of private corporate power online, which can equate to the censorship of information, repressing of the user's free expression and misuse of user data. If there is a mono/oligopoly (as is the case in various online sectors for the reasons already mentioned, network effects etc), then if users do not like the service for whatever reason, they may not be able to find a real alternative. Furthermore, for competition law actually to come into play, there cannot just be an accumulation of market power, there must also be an abuse. The above 'non-economic' consequences in themselves would generally not count as an abuse. Furthermore, neither regime handles well the fact that consumers are now users, also with the ability to produce and disseminate information and not just passive recipients of it. When conceptualising consumer welfare or consumer protection, a graduation is needed to thinking about what these mean for users as opposed to traditional consumers. Angela On 18 May 2012 19:39, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 19/05/2012, at 12:51 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Monopolies aren't the only firms who act against the global public > interest(s), > > so too do run-of-the-mill firms in a competitive market. > > > Typically, a competitive market means that consumers can avoid or punish > such firms by abandoning them because of their bad practices. > > > s/Typically/Theoretically/ > > Moreover, I do not see run-of-the-mill firms and run of the mill consumer > protection issues being targeted in these sweeping statements calling for > "democratic" governance of the internet - I see specific leading companies > being called monopolies. > > > Sure, I agree with you that that is inaccurate.  But I think all that is > meant, in non-specialist terms, is that those leading companies have > dominant market power, so that what competition exists is ineffective. >  Sometimes this market power is first mover advantage, sometimes dumb luck, > usually network effects.  I'm not convinced that Skype has the best VoIP > service, Facebook the best social networking platform or Twitter the best > microblog.  But because they are so entrenched, Microsoft can add > interception capability to Skype (see > http://skype-open-source.blogspot.com/), Facebook can encroach further and > further upon our privacy, and Twitter can... do bad stuff that thankfully > they haven't tried yet. > > would have to include the US here. For example, the use of lengthy and > > legalistic terms and conditions that detract from consumer rights is rife > > online, and this is something that US law explicitly allows. In other > > > Indeed, that is a continuing point of controversy. But there is an > additional burden of proof: at what political level is it best to alter such > things? > There is a robust culture and tradition of consumer activism in the US. What > makes you think consumers will get a better deal at a global level? > > > We (by which I mean, the stakeholders collectively at the global level) > might want to be able to agree on some set of principles for online > businesses that operate across borders, that would set minimum standards for > consumer protection that may exceed those in the country from which the > business operates.  If the business doesn't want to adhere to those > standards, it can still operate domestically.  In practice this already > happens to some extent, eg. with EU privacy law and the safe harbor, but > what about the rest of the world? > > jurisdictions, there is regulation of unfair contract terms, recognising the > > fictitious nature of freedom of contract between consumers and large firms. > > But the dominance of US online businesses effectively trumps these > > protections elsewhere in the world. > > > But if these markets are competitive then no one is requiring consumers to > use those online businesses, no? So we are back to the problem of monopoly > > > Not all of the abuses of their market power affect competition in the > marketplace; they may "just" affect consumer or broader human rights, so > competition law does not come into play. > > On 19/05/2012, at 12:11 AM, McTim wrote: > > On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > Monopolies aren't the only firms who act against the global public > interest(s), so too do run-of-the-mill firms in a competitive market. > > > both monopolies and "run of the mill" firms are also end-users in the > sense that they are allowed to run their networks and set their ToS as > they wish. > > > To the extent that they are allowed to do so.  What constraints are placed > upon them doing so is a policy decision. > > Not all of their abuses are checked by competition law. > > > Not all are abusive. > > > Not all abuses are abusive?  My mind is spinning. > > -- > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Follow @ConsumersInt > > Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sat May 19 21:14:44 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 21:14:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <3A25FB52-4B98-443F-BD60-706F79D7CA44@acm.org> On 18 May 2012, at 12:51, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > But if these markets are competitive then no one is requiring consumers to use those online businesses, no? So we are back to the problem of monopoly Certainly in many of the American and European countries people have a choice (i hate thinking of people as consumers - as it signifies that their role as part of so called market is their only relevance). But i have been given to understand, and my knowledge is second hand because I have not researched it myself, that in many areas in Asia and Africa, and perhaps some in the Americas and Europe, large parts of the population are captive of one company or another, i.e some of these companies get local monopoly, for some definition of local. The question i have then, beyond the regional/local problem of countries etc that allow such local capture, is there a global way to help with this. I think there may be, and thus it is worth discussing. Except for a very few companies, and these rather incompletely, most companies do not make social ethics a high priority and thus will take market power whenever they can, by whatever means they can get it. Unfortunately, it is only regulatory frameworks that stop most companies from this sort of behavior. So what can be done at a global level to keep local/regional monopolies from happening. 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 pouzin at well.com Sat May 19 22:04:32 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 04:04:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <3A25FB52-4B98-443F-BD60-706F79D7CA44@acm.org> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3A25FB52-4B98-443F-BD60-706F79D7CA44@acm.org> Message-ID: On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 3:14 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 18 May 2012, at 12:51, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > But if these markets are competitive then no one is requiring consumers > to use those online businesses, no? So we are back to the problem of > monopoly > > Certainly in many of the American and European countries people have a > choice (i hate thinking of people as consumers - as it signifies that their > role as part of so called market is their only relevance). But i have been > given to understand, and my knowledge is second hand because I have not > researched it myself, that in many areas in Asia and Africa, and perhaps > some in the Americas and Europe, large parts of the population are captive > of one company or another, i.e some of these companies get local monopoly, > for some definition of local. > > The question i have then, beyond the regional/local problem of countries > etc that allow such local capture, is there a global way to help with this. > I think there may be, and thus it is worth discussing. Except for a very > few companies, and these rather incompletely, most companies do not make > social ethics a high priority and thus will take market power whenever they > can, by whatever means they can get it. Unfortunately, it is only > regulatory frameworks that stop most companies from this sort of behavior. > So what can be done at a global level to keep local/regional monopolies > from happening. > > avri > - - - > See what happened to Standard Oil, ITT, AT&T. But now giant american companies are sacred cows. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat May 19 23:39:20 2012 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 09:09:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <3A25FB52-4B98-443F-BD60-706F79D7CA44@acm.org> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3A25FB52-4B98-443F-BD60-706F79D7CA44@acm.org> Message-ID: <4FB86768.3030905@ITforChange.net> On 20/05/12 06:44, Avri Doria wrote: > On 18 May 2012, at 12:51, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> But if these markets are competitive then no one is requiring consumers to use those online businesses, no? So we are back to the problem of monopoly > Certainly in many of the American and European countries people have a choice (i hate thinking of people as consumers - as it signifies that their role as part of so called market is their only relevance). But i have been given to understand, and my knowledge is second hand because I have not researched it myself, that in many areas in Asia and Africa, and perhaps some in the Americas and Europe, large parts of the population are captive of one company or another, i.e some of these companies get local monopoly, for some definition of local. > > The question i have then, beyond the regional/local problem of countries etc that allow such local capture, is there a global way to help with this. I think there may be, and thus it is worth discussing. Except for a very few companies, and these rather incompletely, most companies do not make social ethics a high priority and thus will take market power whenever they can, by whatever means they can get it. Unfortunately, it is only regulatory frameworks that stop most companies from this sort of behavior. So what can be done at a global level to keep local/regional monopolies from happening. > > avri > Avri, I think you have begun a useful thread of thought - the need for global regulation of business. This is an extension of the national regulation of business, to a global space as the Internet, and much required. The lack of global regulation has led to so many abuses of market power and political power. My question for you is - in the processes of framing national regulation, would you have the concerned companies "on an equal footing" as with the other stakeholders, wherein a verizon or google can veto any definition of net neutrality other than theirs. Or is it that each stakeholder group has an important yet distinct role - and that of business is certainly to forward arguments for their practices and provide any expertise... but business given their very nature/need to maximise their shareholder wealth cannot be expected to protect public interest or 'make social ethics their priority' as you put it. What is the implication of this for defining the nature of MSH? You must be familiar with the ALEC lobbying efforts in USA, and the impact on US regulation in the past few years. How can we ensure regulation/policy making to be based on negotiation of perceptions of public interest? What would be the implications of allowing powerful corporates 'equal place' at the policy table? How would it work? regards Guru -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 20 00:10:09 2012 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 09:40:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] a reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217838E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217838E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FB86EA1.7090703@ITforChange.net> Milton The first problem of your 'reality check on economics' is that it is basically extreme neo-liberal economic thinking- let markets decide, least regulation is the best. The deregulation (repeal of glass-steagall for instance) as well as inadequate regulation of the financial markets is accepted as an important cause of the crash of the financial markets - and unfortunately while some sections of society made billions, the costs are being borne by others, most of who had no connection with the causes. In the case of the Internet, which is a global phenomenon, we have no meaningful / democratic global regulation structures/processes yet. Which given the huge concentration of power is a dangerous situation and one which is no longer tenable. American regulation should not take the place of global regulation (remember wikileaks and paypal etc etc which is one of the cases the joint civil society statement/ background note highlights). And here I am quite aware of your concerns about American domination as well... (one point of agreement!!). Your text book definition of monopoly is not useful or relevant in this debate - if you believe that the large transnational IT corporates do not have huge market power (and use it to their advantage) then your ideology is clouding your vision of reality. Can I seriously not use google search engine or facebook? have you bought a computer where the manufacturer agreed to debundle windows operating system? what is my negotiating power as a consumer vis-a-vis these companies. Most of us blindly click on the 'I accept' button to become users, what is the inference from this for the relative power of the corporate and consumer? And where we dont have monopolies in many cases we have oligopolies, this makes your belief of perfect competition in free markets a myth. Neoliberal economics (aka market fundamentalism) is discredited and a failure and is no answer to our challenges in IG - it is infact the problem... This does not mean (and sometimes you are eager to make this conclusion) that IT for Change is for the other extreme - Socialism or complete government control over the markets. I don't think anyone is making that argument. So your point about the failure of publicly funded search engines is superfluous. As economists agree, we are all mixed economies and we need to find the truth somewhere in between. The Internet itself gives us some new powerful methods for framing the processes for such regulation / policy making and while we debate the best way global democracy can be furthered, laissez faire is no option, and harmful as a governmental take-over of the Internet. regards, Guru On 17/05/12 20:35, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > The “geopolitical influence” of the US and Europe is quite different, > since all major Internet corporations –in fact monopolies in their > respective domain- are American : Google, Cisco, Microsoft, Apple, > Facebook, e-Bay … Nowhere in the APC statement these monopolies are > addressed despite the strong links they have with Internet governance. > > */[Milton L Mueller] The dialogue on enhanced cooperation is becoming > polluted with simplistic and inaccurate economic nostrums. /* > > */May I request that the word “monopoly” be used with at least some > attention paid to its actual meaning? /* > > */From the MIT Dictionary of Economics: “a firm is a monopoly if it is > the only supplier of a homogenous product for which there are no > substitutes and many buyers.” This definition can be made less > restrictive by relaxing the assumption that there are no substitutes, > to include imperfect substitutes. /* > > */But even so, none of the firms cited above are monopolies. None. > Some have varying degrees of market power in specific sectors, but > none are close to being _global_ monopolies. Apple, for example, does > not even surpass Samsung in its share of smartphones./* > > */I am also curious to know what is going on when people group the > regulation of equipment manufacturers (Apple, Cisco) under the rubric > of “internet governance.” Same for computer operating systems. /* > > */Moreover, I wonder whether the people who think UN-based > institutions are an appropriate response to market power in the ICT > sector have done their homework. There are powerful, well-resourced > antitrust and economic regulatory agencies in the U.S., Europe, and > various other countries in Latin America, Asia and elsewhere. The > operate under specific laws, not under a theory of resentment (that’s > a good thing), laws which have evolved for decades and which have > established precedents and bodies of research behind them regarding > the nature of market power, the impact of regulation and antitrust > intervention on innovation and consumer welfare, etc./* > > */Moreover, it’s not like these firms are running amok. There have > been in the recent past, or currently are underway, serious tangles > with Microsoft, Intel, Google, Apple, and Facebook on various issues > involving their market power* - by antitrust authorities, privacy > regulators and consumer protection regulators. Have our agitators made > a case that these entities are incapable of doing their jobs? If so, > how would the political economy of regulating big business improve at > the global level – or would it get worse? /* > > */Is the absence of European companies in the list of globally > competitive firms, Mssr. Fullsack, due to some cosmic injustice, or > simply to the over-regulated, protectionist, nationalist structure of > European Internet and ICT markets, which does not produce globally > competitive firms? Why is it that tens of millions in subsidies for a > European search engine haven’t produced anything? Might it be because > consumers decide for themselves what is a better service and that > people don’t care much whether a service provider is American, > European or Chinese as long as they can use their own language? /* > > */Could there be some serious engagement with these issues and, > perhaps, a little more knowledge and a lot less populism? The idea > that some vague notion of “governance” is going to save us from any > and every problem in the internet economy sounds to me like the > fulminations of wannabe politicians seeking power for themselves and > not interested in actually solving problems./* > > */(*Note the absence of Cisco from that list – the equipment mfring > biz is highly competitive and Cisco is declining in market share, flat > in revenue, and considered “on the ropes” by stock investors for the > past 2 years). Huawei, on the other hand…/* > > *//* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 20 00:40:39 2012 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 10:10:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <8FFA3EA3-DB0D-4E51-9DC4-D7B821EB2AB3@ciroap.org> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8FFA3EA3-DB0D-4E51-9DC4-D7B821EB2AB3@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4FB875C7.40603@ITforChange.net> I wonder how Consumers International will view the take that increasingly for the big Internet companies like Google and Facebook, 'we' (eyeballs) are the product, and the advertising agencies are the real consumers! The result of a media space being 'paid' almost entirely by private funding (advertising) with very little public funding or subscriptions. And what would be the need/role for regulation in such a case.... regards, Guru On 19/05/12 06:09, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 19/05/2012, at 12:51 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >>> Monopolies aren't the only firms who act against the global public >>> interest(s), >>> so too do run-of-the-mill firms in a competitive market. >> >> Typically, a competitive market means that consumers can avoid or >> punish such firms by abandoning them because of their bad practices. > > s/Typically/Theoretically/ > >> Moreover, I do not see run-of-the-mill firms and run of the mill >> consumer protection issues being targeted in these sweeping >> statements calling for "democratic" governance of the internet - I >> see specific leading companies being called monopolies. > > Sure, I agree with you that that is inaccurate. But I think all that > is meant, in non-specialist terms, is that those leading companies > have dominant market power, so that what competition exists is > ineffective. Sometimes this market power is first mover advantage, > sometimes dumb luck, usually network effects. I'm not convinced that > Skype has the best VoIP service, Facebook the best social networking > platform or Twitter the best microblog. But because they are so > entrenched, Microsoft can add interception capability to Skype (see > http://skype-open-source.blogspot.com/), Facebook can encroach further > and further upon our privacy, and Twitter can... do bad stuff that > thankfully they haven't tried yet. > >>> would have to include the US here. For example, the use of lengthy and >>> legalistic terms and conditions that detract from consumer rights is >>> rife >>> online, and this is something that US law explicitly allows. In other >> >> Indeed, that is a continuing point of controversy. But there is an >> additional burden of proof: at what political level is it best to >> alter such things? >> There is a robust culture and tradition of consumer activism in the >> US. What makes you think consumers will get a better deal at a global >> level? > > We (by which I mean, the stakeholders collectively at the global > level) might want to be able to agree on some set of principles for > online businesses that operate across borders, that would set minimum > standards for consumer protection that may exceed those in the country > from which the business operates. If the business doesn't want to > adhere to those standards, it can still operate domestically. In > practice this already happens to some extent, eg. with EU privacy law > and the safe harbor, but what about the rest of the world? > >>> jurisdictions, there is regulation of unfair contract terms, >>> recognising the >>> fictitious nature of freedom of contract between consumers and large >>> firms. >>> But the dominance of US online businesses effectively trumps these >>> protections elsewhere in the world. >> >> But if these markets are competitive then no one is requiring >> consumers to use those online businesses, no? So we are back to the >> problem of monopoly > > Not all of the abuses of their market power affect competition in the > marketplace; they may "just" affect consumer or broader human rights, > so competition law does not come into play. > > On 19/05/2012, at 12:11 AM, McTim wrote: > >> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > > wrote: >>> Monopolies aren't the only firms who act against the global public >>> interest(s), so too do run-of-the-mill firms in a competitive market. >> >> both monopolies and "run of the mill" firms are also end-users in the >> sense that they are allowed to run their networks and set their ToS as >> they wish. > > To the extent that they are allowed to do so. What constraints are > placed upon them doing so is a policy decision. > >>> Not all of their abuses are checked by competition law. >> >> Not all are abusive. > > Not all abuses are abusive? My mind is spinning. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Follow @ConsumersInt > > Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun May 20 03:54:38 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 15:54:38 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <4FB875C7.40603@ITforChange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8FFA3EA3-DB0D-4E51-9DC4-D7B821EB2AB3@ciroap.org> <4FB875C7.40603@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <97FD39A8-E2EC-435B-A42E-47BDDE0A7268@ciroap.org> On 20 May, 2012, at 12:40 PM, Guru गुरु wrote: > I wonder how Consumers International will view the take that increasingly for the big Internet companies like Google and Facebook, 'we' (eyeballs) are the product, and the advertising agencies are the real consumers! Yes, hence the maxim, "If you didn't pay for the product, you are the product." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 20 05:45:39 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 14:45:39 +0500 Subject: [governance] a reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <4FB86EA1.7090703@ITforChange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217838E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FB86EA1.7090703@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: I would look at EC from a developing country angle and in that space, I want domestic environment, local companies and local social services to evolve, not the opposite where EC enables a handful to gain market economy control and only gets the giants more cushion and more space to play through enabling polices that take a hit on local opportunities, that should originally be exploited by local citizenry. And not to forget all the ranting when google was provoked to wind up business in China due to whatever circumstances whereas the Chinese market is dominated by a well regulated locally built search engine Baidu. I would still want to see Baidu lead because its local and that matters. I believe giving up all matters in the hands of unilateralism and allowing it to define all possible regulation is no more possible. The Internet cannot be left to free markets because free markets are being dominated by a few. In Pakistan, we can live without facebook and google but a large number of knowledge workers would get affected (though mostly spammers) but at the same time we would become locally viable, able and develop a more localized and more Pakistani environment friendly set of online services heavily populated by our citizenry, run by them, giving the local economy a boost with more social confidence. We would have more innovative opportunities, our own online technology news services and less pinching and leeching by multinationals on our governance mechanisms. All the services mentioned like facebook, twitter etc (we do not have ebay or paypal) hardly account for 4% of the total population of Pakistan, what the heck. all those that mention these as if things are coming to an end if we didn't have facebook or google ...I usually refer to this as OMG Activism with the sky is gonna crash because of abc or xyz! What I as a citizen would be more concerned about is how DPI is being carried out on my mobile and Internet communications and for what purpose, who has access to this and why and what kind of privacy laws and frameworks are in place? What does the illiterate and corrupt police or investigator do with it and how do authorities without any capacity building use it against the citizenry. Sometimes this OMG Activism that just blurs out the real issues is a pain in the back and causes many of our policy advocacy efforts to shoot off in all the wrong directions. I would even advise many to revisit the situations in their countries and stick to them because some groups out there are trying to babysit issues that are even not issues and only a handful few sitting on virtually everything called critical internet resources know about it and beat the drums chanting their OMG Activism slogans whereas are always the major cashers of any event. The very first issue in my country is that we are being denied high speed Internet whereas we have both the capacity, resources and networks to support it. We are missing IXPs. We do not have regulatory frameworks in place for online activity. I really don't bother about facebooks and googles and all the companies. We have over 5 brands in the market for any kind of equipment, one or two us and the others mostly China or Asia-Pacific based and I haven't bought a single us based product except a shoe that was for medical reasons and non-Internet-technology! Who gives a hoot for something we in our countries and developing world don't even bother about. Do you think we trust any of these companies with any of our personal information, we don't and never have and never will but i like to put online all the advocacy related information so that they know they have 'real' concerns. Just a small note, most of the OMG Activism is financially supported by such companies ;oP because they do get in touch with many of us here and on over policy issues and activism against govts and usually fund and pump money for such activities through some interesting ways. -- Foodafied! On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Guru गुरु wrote: > Milton > > The first problem of your 'reality check on economics' is that it is > basically extreme neo-liberal economic thinking-  let markets decide, least > regulation is the best. The deregulation (repeal of glass-steagall for > instance) as well as inadequate regulation of the financial markets is > accepted as an important cause of the crash of the financial markets - and > unfortunately while some sections of society made billions, the costs are > being borne by others, most of who had no connection with the causes. In the > case of the Internet, which is a global phenomenon, we have no meaningful / > democratic global regulation structures/processes yet. Which given the huge > concentration of power is a dangerous situation and one which is no longer > tenable. American regulation should not take the place of global regulation > (remember wikileaks and paypal etc etc which is one of the cases the joint > civil society statement/ background note highlights). And here I am quite > aware of your concerns about American domination as well... (one point of > agreement!!). > > Your text book definition of monopoly is not useful or relevant in this > debate - if you believe that the large transnational IT corporates do not > have huge market power (and use it to their advantage) then your ideology is > clouding your vision of reality. Can I seriously not use google search > engine or facebook? have you bought a computer where the manufacturer agreed > to debundle windows operating system? what is my negotiating power as a > consumer vis-a-vis these companies. Most of us blindly click on the 'I > accept' button to become users, what is the inference from this for the > relative power of the corporate and consumer?  And where we dont have > monopolies in many cases we have oligopolies, this makes your belief of > perfect competition in free markets a myth. > > Neoliberal economics (aka market fundamentalism) is discredited and a > failure and is no answer to our challenges in IG - it is infact the > problem... > > This does not mean (and sometimes you are eager to make this conclusion) > that IT for Change is for the other extreme - Socialism or complete > government control over the markets. I don't think anyone is making that > argument. So your point about the failure of publicly funded search engines > is superfluous. > > As economists agree, we are all mixed economies and we need to find the > truth somewhere in between.  The Internet itself gives us some new powerful > methods for framing the processes for such regulation / policy making and > while we debate the best way global democracy can be furthered, laissez > faire is no option, and harmful as a governmental take-over of the Internet. > > regards, > Guru > > > > On 17/05/12 20:35, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > The “geopolitical influence” of the US and Europe is quite different, since > all major Internet corporations –in fact monopolies in their respective > domain- are American : Google, Cisco, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, e-Bay … >  Nowhere in the APC statement these monopolies are addressed despite the > strong links they have with Internet governance. > > [Milton L Mueller] The dialogue on enhanced cooperation is becoming polluted > with simplistic and inaccurate economic nostrums. > > May I request that the word “monopoly” be used with at least some attention > paid to its actual meaning? > > From the MIT Dictionary of Economics: “a firm is a monopoly if it is the > only supplier of a homogenous product for which there are no substitutes and > many buyers.” This definition can be made less restrictive by relaxing the > assumption that there are no substitutes, to include imperfect substitutes. > > But even so, none of the firms cited above are monopolies. None. Some have > varying degrees of market power in specific sectors, but none are close to > being _global_ monopolies. Apple, for example, does not even surpass Samsung > in its share of smartphones. > > I am also curious to know what is going on when people group the regulation > of equipment manufacturers (Apple, Cisco) under the rubric of “internet > governance.” Same for computer operating systems. > > Moreover, I wonder whether the people who think UN-based institutions are an > appropriate response to market power in the ICT sector have done their > homework. There are powerful, well-resourced antitrust and economic > regulatory agencies in the U.S., Europe, and various other countries in > Latin America, Asia and elsewhere. The operate under specific laws, not > under a theory of resentment (that’s a good thing), laws which have evolved > for decades and which have established precedents and bodies of research > behind them regarding the nature of market power, the impact of regulation > and antitrust intervention on innovation and consumer welfare, etc. > > Moreover, it’s not like these firms are running amok. There have been in the > recent past, or currently are underway, serious tangles with Microsoft, > Intel, Google, Apple, and Facebook on various issues involving their market > power* - by antitrust authorities, privacy regulators and consumer > protection regulators. Have our agitators made a case that these entities > are incapable of doing their jobs? If so, how would the political economy of > regulating big business improve at the global level – or would it get worse? > > Is the absence of European companies in the list of globally competitive > firms, Mssr. Fullsack, due to some cosmic injustice, or simply to the > over-regulated, protectionist, nationalist structure of European Internet > and ICT markets, which does not produce globally competitive firms? Why is > it that tens of millions in subsidies for a European search engine haven’t > produced anything? Might it be because consumers decide for themselves what > is a better service and that people don’t care much whether a service > provider is American, European or Chinese as long as they can use their own > language? > > Could there be some serious engagement with these issues and, perhaps, a > little more knowledge and a lot less populism? The idea that some vague > notion of “governance” is going to save us from any and every problem in the > internet economy sounds to me like the fulminations of wannabe politicians > seeking power for themselves and not interested in actually solving > problems. > > (*Note the absence of Cisco from that list – the equipment mfring biz is > highly competitive and Cisco is declining in market share, flat in revenue, > and considered “on the ropes” by stock investors for the past 2 years). > Huawei, on the other hand… > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 Sun May 20 05:49:49 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 14:49:49 +0500 Subject: [governance] Re: reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <97FD39A8-E2EC-435B-A42E-47BDDE0A7268@ciroap.org> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8FFA3EA3-DB0D-4E51-9DC4-D7B821EB2AB3@ciroap.org> <4FB875C7.40603@ITforChange.net> <97FD39A8-E2EC-435B-A42E-47BDDE0A7268@ciroap.org> Message-ID: And free services is not the real product, its a means to the product, that is with gmail, I can be accessed and if I can be accessed, my virtual presence as a gmail account can be sold to advertisers and content marketers. -0 Foodafied! On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 20 May, 2012, at 12:40 PM, Guru गुरु wrote: > > I wonder how Consumers International will view the take that increasingly > for the big Internet companies like Google and Facebook, 'we'  (eyeballs) > are the product, and the advertising agencies are the real consumers! > > > Yes, hence the maxim, "If you didn't pay for the product, you are the > product." > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 cafec3m at yahoo.fr Sun May 20 05:54:26 2012 From: cafec3m at yahoo.fr (CAFEC) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 10:54:26 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] very urgent In-Reply-To: <8FFA3EA3-DB0D-4E51-9DC4-D7B821EB2AB3@ciroap.org> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8FFA3EA3-DB0D-4E51-9DC4-D7B821EB2AB3@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <1337507666.8859.YahooMailNeo@web171202.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>  Hi Jeremy Who is still in Geneva till today Baudouin COORDINATION SOUS REGIONALE ACSIS AFRIQUE CENTRALE COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC COORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC courriel:cafec3m at yahoo.fr/repronticrdc3m at yahoo.fr/sam2006 at francophone.net téléphone: 00243 998983491 ________________________________ De : Jeremy Malcolm À : Milton L Mueller Cc : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Envoyé le : Samedi 19 mai 2012 2h39 Objet : [governance] Re: reality check on economics On 19/05/2012, at 12:51 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: Monopolies aren't the only firms who act against the global public interest(s), >so too do run-of-the-mill firms in a competitive market. >> >Typically, a competitive market means that consumers can avoid or punish such firms by abandoning them because of their bad practices. s/Typically/Theoretically/ Moreover, I do not see run-of-the-mill firms and run of the mill consumer protection issues being targeted in these sweeping statements calling for "democratic" governance of the internet - I see specific leading companies being called monopolies. > Sure, I agree with you that that is inaccurate.  But I think all that is meant, in non-specialist terms, is that those leading companies have dominant market power, so that what competition exists is ineffective.  Sometimes this market power is first mover advantage, sometimes dumb luck, usually network effects.  I'm not convinced that Skype has the best VoIP service, Facebook the best social networking platform or Twitter the best microblog.  But because they are so entrenched, Microsoft can add interception capability to Skype (see http://skype-open-source.blogspot.com/), Facebook can encroach further and further upon our privacy, and Twitter can... do bad stuff that thankfully they haven't tried yet. would have to include the US here. For example, the use of lengthy and >> >legalistic terms and conditions that detract from consumer rights is rife >> >online, and this is something that US law explicitly allows. In other >> >Indeed, that is a continuing point of controversy. But there is an additional burden of proof: at what political level is it best to alter such things? >There is a robust culture and tradition of consumer activism in the US. What makes you think consumers will get a better deal at a global level? > We (by which I mean, the stakeholders collectively at the global level) might want to be able to agree on some set of principles for online businesses that operate across borders, that would set minimum standards for consumer protection that may exceed those in the country from which the business operates.  If the business doesn't want to adhere to those standards, it can still operate domestically.  In practice this already happens to some extent, eg. with EU privacy law and the safe harbor, but what about the rest of the world? jurisdictions, there is regulation of unfair contract terms, recognising the >> >fictitious nature of freedom of contract between consumers and large firms. >> >But the dominance of US online businesses effectively trumps these >> >protections elsewhere in the world. >> >But if these markets are competitive then no one is requiring consumers to use those online businesses, no? So we are back to the problem of monopoly > Not all of the abuses of their market power affect competition in the marketplace; they may "just" affect consumer or broader human rights, so competition law does not come into play. On 19/05/2012, at 12:11 AM, McTim wrote: On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >Monopolies aren't the only firms who act against the global public interest(s), so too do run-of-the-mill firms in a competitive market. >> >both monopolies and "run of the mill" firms are also end-users in the >sense that they are allowed to run their networks and set their ToS as >they wish. > To the extent that they are allowed to do so.  What constraints are placed upon them doing so is a policy decision. Not all of their abuses are checked by competition law. >> >Not all are abusive. Not all abuses are abusive?  My mind is spinning. --  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 1599Follow @ConsumersInt Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternationalRead our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cafec3m at yahoo.fr Sun May 20 06:03:24 2012 From: cafec3m at yahoo.fr (CAFEC) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 11:03:24 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] CSTD Meeting on EC, Memo 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1337508204.59439.YahooMailNeo@web171206.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Please Sala Can you tell me who like member of IGcaucus is still in Geneva. Its very urgent Baudouin   COORDINATION SOUS REGIONALE ACSIS AFRIQUE CENTRALE COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC COORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC courriel:cafec3m at yahoo.fr/repronticrdc3m at yahoo.fr/sam2006 at francophone.net téléphone: 00243 998983491 ________________________________ De : Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Izumi AIZU Envoyé le : Vendredi 18 mai 2012 13h29 Objet : Re: [governance] CSTD Meeting on EC, Memo 3 Thanks very useful. I just have a few questions in-line On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 11:13 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: Betty King, US Ambassador, > >Distributed Internet requires distributed actions, no single >institution is needed >US appreciated steps, both in and outside UN system after WSIS >We are pleased to see IGF mandate extended for another 5 years > >periodical review of Tunis agenda > >US is pleased that government cooperation on internet public policy – increased >EC on critical Intenet public policy, capacity building, all occurring >ICANN partnership to promote linguistic > [What do they mean when they say linguistic? Are they referring to IDNs?] One more – next Wednesday at CSTD session, Expert Panel on Universal >Service fund to harness rural community >practical terms –how ICT served help bridge digital divide > > [This will be great because it  affects and impacts the issue of "access". However, it will be good to get 2 diversely polarised views on Universal Service from the German Telco experience and the Universal Service advocates experience and to see various alternative models and sustainability. It will be good to also explore the PPP dimensions and utilize the expertise within the Private Sector. Whilst studies show consistently that ICT is an enabler for economic growth - it is also  a tool for "Power and Control"Iran for example, their government deliberately gives the individuals negligible speeds which is literally not useful nor conducive to communication and they are driven by fear that there will be a repeat of Egypt or Tunisia.  Masdame,? Ambassador of Egypt > >Abdura, Saudi Arabia Ambassador >respond to the false aeelgations – to print media, “UN seeks to >control the Internet” >I was the member of WGIS > >The ability to control the Internet Domain name is in the house of >single country – to a company follow that country law >Sudan – not affected by ITU, > > >we further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation >“on equal footing” – I repeat > > >South Africa >Zane >WSIS marked the watershed of UN history >gathering the different stakeholders > > >issue about equal footing is mis-leading >government and others are not treated equally > >SA – must be governed by governments of all >current status-quo dominance, >Proposes WG at ITU (or new body) > > >UK >Mark Carbell >where EC is happening >MSH is fully embeded in all of our consciousness >I would see some value of CSTD to have some function to map out >invite to submit a report to next session >that is UK position > >Brazil, Ambassador, Director of Science and Technology >some of the points were already made >Brazil supports the establishment of a process or platform, however we >call, for Enhanced Cooperation > >we should congratulate with the outcomes – with these formats > >however, even with improved format, IGF is never meant to the substitute of EC >we thought there is clear focus on EC not covered with other bodies > >Cyber Security - There is no international organization taking care of that > >Another criteria > >The processes adopted the creation of WGIG provides good model, we >would consider that. Use par 50 – which could be replicated – going >forward >Ask the Secretary General, to investigate  - for the implementations >of this concept. > >13:10 >Lunch > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851   ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 20 06:12:24 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 15:42:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] a reality check on economics In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217838E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FB86EA1.7090703@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <4FB8C388.4050403@itforchange.net> to add to Fouad's email , The minister from Sudan pointed out yesterday, at the CSTD meeting, how any consumer from Sudan cannot even update anti virus software while operating form within Sudan because of the US embargo on some countries..... Makes a very clear case for a more distributed Internet and Internet services ecology that we have today, and for this to happen we need better international and national policies regarding the Internet. The world is not ready to live under the neo-colonial rule of the US. parminder On Sunday 20 May 2012 03:15 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > I would look at EC from a developing country angle and in that space, > I want domestic environment, local companies and local social services > to evolve, not the opposite where EC enables a handful to gain market > economy control and only gets the giants more cushion and more space > to play through enabling polices that take a hit on local > opportunities, that should originally be exploited by local citizenry. > > And not to forget all the ranting when google was provoked to wind up > business in China due to whatever circumstances whereas the Chinese > market is dominated by a well regulated locally built search engine > Baidu. I would still want to see Baidu lead because its local and that > matters. I believe giving up all matters in the hands of unilateralism > and allowing it to define all possible regulation is no more possible. > The Internet cannot be left to free markets because free markets are > being dominated by a few. > > In Pakistan, we can live without facebook and google but a large > number of knowledge workers would get affected (though mostly > spammers) but at the same time we would become locally viable, able > and develop a more localized and more Pakistani environment friendly > set of online services heavily populated by our citizenry, run by > them, giving the local economy a boost with more social confidence. We > would have more innovative opportunities, our own online technology > news services and less pinching and leeching by multinationals on our > governance mechanisms. > > All the services mentioned like facebook, twitter etc (we do not have > ebay or paypal) hardly account for 4% of the total population of > Pakistan, what the heck. all those that mention these as if things are > coming to an end if we didn't have facebook or google ...I usually > refer to this as OMG Activism with the sky is gonna crash because of > abc or xyz! > > What I as a citizen would be more concerned about is how DPI is being > carried out on my mobile and Internet communications and for what > purpose, who has access to this and why and what kind of privacy laws > and frameworks are in place? What does the illiterate and corrupt > police or investigator do with it and how do authorities without any > capacity building use it against the citizenry. Sometimes this OMG > Activism that just blurs out the real issues is a pain in the back and > causes many of our policy advocacy efforts to shoot off in all the > wrong directions. > > I would even advise many to revisit the situations in their countries > and stick to them because some groups out there are trying to babysit > issues that are even not issues and only a handful few sitting on > virtually everything called critical internet resources know about it > and beat the drums chanting their OMG Activism slogans whereas are > always the major cashers of any event. > > The very first issue in my country is that we are being denied high > speed Internet whereas we have both the capacity, resources and > networks to support it. We are missing IXPs. We do not have regulatory > frameworks in place for online activity. I really don't bother about > facebooks and googles and all the companies. We have over 5 brands in > the market for any kind of equipment, one or two us and the others > mostly China or Asia-Pacific based and I haven't bought a single us > based product except a shoe that was for medical reasons and > non-Internet-technology! > > Who gives a hoot for something we in our countries and developing > world don't even bother about. Do you think we trust any of these > companies with any of our personal information, we don't and never > have and never will but i like to put online all the advocacy related > information so that they know they have 'real' concerns. > > Just a small note, most of the OMG Activism is financially supported > by such companies ;oP because they do get in touch with many of us > here and on over policy issues and activism against govts and usually > fund and pump money for such activities through some interesting ways. > > -- Foodafied! > > On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Guru गुरु wrote: > >> Milton >> >> The first problem of your 'reality check on economics' is that it is >> basically extreme neo-liberal economic thinking- let markets decide, least >> regulation is the best. The deregulation (repeal of glass-steagall for >> instance) as well as inadequate regulation of the financial markets is >> accepted as an important cause of the crash of the financial markets - and >> unfortunately while some sections of society made billions, the costs are >> being borne by others, most of who had no connection with the causes. In the >> case of the Internet, which is a global phenomenon, we have no meaningful / >> democratic global regulation structures/processes yet. Which given the huge >> concentration of power is a dangerous situation and one which is no longer >> tenable. American regulation should not take the place of global regulation >> (remember wikileaks and paypal etc etc which is one of the cases the joint >> civil society statement/ background note highlights). And here I am quite >> aware of your concerns about American domination as well... (one point of >> agreement!!). >> >> Your text book definition of monopoly is not useful or relevant in this >> debate - if you believe that the large transnational IT corporates do not >> have huge market power (and use it to their advantage) then your ideology is >> clouding your vision of reality. Can I seriously not use google search >> engine or facebook? have you bought a computer where the manufacturer agreed >> to debundle windows operating system? what is my negotiating power as a >> consumer vis-a-vis these companies. Most of us blindly click on the 'I >> accept' button to become users, what is the inference from this for the >> relative power of the corporate and consumer? And where we dont have >> monopolies in many cases we have oligopolies, this makes your belief of >> perfect competition in free markets a myth. >> >> Neoliberal economics (aka market fundamentalism) is discredited and a >> failure and is no answer to our challenges in IG - it is infact the >> problem... >> >> This does not mean (and sometimes you are eager to make this conclusion) >> that IT for Change is for the other extreme - Socialism or complete >> government control over the markets. I don't think anyone is making that >> argument. So your point about the failure of publicly funded search engines >> is superfluous. >> >> As economists agree, we are all mixed economies and we need to find the >> truth somewhere in between. The Internet itself gives us some new powerful >> methods for framing the processes for such regulation / policy making and >> while we debate the best way global democracy can be furthered, laissez >> faire is no option, and harmful as a governmental take-over of the Internet. >> >> regards, >> Guru >> >> >> >> On 17/05/12 20:35, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> The “geopolitical influence” of the US and Europe is quite different, since >> all major Internet corporations –in fact monopolies in their respective >> domain- are American : Google, Cisco, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, e-Bay … >> Nowhere in the APC statement these monopolies are addressed despite the >> strong links they have with Internet governance. >> >> [Milton L Mueller] The dialogue on enhanced cooperation is becoming polluted >> with simplistic and inaccurate economic nostrums. >> >> May I request that the word “monopoly” be used with at least some attention >> paid to its actual meaning? >> >> From the MIT Dictionary of Economics: “a firm is a monopoly if it is the >> only supplier of a homogenous product for which there are no substitutes and >> many buyers.” This definition can be made less restrictive by relaxing the >> assumption that there are no substitutes, to include imperfect substitutes. >> >> But even so, none of the firms cited above are monopolies. None. Some have >> varying degrees of market power in specific sectors, but none are close to >> being _global_ monopolies. Apple, for example, does not even surpass Samsung >> in its share of smartphones. >> >> I am also curious to know what is going on when people group the regulation >> of equipment manufacturers (Apple, Cisco) under the rubric of “internet >> governance.” Same for computer operating systems. >> >> Moreover, I wonder whether the people who think UN-based institutions are an >> appropriate response to market power in the ICT sector have done their >> homework. There are powerful, well-resourced antitrust and economic >> regulatory agencies in the U.S., Europe, and various other countries in >> Latin America, Asia and elsewhere. The operate under specific laws, not >> under a theory of resentment (that’s a good thing), laws which have evolved >> for decades and which have established precedents and bodies of research >> behind them regarding the nature of market power, the impact of regulation >> and antitrust intervention on innovation and consumer welfare, etc. >> >> Moreover, it’s not like these firms are running amok. There have been in the >> recent past, or currently are underway, serious tangles with Microsoft, >> Intel, Google, Apple, and Facebook on various issues involving their market >> power* - by antitrust authorities, privacy regulators and consumer >> protection regulators. Have our agitators made a case that these entities >> are incapable of doing their jobs? If so, how would the political economy of >> regulating big business improve at the global level – or would it get worse? >> >> Is the absence of European companies in the list of globally competitive >> firms, Mssr. Fullsack, due to some cosmic injustice, or simply to the >> over-regulated, protectionist, nationalist structure of European Internet >> and ICT markets, which does not produce globally competitive firms? Why is >> it that tens of millions in subsidies for a European search engine haven’t >> produced anything? Might it be because consumers decide for themselves what >> is a better service and that people don’t care much whether a service >> provider is American, European or Chinese as long as they can use their own >> language? >> >> Could there be some serious engagement with these issues and, perhaps, a >> little more knowledge and a lot less populism? The idea that some vague >> notion of “governance” is going to save us from any and every problem in the >> internet economy sounds to me like the fulminations of wannabe politicians >> seeking power for themselves and not interested in actually solving >> problems. >> >> (*Note the absence of Cisco from that list – the equipment mfring biz is >> highly competitive and Cisco is declining in market share, flat in revenue, >> and considered “on the ropes” by stock investors for the past 2 years). >> Huawei, on the other hand… >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 20 06:36:14 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 06:36:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] a reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <4FB86EA1.7090703@ITforChange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217838E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FB86EA1.7090703@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Guru गुरु wrote: > Milton > > The first problem of your 'reality check on economics' is that it is > basically extreme neo-liberal economic thinking-  let markets decide, least > regulation is the best. The deregulation (repeal of glass-steagall for > instance) as well as inadequate regulation of the financial markets is > accepted as an important cause of the crash of the financial markets - and > unfortunately while some sections of society made billions, the costs are > being borne by others, most of who had no connection with the causes. In the > case of the Internet, which is a global phenomenon, we have no meaningful / > democratic global regulation structures/processes yet. Except the very "meaningful / democratic global regulation structures/processes" that have helped make the Internet so successful thus far. In the last 8 days, I have actively participated in the African Internet Summit, which is a Southern initiative that helps in coordination/collaboration of Internet in Africa. http://internetsummitafrica.org/ Which given the huge > concentration of power is a dangerous situation and one which is no longer > tenable. American regulation should not take the place of global regulation > (remember wikileaks and paypal etc etc which is one of the cases the joint > civil society statement/ background note highlights). And here I am quite > aware of your concerns about American domination as well... (one point of > agreement!!). > > Your text book definition of monopoly is not useful or relevant in this > debate - if you believe that the large transnational IT corporates do not > have huge market power (and use it to their advantage) then your ideology is > clouding your vision of reality. Can I seriously not use google search > engine or facebook? yes, you can seriously not use either. I know folk who get along just fine without either FB or Google. have you bought a computer where the manufacturer agreed > to debundle windows operating system? yes, recently. what is my negotiating power as a > consumer vis-a-vis these companies. use one of the hundreds of other search/email/social networks out there! If you do use them, you can use them (FB/Google social networks) to organise against their policies you disagree with. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/facebook-rules-everyone-can-vote-on-new-privacy-policy/13412 https://www.facebook.com/fbsitegovernance/app_4949752878 I'm not defending either compnay particular policies, I'm just pointing out facts. Most of us blindly click on the 'I > accept' button to become users Agreed, (but hopefully not most of "us" on this list! how would you have Google/FB change this behaviour of end-users? what is the inference from this for the > relative power of the corporate and consumer? that consumers are not taking the opportunities given to them is the first inference that comes to mind!   And where we dont have > monopolies in many cases we have oligopolies, this makes your belief of > perfect competition in free markets a myth. > > Neoliberal economics (aka market fundamentalism) is discredited and a > failure and is no answer to our challenges in IG - it is infact the > problem... > > This does not mean (and sometimes you are eager to make this conclusion) > that IT for Change is for the other extreme - Socialism or complete > government control over the markets. I don't think anyone is making that > argument. So your point about the failure of publicly funded search engines > is superfluous. > > As economists agree, we are all mixed economies and we need to find the > truth somewhere in between.  The Internet itself gives us some new powerful > methods for framing the processes for such regulation / policy making It also will allow end users to play a part in the governance of the net directly instead of via gov't "proxies". So let's let end users decide things instead of a CSTD WG!! How "we" do that (for some value of "we") is up to us. There would be non-trivial challenges involved in surveying end-users to help find consensus on such issues, but they could be overcome. How about a cross platform IG app, any takers? Could be an interesting project for IT for Change/EFF/cg.br, etc! -- 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 Sun May 20 06:41:21 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 12:41:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] G 8 References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8FFA3EA3-DB0D-4E51-9DC4-D7B821EB2AB3@ciroap.org> <4FB875C7.40603@ITforChange.net> <97FD39A8-E2EC-435B-A42E-47BDDE0A7268@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD44@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> No Internet Discussion in Camp David at the G 8 meeting. In 2011 the G 8 did spend a lot of time to discuss Internet Governance as it was reflected in the "Deauville Declaration" which agreed "for the first time on the leaders level" on a number of principles, including the multistakeholder approach. Here is the Internet Governance text from 2011 (which included enhanced cooperation): " As we support the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance, we call upon all stakeholders to contribute to enhanced cooperation within and between all international fora dealing with the governance of the Internet. In this regard, flexibility and transparency have to be maintained in order to adapt to the fast pace of technological and business developments and uses. Governments have a key role to play in this model." http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/summit/2011deauville/2011-declaration-en.html#internet Did somebody refer to this para. in the rercent UNCSTD EC Consultations? Anyway, in 2012, the G 8 had "no time" to contintue the discussion. They just picked one point: IPR. Here is the relevant text from the Camp David Final Declaration (May 19 2012) "9- Given the importance of intellectual property rights (IPR) to stimulating job and economic growth, we affirm the significance of high standards for IPR protection and enforcement, including through international legal instruments and mutual assistance agreements, as well as through government procurement processes, private-sector voluntary codes of best practices, and enhanced customs cooperation, while promoting the free flow of information. To protect public health and consumer safety, we also commit to exchange information on rogue internet pharmacy sites in accordance with national law and share best practices on combating counterfeit medical products." http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/summit/2012campdavid/g8-declaration.html If you wish to compare with last years statement, here is the text from 2011: 15. With regard to the protection of intellectual property, in particular copyright, trademarks, trade secrets and patents, we recognize the need to have national laws and frameworks for improved enforcement. We are thus renewing our commitment to ensuring effective action against violations of intellectual property rights in the digital arena, including action that addresses present and future infringements. We recognize that the effective implementation of intellectual property rules requires suitable international cooperation of relevant stakeholders, including with the private sector. We are committed to identifying ways of facilitating greater access and openness to knowledge, education and culture, including by encouraging continued innovation in legal on line trade in goods and content, that are respectful of intellectual property rights. If you try to "play with words", here are some observations: 1. new is "private sector voluntary codes of best practices" ; 2. instead of "facilitating greater access and openess" the 2012 document speaks in favour of "promoting the free flow of information"; 3. the 2011 language " effective action against violations of IPR in the digital arena, including actions that address present and future infringements" is not repeated in 2012. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm Gesendet: So 20.05.2012 09:54 An: Guru ???? Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: reality check on economics On 20 May, 2012, at 12:40 PM, Guru ???? wrote: I wonder how Consumers International will view the take that increasingly for the big Internet companies like Google and Facebook, 'we' (eyeballs) are the product, and the advertising agencies are the real consumers! Yes, hence the maxim, "If you didn't pay for the product, you are the product." -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 20 06:44:03 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 06:44:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] a reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <4FB8C388.4050403@itforchange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217838E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FB86EA1.7090703@ITforChange.net> <4FB8C388.4050403@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 6:12 AM, parminder wrote: > to add to Fouad's email , > > The minister from Sudan pointed out yesterday, at the CSTD meeting, how any > consumer from Sudan cannot even update anti virus software while operating > form within Sudan because of the US embargo on some countries then they are using the wrong AV software. There are FOSS choices out there not subject to any US embargo...or they could torrent updates using proxies/TOR, etc. ..... Makes a > very clear case for a more distributed Internet and Internet services > ecology that we have today, and for this to happen we need better > international and national policies regarding the Internet. The world is not > ready to live under the neo-colonial rule of the US. So in this case, would you deny a country the ability to conduct foreign policy as they see fit? What would you have a CIRP-like thing do in this case? Would you give it the power to break embargoes? I would rather the intelligence remain at the edge of the network instead of somewhere central. -- 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 Sun May 20 07:40:13 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 16:40:13 +0500 Subject: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan Message-ID: Twitter officially shut down in Pakistan after Ministry of Information Technology and PTA meeting on 19th May 2012 in lieu of religious objections. Still identifying what are the issues and concerns of the authorities around this. -- 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun May 20 08:13:15 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 13:13:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] a reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <4FB8C388.4050403@itforchange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217838E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FB86EA1.7090703@ITforChange.net> <4FB8C388.4050403@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <4FB8C388.4050403 at itforchange.net>, at 15:42:24 on Sun, 20 May 2012, parminder writes >The minister from Sudan pointed out yesterday, at the CSTD meeting, how >any consumer from Sudan cannot even update anti virus software while >operating form within Sudan because of the US embargo on some >countries..... In view of your apparent dislike of politically inspired embargoes, what is your advice to people who would wish to embargo the forthcoming IGF on account of local political issues? -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun May 20 08:59:45 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 12:59:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: G 8 In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD44@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8FFA3EA3-DB0D-4E51-9DC4-D7B821EB2AB3@ciroap.org> <4FB875C7.40603@ITforChange.net> <97FD39A8-E2EC-435B-A42E-47BDDE0A7268@ciroap.org>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD44@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E6B15@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Thanks Wolfgang for deconstructing the 2012 G8 summit declaration. Don't recall if this was discussed on the list when it came out....but now the phraseology 'open Internet' is not just the official FCC way for speaking of that which in the past some (mis- ; )characterized as 'net neutrality' - it's official White House policy too. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/05/02/ensuring-open-internet So a hunch/prediction for 2013 is we see that phrase in the next G8 declaration....depending on presidential politics and other factors, of course. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 6:41 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] G 8 No Internet Discussion in Camp David at the G 8 meeting. In 2011 the G 8 did spend a lot of time to discuss Internet Governance as it was reflected in the "Deauville Declaration" which agreed "for the first time on the leaders level" on a number of principles, including the multistakeholder approach. Here is the Internet Governance text from 2011 (which included enhanced cooperation): " As we support the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance, we call upon all stakeholders to contribute to enhanced cooperation within and between all international fora dealing with the governance of the Internet. In this regard, flexibility and transparency have to be maintained in order to adapt to the fast pace of technological and business developments and uses. Governments have a key role to play in this model." http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/summit/2011deauville/2011-declaration-en.html#internet Did somebody refer to this para. in the rercent UNCSTD EC Consultations? Anyway, in 2012, the G 8 had "no time" to contintue the discussion. They just picked one point: IPR. Here is the relevant text from the Camp David Final Declaration (May 19 2012) "9- Given the importance of intellectual property rights (IPR) to stimulating job and economic growth, we affirm the significance of high standards for IPR protection and enforcement, including through international legal instruments and mutual assistance agreements, as well as through government procurement processes, private-sector voluntary codes of best practices, and enhanced customs cooperation, while promoting the free flow of information. To protect public health and consumer safety, we also commit to exchange information on rogue internet pharmacy sites in accordance with national law and share best practices on combating counterfeit medical products." http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/summit/2012campdavid/g8-declaration.html If you wish to compare with last years statement, here is the text from 2011: 15. With regard to the protection of intellectual property, in particular copyright, trademarks, trade secrets and patents, we recognize the need to have national laws and frameworks for improved enforcement. We are thus renewing our commitment to ensuring effective action against violations of intellectual property rights in the digital arena, including action that addresses present and future infringements. We recognize that the effective implementation of intellectual property rules requires suitable international cooperation of relevant stakeholders, including with the private sector. We are committed to identifying ways of facilitating greater access and openness to knowledge, education and culture, including by encouraging continued innovation in legal on line trade in goods and content, that are respectful of intellectual property rights. If you try to "play with words", here are some observations: 1. new is "private sector voluntary codes of best practices" ; 2. instead of "facilitating greater access and openess" the 2012 document speaks in favour of "promoting the free flow of information"; 3. the 2011 language " effective action against violations of IPR in the digital arena, including actions that address present and future infringements" is not repeated in 2012. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm Gesendet: So 20.05.2012 09:54 An: Guru ???? Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: reality check on economics On 20 May, 2012, at 12:40 PM, Guru ???? wrote: I wonder how Consumers International will view the take that increasingly for the big Internet companies like Google and Facebook, 'we' (eyeballs) are the product, and the advertising agencies are the real consumers! Yes, hence the maxim, "If you didn't pay for the product, you are the product." -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 20 09:06:12 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 09:06:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: not good, not good at all....What mechanism would a CIRP like thing use to stop this sort of thing? Is it likely that gov'ts would give up sovereignty to a CIRP-like body/treaty? On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Twitter officially shut down in Pakistan after Ministry of Information > Technology and PTA meeting on 19th May 2012 in lieu of religious > objections. > > Still identifying what are the issues and concerns of the authorities > around this. Why should we care what their concerns are? Should we not be concerned more with enforcing the right to communicate?? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor > My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ > Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 20 09:24:04 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 09:24:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <4FB86768.3030905@ITforChange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3A25FB52-4B98-443F-BD60-706F79D7CA44@acm.org> <4FB86768.3030905@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: On 19 May 2012, at 23:39, Guru गुरु wrote: > I think you have begun a useful thread of thought - the need for global regulation of business. I did not go that far. I was looking for what could be done at a global level to help avoid local monopolies in information services. I also spoke of global work to help produce local regulatory reform. I do not not advocate global regulation of business. > My question for you is - in the processes of framing national regulation, would you have the concerned companies "on an equal footing" as with the other stakeholders, wherein a verizon or google can veto any definition of net neutrality other than theirs. Yes, I would have them on a equal footing. Being on an equal footing does not allow for any stakeholder to control or veto. Unfortunately outside of perhaps the IETF, being on an equal footing is still a more a goal than a reality, whether the CSTD/IGF where governments have the veto and the ability to do what they want despite the views of the other stakeholders or an ICANN where businesses has prevail for most of its existence, we have not had equal footing (though it is possible ICANN is now moving in a better direction toward equal footing, jury is still out). > How can we ensure regulation/policy making to be based on negotiation of perceptions of public interest? I beleive neither government regulation nor self regulation has really worked. Or could work. So this is a good question, and the one I am asking, given there is a problem and given that one cannot trust governments or companies on their own to serve the public interest, how can we use this new multistakeholder model with all of the stakeholders on an equal footing to achieve the public interest. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sun May 20 09:26:50 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 09:26:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: reality check on economics In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8FFA3EA3-DB0D-4E51-9DC4-D7B821EB2AB3@ciroap.org> <4FB875C7.40603@ITforChange.net> <97FD39A8-E2EC-435B-A42E-47BDDE0A7268@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <33AF31D7-85A2-4785-9F3D-151CC9B3DF33@ella.com> On 20 May 2012, at 05:49, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > And free services is not the real product, its a means to the product, > that is with gmail, I can be accessed and if I can be accessed, my > virtual presence as a gmail account can be sold to advertisers and > content marketers. And for people like me who live in a place where i have a choice, I am aware of the fact that I am paying for these service with my privacy and think about it every-time i click agreement to the terms. the problem is when there is no other choice; Where are the FOOS solutions? And why don't we use them? avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun May 20 09:30:45 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 18:30:45 +0500 Subject: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Twitter officially shutdown in Pakistan - Twitter Banned in Pakistan http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/2012/05/twitter-officially-shutdown-in-pakistan.html On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 6:06 PM, McTim wrote: > not good, not good at all....What mechanism would a CIRP like thing > use to stop this sort of thing?  Is it likely that gov'ts would give > up sovereignty to a CIRP-like body/treaty? > > > > On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> Twitter officially shut down in Pakistan after Ministry of Information >> Technology and PTA meeting on 19th May 2012 in lieu of religious >> objections. >> >> Still identifying what are the issues and concerns of the authorities >> around this. > > Why should we care what their concerns are? > > Should we not be concerned more with enforcing the right to communicate?? > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel > > > >> >> -- >> Regards. >> -------------------------- >> Fouad Bajwa >> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor >> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ >> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 Guru at ITforChange.net Sun May 20 10:11:19 2012 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 19:41:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] reality check on economics In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3A25FB52-4B98-443F-BD60-706F79D7CA44@acm.org> <4FB86768.3030905@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <4FB8FB87.3060103@ITforChange.net> On 20/05/12 18:54, Avri Doria wrote: > On 19 May 2012, at 23:39, Guru गुरु wrote: > >> I think you have begun a useful thread of thought - the need for global regulation of business. > I did not go that far. > > I was looking for what could be done at a global level to help avoid local monopolies in information services. What is the difference between "what could be done at a global level to help avoid local monopolies in information services" and "global regulation". > I also spoke of global work to help produce local regulatory reform. > I do not not advocate global regulation of business. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 20 10:27:08 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 15:27:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] reality check on economics In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3A25FB52-4B98-443F-BD60-706F79D7CA44@acm.org> <4FB86768.3030905@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: In message , at 09:24:04 on Sun, 20 May 2012, Avri Doria writes > Unfortunately outside of perhaps the IETF, being on an equal footing >is still a more a goal than a reality Do governments have an equal say in the IETF? I always presumed it was heavily biassed towards people who could demonstrate a working knowledge of the technology. That's not a criticism of governments, but they might have aspirations which they can't necessarily present in the form of "running code" (because they are lawyers and not programmers). -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sun May 20 10:35:32 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 10:35:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] reality check on economics In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3A25FB52-4B98-443F-BD60-706F79D7CA44@acm.org> <4FB86768.3030905@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <669E63CE-E03B-4FE9-A197-21943202AE50@ella.com> On 20 May 2012, at 10:27, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 09:24:04 on Sun, 20 May 2012, Avri Doria writes >> Unfortunately outside of perhaps the IETF, being on an equal footing >> is still a more a goal than a reality > > Do governments have an equal say in the IETF? I always presumed it was heavily biassed towards people who could demonstrate a working knowledge of the technology. In my experience at the IETF, governments were as likely to contribute people who have a working knowledge as anyone else. I know of very few governments who do not have some very knowledgeable people. True in some case, as with companies and academia, the knowledgeable have trouble finding their way around the mass of idiots, often to do manage to do so - as much in governments as i beleive in any other bureaucratic organization. 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Sun May 20 10:38:32 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 16:38:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <754168CD-EC08-48E1-87C6-FEC3BCDD868D@uzh.ch> On May 20, 2012, at 3:30 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Twitter officially shutdown in Pakistan - Twitter Banned in Pakistan > http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/2012/05/twitter-officially-shutdown-in-pakistan.html If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral body" so that Pakistan would not be forced to take unilateral action merely to shut out this evil monopolist that, with three other sites, controls "much of what is considered to be the Internet today by most people today". On May 13, 2012, at 12:25 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> "The telecommunications minister has ordered the use of domain names >> ending with .ir" belonging to Iran, Asr Ertebatat reported. >> >> The order prohibits banks, insurance firms and telephone firms using >> foreign hosts for their sites or to inform their clients using foreign >> providers such as Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail or MSN, it said. If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral body" so that Iran would not be forced to take unilateral action merely to shut out these evil monopolists... We demand 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 20 10:39:43 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 20:09:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] reality check on economics In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3A25FB52-4B98-443F-BD60-706F79D7CA44@acm.org> <4FB86768.3030905@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <4FB9022F.4060100@itforchange.net> On Sunday 20 May 2012 06:54 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 19 May 2012, at 23:39, Guru गुरु wrote: > > >> I think you have begun a useful thread of thought - the need for global regulation of business. >> > I did not go that far. > > I was looking for what could be done at a global level to help avoid local monopolies in information services. > the monopolies are not local, they are global. If they were local, yes local competition law is all that is needed. But they are not. > I also spoke of global work to help produce local regulatory reform. As above, local regulatory reform are ineffective, esp if you are not the US. The global monopolies are too strong, and local jurisdictions weak in front of them. When Taipie asked Google to operate Android Market as per local consumer law, Google simply withdrew Android Market from Taipie. Increasingly, most jurisdictions cannot sustain withdrawal of monopoly services which are becoming such a big part of daily social existence of people. However, if such issues are taken up at some appropriate global level, governments can pull together their collective strength and can come up with guidelines and principles that address such eventualities..... > > I do not not advocate global regulation of business. > Two issues here . (1) The 'problem' is global, the problem makers being global players with swift feet to move in and out of any jurisdiction. (2) People like you, and I say it because you have made this assertion often, wish to be global citizens. In the circumstances, dislike of global rules and regulation (that comes out of an emerging 'global social compact') is first of all quite inexplicable, and, secondly, just another way of saying, I will let the problem be. Because it cant be solved any other wise. (Same for instance is true about regulating the global financial flow which has caused, and keeps causing, economic havoc, and against which a good part of Europe has started to revolt. ) SNIP > Yes, I would have them on a equal footing. Being on an equal footing does not allow for any stakeholder to control or veto. Unfortunately outside of perhaps the IETF, being on an equal footing is still a more a goal than a reality, For the simple reason that larger public policy making has a very different context than technical policy making. This is the reason, for instance, 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 for this reason, that unlike ICANN for instance, no national telecom regulatory body will ever accept a telecom company rep to be its member. It is simply unthinkable. The 'equal footing' formula upstages this basic democratic principle, and this is why it is unacceptable. This is why I find problems with multi-stakeholderism when it manifestly goes back on democratic principles. If you were advocating more and more civil society participation, and newer and newer concrete and plausible ways of such participation, we both would agree on almost everything. Checking abuse of power by governments is one of the most important jobs of civil society; but this is not to be achieved by becoming vehicles of putting corporates into seats of even more power than they have at present. parminder > I beleive neither government regulation nor self regulation has really worked. Or could work. > > So this is a good question, and the one I am asking, given there is a problem and given that one cannot trust governments or companies on their own to serve the public interest, how can we use this new multistakeholder model with all of the stakeholders on an equal footing to achieve the public interest. > > 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 nigidaad at gmail.com Sun May 20 10:48:27 2012 From: nigidaad at gmail.com (Nighat Dad) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 19:48:27 +0500 Subject: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, Bytes for all, Pakistan has just issued statement against Twitter ban in Pakistan. http://content.bytesforall.pk/node/51 Regards Nighat Dad Lead Researcher, Bytes for all, Pakistan. twitter: @nighatdad skype id: nighat.dad On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 6:06 PM, McTim wrote: > not good, not good at all....What mechanism would a CIRP like thing > use to stop this sort of thing?  Is it likely that gov'ts would give > up sovereignty to a CIRP-like body/treaty? > > > > On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> Twitter officially shut down in Pakistan after Ministry of Information >> Technology and PTA meeting on 19th May 2012 in lieu of religious >> objections. >> >> Still identifying what are the issues and concerns of the authorities >> around this. > > Why should we care what their concerns are? > > Should we not be concerned more with enforcing the right to communicate?? > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel > > > >> >> -- >> Regards. >> -------------------------- >> Fouad Bajwa >> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor >> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ >> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 20 10:52:11 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 10:52:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <4FB8FB87.3060103@ITforChange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3A25FB52-4B98-443F-BD60-706F79D7CA44@acm.org> <4FB86768.3030905@ITforChange.net> <4FB8FB87.3060103@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: On 20 May 2012, at 10:11, Guru गुरु wrote: > On 20/05/12 18:54, Avri Doria wrote: >> On 19 May 2012, at 23:39, Guru गुरु wrote: >> >>> I think you have begun a useful thread of thought - the need for global regulation of business. >> I did not go that far. >> >> I was looking for what could be done at a global level to help avoid local monopolies in information services. > > What is the difference between "what could be done at a global level to help avoid local monopolies in information services" and "global regulation". > >> I also spoke of global work to help produce local regulatory reform. >> I do not not advocate global regulation of business. > Good question. I think this is where we need to be creative in figuring out how to do things. E.g a global regulatory function, e.g ICANN use of contracts, might be tried. I don't think that is has worked as well as hoped*, but I think it is a thought in the right direction. ICANN does not regulate, but oversees a regulatory function that sometimes sort of works. In thinking about a regulatory function that is assisted but not overseen by global multistakeholder work, I think of a situation where the stakeholders can come to rough consensus on guidelines for local, for some definition of local, regulatory functions. In turn, having come to these guidelines on a voluntary and multistakeholder basis, all parties pressure each other at the local level to live up to the rough consensus re-shared to the local context using their own methods: from governments making laws and regulations, to companies giving and withdrawing their investment, technologists shaping protocols to allow for the guidelines to be met (management frameworks etc) and civil society either supporting by buying or going to the streets with Occupy, boycotts and other civil actions and sometimes even voting**. avri * Before you ask: 1) contracts seem to need to be rooted in national law, leaving us with the unfortunate situation of ICANN being anchored in a single country, 2) compliance enforcement is horrid (then again compliance enforcement is a problem in every regulatory system I have ever looked at) both of these could be fixed if ICANN had the will to do so. ** When that mechanism works properly and isn't just another form of propaganda reaction. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 20 11:03:06 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 08:03:06 -0700 Subject: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan In-Reply-To: <754168CD-EC08-48E1-87C6-FEC3BCDD868D@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Quite honestly Bill, the actual meaning/logic of your (I think meant to be) ironic comment escapes me (I read it four times and it still escapes me... (and by my reckoning had either or both of Iran and Pakistan signed on to some global treaty about Internet Rights/rights on the Internet (or something similar) it would I'm assuming, be even a wee bit more difficult for the respectie governments to act in this high-handed way by for example, giving those internally in opposition an international agreement to point to/argue for before the courts; and also give those externally who disagree with those actions some specific context for them to exercise their disagreement; or have I missed something here. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:39 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan On May 20, 2012, at 3:30 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Twitter officially shutdown in Pakistan - Twitter Banned in Pakistan > http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/2012/05/twitter-officially-shu > tdown-in-pakistan.html If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral body" so that Pakistan would not be forced to take unilateral action merely to shut out this evil monopolist that, with three other sites, controls "much of what is considered to be the Internet today by most people today". On May 13, 2012, at 12:25 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> "The telecommunications minister has ordered the use of domain names >> ending with .ir" belonging to Iran, Asr Ertebatat reported. >> >> The order prohibits banks, insurance firms and telephone firms using >> foreign hosts for their sites or to inform their clients using foreign >> providers such as Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail or MSN, it said. If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral body" so that Iran would not be forced to take unilateral action merely to shut out these evil monopolists... We demand 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 avri at acm.org Sun May 20 11:12:37 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 11:12:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <4FB9022F.4060100@itforchange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3A25FB52-4B98-443F-BD60-706F79D7CA44@acm.org> <4FB86768.3030905@ITforChange.net> <4FB9022F.4060100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2C033FF1-75DF-41C3-9D77-6DAEF99938BD@acm.org> On 20 May 2012, at 10:39, parminder wrote: > > Two issues here . (1) The 'problem' is global, the problem makers being global players with swift feet to move in and out of any jurisdiction. > The problem is both global and local. And I think that there is a notion of local market power. Yes, in theory the market is now global, but in reality it is still rather local - obeying different logic depending on the situation on the ground. > (2) People like you, and I say it because you have made this assertion often, wish to be global citizens. > > In the circumstances, dislike of global rules and regulation (that comes out of an emerging 'global social compact') is first of all quite inexplicable, and, secondly, just another way of saying, I will let the problem be. Because it cant be solved any other wise. (Same for instance is true about regulating the global financial flow which has caused, and keeps causing, economic havoc, and against which a good part of Europe has started to revolt. ) Yes, I wish I could be a global citizen* and try to behave as if I were. But I also admit that this is a desire and an intention not a reality. I also admit that I travel on a US passport and live in the US most of the time and am subject to US laws. I do not delude myself into thinking that I am a global citizen, not matter how much I wish it were possible to be one. But I am also a strong believer in bottom up direct democratic organization with a great degree of scalability. This means that there have to be local autonomous structures that cooperate with other such structures, in both a multilateral and aggregate sense. Since we have not yet figured out how to have democratic local structures, we currently have bureaucratic-representive local structures called governments - something I have frequently referred to as a necessary evil at this stage of human development. I beleive that while the guidelines need to global, the implementation and deployment of these regulatory frameworks must be tuned to the local realities and based on local scaling properties. I do not beleive there is a global one size fits all regulatory implementation. So yes, I beleive we need to figure out how to give a global mutilstakehoder assist to the local regulatory function in support of the public interest. avri * I have said on many private occasions, and i don't try to deny it, that i would trade my local right to vote for a global right to live, work, associate and speak anywhere. But I realize that this possibility does not exist in this world, as this world has yet become the best of all possible worlds. So I am happy enough with my US passport at this point in time, it at least allows for fairly free travel. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 20 11:21:31 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 16:21:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <669E63CE-E03B-4FE9-A197-21943202AE50@ella.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3A25FB52-4B98-443F-BD60-706F79D7CA44@acm.org> <4FB86768.3030905@ITforChange.net> <669E63CE-E03B-4FE9-A197-21943202AE50@ella.com> Message-ID: In message <669E63CE-E03B-4FE9-A197-21943202AE50 at ella.com>, at 10:35:32 on Sun, 20 May 2012, Avri Doria writes >>> Unfortunately outside of perhaps the IETF, being on an equal footing >>> is still a more a goal than a reality >> >> Do governments have an equal say in the IETF? I always presumed it was heavily biassed towards people who could demonstrate a working >>knowledge of the technology. > >In my experience at the IETF, governments were as likely to contribute people who have a working knowledge as anyone else. I know of very few >governments who do not have some very knowledgeable people. True in some case, as with companies and academia, the knowledgeable have trouble >finding their way around the mass of idiots, often to do manage to do so - as much in governments as i beleive in any other bureaucratic >organization. Does that mean you agree that the only people likely to make an impact are geeks (employed by Governments)? It's a bit harsh to characterise non-geeks as "idiots", by the way. That's typical of why venues like the IETF are seen as hostile by policymakers who understand the law (which very few geeks do). What's needed is a way to bridge this divide, not emphasise 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 avri at ella.com Sun May 20 11:29:50 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 11:29:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] reality check on economics In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3A25FB52-4B98-443F-BD60-706F79D7CA44@acm.org> <4FB86768.3030905@ITforChange.net> <669E63CE-E03B-4FE9-A197-21943202AE50@ella.com> Message-ID: Hi, You are twisting my words. Nothing new there. We all do it sometimes. So I forgive you. In the technical environment geeks are usually the way to go. This is not the case of other environments. Many geeks are idiots when out of their milieu. As for idiots, we all can become idiots in some fame of reference or other. And no, I am not calling all non geeks idiots. Only the ones who enter an environment they know nothing about while proclaiming their knowledge. cheers, avri On 20 May 2012, at 11:21, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <669E63CE-E03B-4FE9-A197-21943202AE50 at ella.com>, at 10:35:32 on Sun, 20 May 2012, Avri Doria writes >>>> Unfortunately outside of perhaps the IETF, being on an equal footing >>>> is still a more a goal than a reality >>> >>> Do governments have an equal say in the IETF? I always presumed it was heavily biassed towards people who could demonstrate a working >>> knowledge of the technology. >> >> In my experience at the IETF, governments were as likely to contribute people who have a working knowledge as anyone else. I know of very few >> governments who do not have some very knowledgeable people. True in some case, as with companies and academia, the knowledgeable have trouble >> finding their way around the mass of idiots, often to do manage to do so - as much in governments as i beleive in any other bureaucratic >> organization. > > Does that mean you agree that the only people likely to make an impact are geeks (employed by Governments)? It's a bit harsh to characterise non-geeks as "idiots", by the way. That's typical of why venues like the IETF are seen as hostile by policymakers who understand the law (which very few geeks do). > > What's needed is a way to bridge this divide, not emphasise it. > -- > 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Sun May 20 11:36:07 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 17:36:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <66B33768-F3C4-460C-A388-B469BD0BB9FC@uzh.ch> Hi Mike Sorry, didn't think it was obscure. These are among the governments that would like "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical infrastructure" to be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral body." There's not much chance that such a body would produce a global treaty about Internet Rights/rights on the Internet that would constrain them, when what they plainly want is a mechanism that strengthens sovereign control and gives them international cover in taking such actions. Best, Bill On May 20, 2012, at 5:03 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Quite honestly Bill, the actual meaning/logic of your (I think meant to be) > ironic comment escapes me (I read it four times and it still escapes me... > > (and by my reckoning had either or both of Iran and Pakistan signed on to > some global treaty about Internet Rights/rights on the Internet (or > something similar) it would I'm assuming, be even a wee bit more difficult > for the respectie governments to act in this high-handed way by for example, > giving those internally in opposition an international agreement to point > to/argue for before the courts; and also give those externally who disagree > with those actions some specific context for them to exercise their > disagreement; or have I missed something here. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:39 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in > Pakistan > > > On May 20, 2012, at 3:30 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> Twitter officially shutdown in Pakistan - Twitter Banned in Pakistan >> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/2012/05/twitter-officially-shu >> tdown-in-pakistan.html > > > If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical > infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and > participative multilateral body" so that Pakistan would not be forced to > take unilateral action merely to shut out this evil monopolist that, with > three other sites, controls "much of what is considered to be the Internet > today by most people today". > > > On May 13, 2012, at 12:25 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > >>> >>> "The telecommunications minister has ordered the use of domain names >>> ending with .ir" belonging to Iran, Asr Ertebatat reported. >>> >>> The order prohibits banks, insurance firms and telephone firms using >>> foreign hosts for their sites or to inform their clients using foreign >>> providers such as Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail or MSN, it said. > > > If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical > infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and > participative multilateral body" so that Iran would not be forced to take > unilateral action merely to shut out these evil monopolists... > > We demand 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 andrea at digitalpolicy.it Sun May 20 11:38:16 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 17:38:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan In-Reply-To: <754168CD-EC08-48E1-87C6-FEC3BCDD868D@uzh.ch> References: <754168CD-EC08-48E1-87C6-FEC3BCDD868D@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Dear Bill, dear all, Speaking on a purely personal basis and without referring specifically to the CIRP proposal (which, to my understanding, was not and is not meant as a legislative instrument) what would be the effect of an agreement stipulating (a) certain basic conditions that must be met by service providers in a jurisdiction, (b) that signatories could not block services except outside clearly defined and circumscribed circumstances? This is not that different from the EU "single market" approach and it has not worked so bad for us - if you compare it to the previous situatuon and certainly not for lack of protectionist tendencies by EU Member States. Best, Andrea On May 20, 2012 4:39 PM, "William Drake" wrote: > On May 20, 2012, at 3:30 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > > Twitter officially shutdown in Pakistan - Twitter Banned in Pakistan > > > http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/2012/05/twitter-officially-shutdown-in-pakistan.html > > > If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical > infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and > participative multilateral body" so that Pakistan would not be forced to > take unilateral action merely to shut out this evil monopolist that, with > three other sites, controls "much of what is considered to be the Internet > today by most people today". > > > On May 13, 2012, at 12:25 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > >> > >> "The telecommunications minister has ordered the use of domain names > >> ending with .ir" belonging to Iran, Asr Ertebatat reported. > >> > >> The order prohibits banks, insurance firms and telephone firms using > >> foreign hosts for their sites or to inform their clients using foreign > >> providers such as Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail or MSN, it said. > > > If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical > infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and > participative multilateral body" so that Iran would not be forced to take > unilateral action merely to shut out these evil monopolists... > > We demand it! > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 20 11:41:55 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 08:41:55 -0700 Subject: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan In-Reply-To: <66B33768-F3C4-460C-A388-B469BD0BB9FC@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <887ABA6B662D4EC198163729FF35AAE0@UserVAIO> Bill, Is this a fact that Iran and Pakistann have indicated that they "would like 'the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical infrastructure" to be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral body.'" If so would it be possible to share the reference and if possible a listing of all the other countries that have similarly indicated this as a preference. Tks, M -----Original Message----- From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch] Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 8:36 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan Hi Mike, Sorry, didn't think it was obscure. These are among the governments that would like "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical infrastructure" to be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral body." There's not much chance that such a body would produce a global treaty about Internet Rights/rights on the Internet that would constrain them, when what they plainly want is a mechanism that strengthens sovereign control and gives them international cover in taking such actions. Best, Bill On May 20, 2012, at 5:03 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Quite honestly Bill, the actual meaning/logic of your (I think meant > to be) ironic comment escapes me (I read it four times and it still > escapes me... > > (and by my reckoning had either or both of Iran and Pakistan signed on > to some global treaty about Internet Rights/rights on the Internet (or > something similar) it would I'm assuming, be even a wee bit more > difficult for the respectie governments to act in this high-handed way > by for example, giving those internally in opposition an international > agreement to point to/argue for before the courts; and also give those > externally who disagree with those actions some specific context for > them to exercise their disagreement; or have I missed something here. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William > Drake > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:39 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in > Pakistan > > > On May 20, 2012, at 3:30 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> Twitter officially shutdown in Pakistan - Twitter Banned in Pakistan >> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/2012/05/twitter-officially-sh >> u >> tdown-in-pakistan.html > > > If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and > logical infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, > democratic and participative multilateral body" so that Pakistan would > not be forced to take unilateral action merely to shut out this evil > monopolist that, with three other sites, controls "much of what is > considered to be the Internet today by most people today". > > > On May 13, 2012, at 12:25 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > >>> >>> "The telecommunications minister has ordered the use of domain names >>> ending with .ir" belonging to Iran, Asr Ertebatat reported. >>> >>> The order prohibits banks, insurance firms and telephone firms using >>> foreign hosts for their sites or to inform their clients using >>> foreign providers such as Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail or MSN, it said. > > > If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and > logical infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, > democratic and participative multilateral body" so that Iran would not > be forced to take unilateral action merely to shut out these evil > monopolists... > > We demand 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun May 20 12:01:50 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 18:01:50 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] reality check on economics References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3A25FB52-4B98-443F-BD60-706F79D7CA44@acm.org> <4FB86768.3030905@ITforChange.net> <669E63CE-E03B-4FE9-A197-21943202AE50@ella.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD4F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: So 20.05.2012 17:29 An: IGC Betreff: Re: [governance] reality check on economics Hi, You are twisting my words. Nothing new there. We all do it sometimes. So I forgive you. In the technical environment geeks are usually the way to go. This is not the case of other environments. Many geeks are idiots when out of their milieu. As for idiots, we all can become idiots in some fame of reference or other. And no, I am not calling all non geeks idiots. Only the ones who enter an environment they know nothing about while proclaiming their knowledge. cheers, avri On 20 May 2012, at 11:21, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <669E63CE-E03B-4FE9-A197-21943202AE50 at ella.com>, at 10:35:32 on Sun, 20 May 2012, Avri Doria writes >>>> Unfortunately outside of perhaps the IETF, being on an equal footing >>>> is still a more a goal than a reality >>> >>> Do governments have an equal say in the IETF? I always presumed it was heavily biassed towards people who could demonstrate a working >>> knowledge of the technology. >> >> In my experience at the IETF, governments were as likely to contribute people who have a working knowledge as anyone else. I know of very few >> governments who do not have some very knowledgeable people. True in some case, as with companies and academia, the knowledgeable have trouble >> finding their way around the mass of idiots, often to do manage to do so - as much in governments as i beleive in any other bureaucratic >> organization. > > Does that mean you agree that the only people likely to make an impact are geeks (employed by Governments)? It's a bit harsh to characterise non-geeks as "idiots", by the way. That's typical of why venues like the IETF are seen as hostile by policymakers who understand the law (which very few geeks do). > > What's needed is a way to bridge this divide, not emphasise it. > -- > Roland Perry > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 20 12:03:00 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 21:33:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FB915B4.1030207@itforchange.net> Bill, I too missed what exactly you are pointing to... However, since you are parodying the statement issued by IT for Change and others (and supported by 66 organisations and 117 other individuals), apropos Michael's email, I must direct your attention to the fact that the statement seeks such a global Internet body to act primarily on the basis of human rights. Incidentally, even India's CIRP proposal, among its 7 listed functions has the following function: promotion and protection of all human rights, namely, civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, including the Right to Development; We all do know that governments do all kinds of things, do we therefore then refuse to agree to constitute them at all, and certainly refuse to vote.... Do you take and practise such an anarchic view with respect to your own national politics. If not, why so? One can easily construct many such parodies vis a vis the US government,and what it implies to vote in any government at all for governing the US. Why do such anarchic dispositions rise up only when global politics is concerned. Is it a fear by the rich parts of the world of having to share the undue benefits and advantages that they may be sitting on? Parminder On Sunday 20 May 2012 08:33 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Quite honestly Bill, the actual meaning/logic of your (I think meant to be) > ironic comment escapes me (I read it four times and it still escapes me... > > (and by my reckoning had either or both of Iran and Pakistan signed on to > some global treaty about Internet Rights/rights on the Internet (or > something similar) it would I'm assuming, be even a wee bit more difficult > for the respectie governments to act in this high-handed way by for example, > giving those internally in opposition an international agreement to point > to/argue for before the courts; and also give those externally who disagree > with those actions some specific context for them to exercise their > disagreement; or have I missed something here. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:39 AM > To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in > Pakistan > > > On May 20, 2012, at 3:30 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > >> Twitter officially shutdown in Pakistan - Twitter Banned in Pakistan >> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/2012/05/twitter-officially-shu >> tdown-in-pakistan.html >> > If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical > infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and > participative multilateral body" so that Pakistan would not be forced to > take unilateral action merely to shut out this evil monopolist that, with > three other sites, controls "much of what is considered to be the Internet > today by most people today". > > > On May 13, 2012, at 12:25 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > >>> "The telecommunications minister has ordered the use of domain names >>> ending with .ir" belonging to Iran, Asr Ertebatat reported. >>> >>> The order prohibits banks, insurance firms and telephone firms using >>> foreign hosts for their sites or to inform their clients using foreign >>> providers such as Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail or MSN, it said. >>> > If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical > infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and > participative multilateral body" so that Iran would not be forced to take > unilateral action merely to shut out these evil monopolists... > > We demand it! > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 20 12:03:16 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 21:33:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FB915C4.3040707@itforchange.net> , Bill, I too missed what exactly you are pointing to... However, since you are parodying the statement issued by IT for Change and others (and supported by 66 organisations and 117 other individuals), apropos Michael's email, I must direct your attention to the fact that the statement seeks such a global Internet body to act primarily on the basis of human rights. Incidentally, even India's CIRP proposal, among its 7 listed functions has the following function: promotion and protection of all human rights, namely, civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, including the Right to Development; We all do know that governments do all kinds of things, do we therefore then refuse to agree to constitute them at all, and certainly refuse to vote.... Do you take and practise such an anarchic view with respect to your own national politics. If not, why so? One can easily construct many such parodies vis a vis the US government,and what it implies to vote in any government at all for governing the US. Why do such anarchic dispositions rise up only when global politics is concerned. Is it a fear by the rich parts of the world of having to share the undue benefits and advantages that they may be sitting on? Parminder On Sunday 20 May 2012 08:33 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Quite honestly Bill, the actual meaning/logic of your (I think meant to be) > ironic comment escapes me (I read it four times and it still escapes me... > > (and by my reckoning had either or both of Iran and Pakistan signed on to > some global treaty about Internet Rights/rights on the Internet (or > something similar) it would I'm assuming, be even a wee bit more difficult > for the respectie governments to act in this high-handed way by for example, > giving those internally in opposition an international agreement to point > to/argue for before the courts; and also give those externally who disagree > with those actions some specific context for them to exercise their > disagreement; or have I missed something here. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:39 AM > To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in > Pakistan > > > On May 20, 2012, at 3:30 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > >> Twitter officially shutdown in Pakistan - Twitter Banned in Pakistan >> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/2012/05/twitter-officially-shu >> tdown-in-pakistan.html >> > If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical > infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and > participative multilateral body" so that Pakistan would not be forced to > take unilateral action merely to shut out this evil monopolist that, with > three other sites, controls "much of what is considered to be the Internet > today by most people today". > > > On May 13, 2012, at 12:25 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > >>> "The telecommunications minister has ordered the use of domain names >>> ending with .ir" belonging to Iran, Asr Ertebatat reported. >>> >>> The order prohibits banks, insurance firms and telephone firms using >>> foreign hosts for their sites or to inform their clients using foreign >>> providers such as Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail or MSN, it said. >>> > If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical > infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and > participative multilateral body" so that Iran would not be forced to take > unilateral action merely to shut out these evil monopolists... > > We demand it! > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun May 20 12:23:24 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 17:23:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] reality check on economics In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3A25FB52-4B98-443F-BD60-706F79D7CA44@acm.org> <4FB86768.3030905@ITforChange.net> <669E63CE-E03B-4FE9-A197-21943202AE50@ella.com> Message-ID: In message , at 11:29:50 on Sun, 20 May 2012, Avri Doria writes >You are twisting my words. Nothing new there. We all do it sometimes. So I forgive you. > >In the technical environment geeks are usually the way to go. >This is not the case of other environments. >Many geeks are idiots when out of their milieu. > >As for idiots, we all can become idiots in some fame of reference or other. >And no, I am not calling all non geeks idiots. >Only the ones who enter an environment they know nothing about while proclaiming their knowledge. A lawyer can proclaim knowledge of the law (quite justifiably) when entering a technical environment where they nothing about the technology. But they do know what the technology should deliver (eg: privacy and security). Surely their opinion about that is as valuable as the technologists'? -- 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun May 20 13:19:21 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 22:19:21 +0500 Subject: [governance] reality check on economics In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3A25FB52-4B98-443F-BD60-706F79D7CA44@acm.org> <4FB86768.3030905@ITforChange.net> <669E63CE-E03B-4FE9-A197-21943202AE50@ella.com> Message-ID: Recalling the past, the largest tinker labs we used to run were at the government offices where I worked and usually in the evenings since we had all the idle computers and cluster power to ourselves to test and secure the financial government networks both online and offline! I was given, by then Pakistan's President, a recognition for keeping online the financial e-government, stock exchanges, revenue and securities exchange. We were treated as engineers and technical professionals, not idiots. That was 2003, ten years ago....and the world is a different place for us, ICT and IG! On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 11:29:50 on > Sun, 20 May 2012, Avri Doria writes > >> You are twisting my words. Nothing new there.  We all do it sometimes. So >> I forgive you. >> >> In the technical environment geeks are usually the way to go. >> This is not the case of other environments. >> Many geeks are idiots when out of their milieu. >> >> As for idiots, we all can become idiots in some fame of reference or >> other. >> And no, I am not calling all non geeks idiots. >> Only the ones who enter an environment they know nothing about while >> proclaiming their knowledge. > > > A lawyer can proclaim knowledge of the law (quite justifiably) when entering > a technical environment where they nothing about the technology. > > But they do know what the technology should deliver (eg: privacy and > security). Surely their opinion about that is as valuable as the > technologists'? > > -- > 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 > -- 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 avri at acm.org Sun May 20 13:32:23 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 13:32:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD4F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3A25FB52-4B98-443F-BD60-706F79D7CA44@acm.org> <4FB86768.3030905@ITforChange.net> <669E63CE-E03B-4FE9-A197-21943202AE50@ella.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD4F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <1D5155C9-2507-43E8-8AD6-48A22FB4C632@acm.org> On 20 May 2012, at 12:01, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > see: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot I think "someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way." works quite well as a definition. It is pretty close to the definition I have in mind when I use the term. Though I admit I would expand the definition to be area and context dependent. Someone can be the leading intellectual light on one topic and a complete idiot (see definition above) on another. As I said, i think we are all probably idiots (see definition above) in some context and from some point of reference. Life long learning is about the attempt to minimize the number of occasions where this occurs. And I doubt many of us achieve a totally idiot free state of being in the course of our lifetime. Though of course I am not capable of judging the Relative Idiocy Quotient *of any other person. On 20 May 2012, at 12:23, Roland Perry wrote: > A lawyer can proclaim knowledge of the law (quite justifiably) when entering a technical environment where they nothing about the technology. > > But they do know what the technology should deliver (eg: privacy and security). Surely their opinion about that is as valuable as the technologists'? Possibly, but not if s/he comes in proclaiming that s/he understands the technology. There are however, many lawyers who are capable of understanding the technology and who do so. They belong there, and are there, as much as anyone else. avri * Relative Idiocy Quotient - Ratio of areas you know something about and productively contribute to to areas in which you know little or nothing and behave in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sun May 20 13:42:41 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 13:42:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD4F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3A25FB52-4B98-443F-BD60-706F79D7CA44@acm.org> <4FB86768.3030905@ITforChange.net> <669E63CE-E03B-4FE9-A197-21943202AE50@ella.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD4F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: On 20 May 2012, at 12:01, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > see: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot > > wolfgang > PS. Maybe I missed the point, is 'idiot', Yet Another Word (YAW) that we are now supposed to remove from the lexicon because it might hurt someone's feelings? avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Sun May 20 14:21:16 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 15:21:16 -0300 Subject: RES: [governance] IGC Statement for CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <26419.1337351635@fmai.org> Message-ID: <005401cd36b5$640b6020$2c222060$@uol.com.br> Though I do agree with your statement and would consider as a good one for an CSIGC representative, thanks for the clarification to whom was not there it is relevant to know. Best, 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: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] Em nome de Izumi AIZU Enviada em: sábado, 19 de maio de 2012 04:57 Para: governance Assunto: Re: [governance] IGC Statement for CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation Dear list, Though I wrote below "CS IGC Statement" and I introduced myself as one of the co-coordinators of the CS IGC, I did not explicitly said "Here is the IGC statement" if I remember correctly. There might be the transcript archive to check, but I don't know if that is available. I did not say "I speak only for myself". I am sure people in the room did think I was representing the IGC. So, if I gave you the wrong impression that it was an IGC Statement with full consensus of the list, it was not. I thought that was clear from my presentation and also texts I read, but I like to clarify that here again. Thank you, and I will leave Geneve in two hours time. izumi 2012/5/19 Izumi AIZU : > All, > > Izumi Aizu > This is close to what I read just 10 min ago: > > [Chair intervened in the middle of my talk, go to EC, but I responded > back that that is about EC] > > IGC Statement for CSTED Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation > > Thank you Chair person for finally giving the floor. I say “Finally”. > My name is Izumi Aizu living in Tokyo and also in global cyberspace at > the same time like many of you. > I am one of the two co-coordinators of the Civil Society Internet > Governance Caucus which was established during the first phase of WSIS > in 2003 as part of all CS families, and is remaining engaged in > Internet Governance related activities such as IGF, CSTD WG on IGF > improvements and this meeting. > > We are encouraged to see the evidence of constructive dialogue around > EC here. However, we are also very disappointed today to see that > priority was given to governments and all non-governmental > stakeholders, civil society one of them, were put on hold, or in the > second class until this late afternoon. This is neither on equal > footing or respecting the roles. We will not accept this working > modality if that is the next step on EC since it is not really MSH at > all. > > We are proud that the Civil Society on the planet today is as diverse > as the mankind. We have quite a few active members from the South, - > three civil society speakers this morning, Anriette, Parminder and > Marilia are all active member of our caucus, and they are all from the > south. We have also many members from the north, North as well as from > the East and the West as well as gender and other diversities. > > When it comes to specifics, our diversity is often reflected in our > different views, as was shown from our three excellent speakers this > morning. We share the similar challenges to governments and other > stakeholders. > > But now our “bottom-line” is, > - keep the principles endorsed by the Tunis Agenda, especially, to > hold to the principles – that means - > > Many CS members support the principle of OPEN, Multi-stakeholder > global governance and the need for IG forums where all stakeholders > are equally, and effectively represented not only in its > participation, but also to the decision making or consensus building > > Some WG proposals we heard today seems to have broad support among CS, > yet there are different opinions in its functions, anchorage, and > operational modality. I think devils are in the details. > > We hope to see the further productive dialogue, one way or other in a > truly open forum allowing all stakeholders to reach consensus on equal > footing of this difficult challenge of Enhanced Cooperation. > > Thank you. --                      >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun May 20 15:17:46 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 12:17:46 -0700 Subject: [governance] reality check on economics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5340B8B8A50E4214B523577B8F97A449@UserVAIO> BTW, I think that this discussion on "monopoly" while interesting and useful is based on a significant red herring plopped on the IGC cutting board by Milton. The original note and the subsequent discussion by Parminder and others around the ITfC declaration was not by my reading about "monopoly" in the narrow economic sense but rather around the uncontrolled and so far uncontrollable power (economic, political, technical, communicative, informational etc.) that monopolies or near monopolies in the Internet space are being entrusted with given the overall significance, value and power that the Internet has acquired and is continuing to acquire in the daily lives of people, groups, communities, countries etc.etc. in every corner of the world. I think that it is very difficult to dispute this ITfC (and other's) position and the need for some form of democratic, transparent and accountable framework to ensure that this power is not used in an irresponsible, repressive, quixotic, destructive, completely self-interested way either by corporations or by governments or by rogue elements of civil society for that matter. If for no other reason than that the Internet is so significant and its continued effective functioning is becoming so central as an electronic infrastructure for the well-being and future of mankind some globally legitimate means needs to be found to "govern" it in the interests of all. Whether that is through a mechanism such as CIRP (which I don't personally see as being feasible) or some other yet to be determined vehicle (as I've mentioned before I'm increasingly attracted to the norm based OGP framework) is a matter of negotiation and evolution. That such a mechanism is absolutely and unarguably necessary and sooner rather later seems to me to be self-evident except to those whose ideological, self-interested or commercial blinkers are so strong as to make them blind to reality. And moreover I would have thought that those who have a genuine rather than just a rhetorical interest in managing the egregious behaviour of Internet rogue states would be the most interested in a framework of norms and their operationalization as a way of putting globally actionable boundaries around those outcomes. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:52 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] reality check on economics On 20 May 2012, at 10:11, Guru गुरु wrote: > On 20/05/12 18:54, Avri Doria wrote: >> On 19 May 2012, at 23:39, Guru गुरु wrote: >> >>> I think you have begun a useful thread of thought - the need for >>> global regulation of business. >> I did not go that far. >> >> I was looking for what could be done at a global level to help avoid >> local monopolies in information services. > > What is the difference between "what could be done at a global level > to help avoid local monopolies in information services" and "global > regulation". > >> I also spoke of global work to help produce local regulatory reform. >> I do not not advocate global regulation of business. > Good question. I think this is where we need to be creative in figuring out how to do things. E.g a global regulatory function, e.g ICANN use of contracts, might be tried. I don't think that is has worked as well as hoped*, but I think it is a thought in the right direction. ICANN does not regulate, but oversees a regulatory function that sometimes sort of works. In thinking about a regulatory function that is assisted but not overseen by global multistakeholder work, I think of a situation where the stakeholders can come to rough consensus on guidelines for local, for some definition of local, regulatory functions. In turn, having come to these guidelines on a voluntary and multistakeholder basis, all parties pressure each other at the local level to live up to the rough consensus re-shared to the local context using their own methods: from governments making laws and regulations, to companies giving and withdrawing their investment, technologists shaping protocols to allow for the guidelines to be met (management frameworks etc) and civil society either supporting by buying or going to the streets with Occupy, boycotts and other civil actions and sometimes even voting**. avri * Before you ask: 1) contracts seem to need to be rooted in national law, leaving us with the unfortunate situation of ICANN being anchored in a single country, 2) compliance enforcement is horrid (then again compliance enforcement is a problem in every regulatory system I have ever looked at) both of these could be fixed if ICANN had the will to do so. ** When that mechanism works properly and isn't just another form of propaganda reaction. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun May 20 15:57:51 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 19:57:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <4FB875C7.40603@ITforChange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8FFA3EA3-DB0D-4E51-9DC4-D7B821EB2AB3@ciroap.org> <4FB875C7.40603@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2179364@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> This is a valid observation, but the lack of historical perspective amazes me, sometimes. Most commercial broadcasting has operated on the same principle for years. And, in fact, so have many newspapers. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Guru ???? Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 12:41 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] Re: reality check on economics I wonder how Consumers International will view the take that increasingly for the big Internet companies like Google and Facebook, 'we' (eyeballs) are the product, and the advertising agencies are the real consumers! The result of a media space being 'paid' almost entirely by private funding (advertising) with very little public funding or subscriptions. And what would be the need/role for regulation in such a case.... regards, Guru On 19/05/12 06:09, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: On 19/05/2012, at 12:51 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: Monopolies aren't the only firms who act against the global public interest(s), so too do run-of-the-mill firms in a competitive market. Typically, a competitive market means that consumers can avoid or punish such firms by abandoning them because of their bad practices. s/Typically/Theoretically/ Moreover, I do not see run-of-the-mill firms and run of the mill consumer protection issues being targeted in these sweeping statements calling for "democratic" governance of the internet - I see specific leading companies being called monopolies. Sure, I agree with you that that is inaccurate. But I think all that is meant, in non-specialist terms, is that those leading companies have dominant market power, so that what competition exists is ineffective. Sometimes this market power is first mover advantage, sometimes dumb luck, usually network effects. I'm not convinced that Skype has the best VoIP service, Facebook the best social networking platform or Twitter the best microblog. But because they are so entrenched, Microsoft can add interception capability to Skype (see http://skype-open-source.blogspot.com/), Facebook can encroach further and further upon our privacy, and Twitter can... do bad stuff that thankfully they haven't tried yet. would have to include the US here. For example, the use of lengthy and legalistic terms and conditions that detract from consumer rights is rife online, and this is something that US law explicitly allows. In other Indeed, that is a continuing point of controversy. But there is an additional burden of proof: at what political level is it best to alter such things? There is a robust culture and tradition of consumer activism in the US. What makes you think consumers will get a better deal at a global level? We (by which I mean, the stakeholders collectively at the global level) might want to be able to agree on some set of principles for online businesses that operate across borders, that would set minimum standards for consumer protection that may exceed those in the country from which the business operates. If the business doesn't want to adhere to those standards, it can still operate domestically. In practice this already happens to some extent, eg. with EU privacy law and the safe harbor, but what about the rest of the world? jurisdictions, there is regulation of unfair contract terms, recognising the fictitious nature of freedom of contract between consumers and large firms. But the dominance of US online businesses effectively trumps these protections elsewhere in the world. But if these markets are competitive then no one is requiring consumers to use those online businesses, no? So we are back to the problem of monopoly Not all of the abuses of their market power affect competition in the marketplace; they may "just" affect consumer or broader human rights, so competition law does not come into play. On 19/05/2012, at 12:11 AM, McTim wrote: On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: Monopolies aren't the only firms who act against the global public interest(s), so too do run-of-the-mill firms in a competitive market. both monopolies and "run of the mill" firms are also end-users in the sense that they are allowed to run their networks and set their ToS as they wish. To the extent that they are allowed to do so. What constraints are placed upon them doing so is a policy decision. Not all of their abuses are checked by competition law. Not all are abusive. Not all abuses are abusive? My mind is spinning. -- 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 Sun May 20 16:11:20 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 20:11:20 +0000 Subject: [governance] reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <4FB86768.3030905@ITforChange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3A25FB52-4B98-443F-BD60-706F79D7CA44@acm.org> <4FB86768.3030905@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2179386@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > have not researched it myself, that in many areas in Asia and Africa, > and perhaps some in the Americas and Europe, large parts of the > population are captive of one company or another, i.e some of these > companies get local monopoly, for some definition of local. [Milton L Mueller] Well, that's a very important distinction. How you define a market very strongly affects what level of competition is found to exist in it. But of course it is true that there are localized monopolies. I am surprised by Guru's conclusion (below, in response) that the answer to local monopolies is global regulation of business. Let me try to concretize for Guru what this means. Let's say there is a cartel or monopoly of some kind over telecom equipment production for the international market in an Indian state. That monopoly - if indeed it has monopoly power - is likely to be politically popular and politically protected locally. (Need I remind you of the controversy over allowing multinational retailers into India's cartelized local scene?) That is, the monopoly profits that are being made can easily be directed to local politicians, may create higher than market wages for the local workers and higher local tax revenues. If the consumers of these services, who pay too much, are diffused all over the world, and the suppliers/beneficiaries of market power are concentrated locally, then yes, it is unlikely that local political and regulatory institutions will respond properly. So, we need global institutions. We do have institutions for global regulation of business now. One of them is called the World Trade Organization, which tries to prevent national governments from discriminating against foreign entrants. But somehow, I get the feeling that the WTO is not too popular among the economic populists calling for global regulation of Internet businesses. But, maybe I am wrong, perhaps Parminder has discovered (belatedly) the virtues of neoliberal economic policies and is seeking to expand these benefits to the Internet domain. > > > > The question i have then, beyond the regional/local problem of > countries etc that allow such local capture, is there a global way to > help with this. I think there may be, and thus it is worth discussing. > Except for a very few companies, and these rather incompletely, most > companies do not make social ethics a high priority and thus will take > market power whenever they can, by whatever means they can get it. > Unfortunately, it is only regulatory frameworks that stop most companies > from this sort of behavior. So what can be done at a global level to > keep local/regional monopolies from happening. > > > > avri > > > Avri, > > I think you have begun a useful thread of thought - the need for global > regulation of business. This is an extension of the national regulation > of business, to a global space as the Internet, and much required. The > lack of global regulation has led to so many abuses of market power and > political power. > > My question for you is - in the processes of framing national > regulation, would you have the concerned companies "on an equal footing" > as with the other stakeholders, wherein a verizon or google can veto any > definition of net neutrality other than theirs. Or is it that each > stakeholder group has an important yet distinct role - and that of > business is certainly to forward arguments for their practices and > provide any expertise... but business given their very nature/need to > maximise their shareholder wealth cannot be expected to protect public > interest or 'make social ethics their priority' as you put it. What is > the implication of this for defining the nature of MSH? > > You must be familiar with the ALEC lobbying efforts in USA, and the > impact on US regulation in the past few years. How can we ensure > regulation/policy making to be based on negotiation of perceptions of > public interest? What would be the implications of allowing powerful > corporates 'equal place' at the policy table? How would it work? > > regards > Guru > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun May 20 16:13:55 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 20:13:55 +0000 Subject: [governance] reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <5340B8B8A50E4214B523577B8F97A449@UserVAIO> References: <5340B8B8A50E4214B523577B8F97A449@UserVAIO> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2179396@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Michael, When I read your statement below, all I can get from it is that you are reserving the right to call something a "monopoly" irrespective of the economic definition, based on criteria that you have just made up, which I translate as follows: a monopoly is something that has no economic power necessarily but which nevertheless makes me feel vaguely threatened in some way. Did I get it right? > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 3:18 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: RE: [governance] reality check on economics > > BTW, I think that this discussion on "monopoly" while interesting and > useful is based on a significant red herring plopped on the IGC cutting > board by Milton. > > The original note and the subsequent discussion by Parminder and others > around the ITfC declaration was not by my reading about "monopoly" in > the narrow economic sense but rather around the uncontrolled and so far > uncontrollable power (economic, political, technical, communicative, > informational etc.) that monopolies or near monopolies in the Internet > space are being entrusted with given the overall significance, value and > power that the Internet has acquired and is continuing to acquire in the > daily lives of people, groups, communities, countries etc.etc. in every > corner of the world. > > I think that it is very difficult to dispute this ITfC (and other's) > position and the need for some form of democratic, transparent and > accountable framework to ensure that this power is not used in an > irresponsible, repressive, quixotic, destructive, completely self- > interested way either by corporations or by governments or by rogue > elements of civil society for that matter. > > If for no other reason than that the Internet is so significant and its > continued effective functioning is becoming so central as an electronic > infrastructure for the well-being and future of mankind some globally > legitimate means needs to be found to "govern" it in the interests of > all. Whether that is through a mechanism such as CIRP (which I don't > personally see as being feasible) or some other yet to be determined > vehicle (as I've mentioned before I'm increasingly attracted to the norm > based OGP framework) is a matter of negotiation and evolution. That > such a mechanism is absolutely and unarguably necessary and sooner > rather later seems to me to be self-evident except to those whose > ideological, self-interested or commercial blinkers are so strong as to > make them blind to reality. > > And moreover I would have thought that those who have a genuine rather > than just a rhetorical interest in managing the egregious behaviour of > Internet rogue states would be the most interested in a framework of > norms and their operationalization as a way of putting globally > actionable boundaries around those outcomes. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:52 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] reality check on economics > > On 20 May 2012, at 10:11, Guru गुरु wrote: > > > On 20/05/12 18:54, Avri Doria wrote: > >> On 19 May 2012, at 23:39, Guru गुरु wrote: > >> > >>> I think you have begun a useful thread of thought - the need for > >>> global regulation of business. > >> I did not go that far. > >> > >> I was looking for what could be done at a global level to help avoid > >> local monopolies in information services. > > > > What is the difference between "what could be done at a global level > > to help avoid local monopolies in information services" and "global > > regulation". > > > >> I also spoke of global work to help produce local regulatory reform. > >> I do not not advocate global regulation of business. > > > > > Good question. I think this is where we need to be creative in figuring > out how to do things. E.g a global regulatory function, e.g ICANN use > of contracts, might be tried. I don't think that is has worked as well > as hoped*, but I think it is a thought in the right direction. ICANN > does not regulate, but oversees a regulatory function that sometimes > sort of works. > > In thinking about a regulatory function that is assisted but not > overseen by global multistakeholder work, I think of a situation where > the stakeholders can come to rough consensus on guidelines for local, > for some definition of local, regulatory functions. In turn, having > come to these guidelines on a voluntary and multistakeholder basis, all > parties pressure each other at the local level to live up to the rough > consensus re-shared to the local context using their own methods: from > governments making laws and regulations, to companies giving and > withdrawing their investment, technologists shaping protocols to allow > for the guidelines to be met (management frameworks etc) and civil > society either supporting by buying or going to the streets with Occupy, > boycotts and other civil actions and sometimes even voting**. > > avri > > > * Before you ask: 1) contracts seem to need to be rooted in national > law, leaving us with the unfortunate situation of ICANN being anchored > in a single country, 2) compliance enforcement is horrid (then again > compliance enforcement is a problem in every regulatory system I have > ever looked at) both of these could be fixed if ICANN had the will to do > so. > > ** When that mechanism works properly and isn't just another form of > propaganda reaction. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 20 16:23:09 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 01:23:09 +0500 Subject: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan In-Reply-To: <4FB915C4.3040707@itforchange.net> References: <4FB915C4.3040707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: As of this moment, Twitter.com service stands restored. Interesting situation, was it a Flash Censorship?????? On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 9:03 PM, parminder wrote: > , Bill, I too missed what exactly you are pointing to... > > > However, since you are parodying the statement issued by IT for Change and > others (and supported by  66 organisations and 117 other individuals), > apropos Michael's email, I must  direct your attention to the fact that the > statement seeks such a global Internet body to act primarily on the basis of > human rights. > > Incidentally, even India's CIRP proposal, among its 7 listed functions has > the following function: > promotion and protection of all human rights, namely, civil, political, > social, economic and cultural rights, including the Right to Development; > > We all do know that governments do all kinds of things, do we therefore then > refuse to agree to constitute them at all, and certainly refuse to vote.... > Do you take and practise such an anarchic view with respect to your own > national politics. If not, why so? One can easily construct many such > parodies vis a vis the US government,and what it implies to vote in any > government at all for governing the US. > > Why do such anarchic dispositions rise up only when global politics is > concerned. Is it a fear by the rich parts of the world of having to share > the undue benefits and advantages that they may be sitting on? > > Parminder > > > > On Sunday 20 May 2012 08:33 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Quite honestly Bill, the actual meaning/logic of your (I think meant to be) > ironic comment escapes me (I read it four times and it still escapes me... > > (and by my reckoning had either or both of Iran and Pakistan signed on to > some global treaty about Internet Rights/rights on the Internet (or > something similar) it would I'm assuming, be even a wee bit more difficult > for the respectie governments to act in this high-handed way by for example, > giving those internally in opposition an international agreement to point > to/argue for before the courts; and also give those externally who disagree > with those actions some specific context for them to exercise their > disagreement; or have I missed something here. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:39 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in > Pakistan > > > On May 20, 2012, at 3:30 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > > > Twitter officially shutdown in Pakistan - Twitter Banned in Pakistan > http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/2012/05/twitter-officially-shu > tdown-in-pakistan.html > > > If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical > infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and > participative multilateral body" so that Pakistan would not be forced to > take unilateral action merely to shut out this evil monopolist that, with > three other sites, controls "much of what is considered to be the Internet > today by most people today". > > > On May 13, 2012, at 12:25 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > > "The telecommunications minister has ordered the use of domain names > ending with .ir" belonging to Iran, Asr Ertebatat reported. > > The order prohibits banks, insurance firms and telephone firms using > foreign hosts for their sites or to inform their clients using foreign > providers such as Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail or MSN, it said. > > > If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical > infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and > participative multilateral body" so that Iran would not be forced to take > unilateral action merely to shut out these evil monopolists... > > We demand it! > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun May 20 16:36:55 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 21:36:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <1D5155C9-2507-43E8-8AD6-48A22FB4C632@acm.org> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3A25FB52-4B98-443F-BD60-706F79D7CA44@acm.org> <4FB86768.3030905@ITforChange.net> <669E63CE-E03B-4FE9-A197-21943202AE50@ella.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD4F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <1D5155C9-2507-43E8-8AD6-48A22FB4C632@acm.org> Message-ID: In message <1D5155C9-2507-43E8-8AD6-48A22FB4C632 at acm.org>, at 13:32:23 on Sun, 20 May 2012, Avri Doria writes >> A lawyer can proclaim knowledge of the law (quite justifiably) when entering a technical environment where they nothing about the technology. >> >> But they do know what the technology should deliver (eg: privacy and security). Surely their opinion about that is as valuable as the >>technologists'? > >Possibly, but not if s/he comes in proclaiming that s/he understands the technology. And you think they'll influential in the debate if they come into that environment saying that they don't understand the technology? I'm not suggesting they should mis-represent their technical ability, rather that they should still be able to participate equally in the policy making on the basis of their actual expertise. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun May 20 16:54:43 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 13:54:43 -0700 Subject: [governance] reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2179396@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, to continue pulling the bones out of your red herring... "Power: the ability to control people or events" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power I just did a Google on "monopoly power" and got 300,000 hits... >From this one can conclude a few things concerning Google's "monopoly power" (whether they choose at this time to willfully exercise it or not... 1. that Google has demonstrated significant technological (algorithmic) "power"--I have no idea how their algorithm chose what it chose or why -- but I and I would guess virtually all of their billion or so users would passively go along as I did 2. that Google has demonstrated significant informational "power"-- I have no idea what they didn't include in their search or why but I and I would guess virtually all of their billion or so users would passively go along as I did 3. that Google has demonstrated significant communication "power"--this was all communicated to me (and anyone else who chose to look) in 4 seconds by some means or other which I have no knowledge of or control over but I and I would guess virtually all of their billion or so users would passively go along as I did 4. that Google has demonstrated significant economic "power"--by placing certain responses in the first few items/pages and leaving the others to uncontrolled and uncontrollable obscurity in the latter pages of the 300,000 items but I and I would guess virtually all of their billion or so users would passively go along as I did 5. that Google has demonstrated significant political "power"--by presenting certain definitions as the "top" ones in its set rather than others and thus effectively promoted one ideological position cocnerning the nature of monopoly power over other possible defintions but I and I would guess virtually all of their billion or so users would passively go along as I did I'm not "reserving the right" to anything. Nor are the criteria mine--made up or not. My point is that we are transferring those "rights" to a domininant corporate body (their market share in search is or was in the 90% range the last time I looked). And because of their market dominance they have a whole range of types of "power" i.e. the ability to control (or at least strongly influence) people or events (choices, decisions, actions) in each of the above areas etc.etc. rather beyond the simple economic. One could I believe replace Google with Facebook, Twitter, Gmail and other more or less Internet monopolies in the above "analysis". Best, M -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 1:14 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: RE: [governance] reality check on economics Michael, When I read your statement below, all I can get from it is that you are reserving the right to call something a "monopoly" irrespective of the economic definition, based on criteria that you have just made up, which I translate as follows: a monopoly is something that has no economic power necessarily but which nevertheless makes me feel vaguely threatened in some way. Did I get it right? > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 3:18 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: RE: [governance] reality check on economics > > BTW, I think that this discussion on "monopoly" while interesting and > useful is based on a significant red herring plopped on the IGC > cutting board by Milton. > > The original note and the subsequent discussion by Parminder and > others around the ITfC declaration was not by my reading about > "monopoly" in the narrow economic sense but rather around the > uncontrolled and so far uncontrollable power (economic, political, > technical, communicative, informational etc.) that monopolies or near > monopolies in the Internet space are being entrusted with given the > overall significance, value and power that the Internet has acquired > and is continuing to acquire in the daily lives of people, groups, > communities, countries etc.etc. in every corner of the world. > > I think that it is very difficult to dispute this ITfC (and other's) > position and the need for some form of democratic, transparent and > accountable framework to ensure that this power is not used in an > irresponsible, repressive, quixotic, destructive, completely self- > interested way either by corporations or by governments or by rogue > elements of civil society for that matter. > > If for no other reason than that the Internet is so significant and > its continued effective functioning is becoming so central as an > electronic infrastructure for the well-being and future of mankind > some globally legitimate means needs to be found to "govern" it in the > interests of all. Whether that is through a mechanism such as CIRP > (which I don't personally see as being feasible) or some other yet to > be determined vehicle (as I've mentioned before I'm increasingly > attracted to the norm based OGP framework) is a matter of negotiation > and evolution. That such a mechanism is absolutely and unarguably > necessary and sooner rather later seems to me to be self-evident > except to those whose ideological, self-interested or commercial > blinkers are so strong as to make them blind to reality. > > And moreover I would have thought that those who have a genuine rather > than just a rhetorical interest in managing the egregious behaviour of > Internet rogue states would be the most interested in a framework of > norms and their operationalization as a way of putting globally > actionable boundaries around those outcomes. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:52 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] reality check on economics > > On 20 May 2012, at 10:11, Guru गुरु wrote: > > > On 20/05/12 18:54, Avri Doria wrote: > >> On 19 May 2012, at 23:39, Guru गुरु wrote: > >> > >>> I think you have begun a useful thread of thought - the need for > >>> global regulation of business. > >> I did not go that far. > >> > >> I was looking for what could be done at a global level to help > >> avoid local monopolies in information services. > > > > What is the difference between "what could be done at a global level > > to help avoid local monopolies in information services" and "global > > regulation". > > > >> I also spoke of global work to help produce local regulatory > >> reform. I do not not advocate global regulation of business. > > > > > Good question. I think this is where we need to be creative in > figuring out how to do things. E.g a global regulatory function, e.g > ICANN use of contracts, might be tried. I don't think that is has > worked as well as hoped*, but I think it is a thought in the right > direction. ICANN does not regulate, but oversees a regulatory > function that sometimes sort of works. > > In thinking about a regulatory function that is assisted but not > overseen by global multistakeholder work, I think of a situation where > the stakeholders can come to rough consensus on guidelines for local, > for some definition of local, regulatory functions. In turn, having > come to these guidelines on a voluntary and multistakeholder basis, > all parties pressure each other at the local level to live up to the > rough consensus re-shared to the local context using their own > methods: from governments making laws and regulations, to companies > giving and withdrawing their investment, technologists shaping > protocols to allow for the guidelines to be met (management frameworks > etc) and civil society either supporting by buying or going to the > streets with Occupy, boycotts and other civil actions and sometimes > even voting**. > > avri > > > * Before you ask: 1) contracts seem to need to be rooted in national > law, leaving us with the unfortunate situation of ICANN being anchored > in a single country, 2) compliance enforcement is horrid (then again > compliance enforcement is a problem in every regulatory system I have > ever looked at) both of these could be fixed if ICANN had the will to > do so. > > ** When that mechanism works properly and isn't just another form of > propaganda reaction. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 20 17:42:10 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 21:42:10 +0000 Subject: [governance] reality check on economics In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2179396@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E6CDC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> To broaden our frame of reference sightly; if one were in China, just substitute 'Baidu' where Google appears below in Michael's comments below. So, in terms of monopolies or oligopolies, we need to look more closely market by market. The better phrasing as others have already noted are about who has market power; which does not require true monopoly but can be gained from a - dominant position. And now speaking of good old fashioned monopoly... China Telecom, China Unicom and China Mobile are really 1 state-owned company with 3 operating divisions. Which together have between them 1.1 billion subscribers. Now that's - a dominant position. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 4:54 PM To: Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] reality check on economics Milton, to continue pulling the bones out of your red herring... "Power: the ability to control people or events" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power I just did a Google on "monopoly power" and got 300,000 hits... From this one can conclude a few things concerning Google's "monopoly power" (whether they choose at this time to willfully exercise it or not... 1. that Google has demonstrated significant technological (algorithmic) "power"--I have no idea how their algorithm chose what it chose or why -- but I and I would guess virtually all of their billion or so users would passively go along as I did 2. that Google has demonstrated significant informational "power"-- I have no idea what they didn't include in their search or why but I and I would guess virtually all of their billion or so users would passively go along as I did 3. that Google has demonstrated significant communication "power"--this was all communicated to me (and anyone else who chose to look) in 4 seconds by some means or other which I have no knowledge of or control over but I and I would guess virtually all of their billion or so users would passively go along as I did 4. that Google has demonstrated significant economic "power"--by placing certain responses in the first few items/pages and leaving the others to uncontrolled and uncontrollable obscurity in the latter pages of the 300,000 items but I and I would guess virtually all of their billion or so users would passively go along as I did 5. that Google has demonstrated significant political "power"--by presenting certain definitions as the "top" ones in its set rather than others and thus effectively promoted one ideological position cocnerning the nature of monopoly power over other possible defintions but I and I would guess virtually all of their billion or so users would passively go along as I did I'm not "reserving the right" to anything. Nor are the criteria mine--made up or not. My point is that we are transferring those "rights" to a domininant corporate body (their market share in search is or was in the 90% range the last time I looked). And because of their market dominance they have a whole range of types of "power" i.e. the ability to control (or at least strongly influence) people or events (choices, decisions, actions) in each of the above areas etc.etc. rather beyond the simple economic. One could I believe replace Google with Facebook, Twitter, Gmail and other more or less Internet monopolies in the above "analysis". Best, M -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 1:14 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: RE: [governance] reality check on economics Michael, When I read your statement below, all I can get from it is that you are reserving the right to call something a "monopoly" irrespective of the economic definition, based on criteria that you have just made up, which I translate as follows: a monopoly is something that has no economic power necessarily but which nevertheless makes me feel vaguely threatened in some way. Did I get it right? > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 3:18 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: RE: [governance] reality check on economics > > BTW, I think that this discussion on "monopoly" while interesting and > useful is based on a significant red herring plopped on the IGC > cutting board by Milton. > > The original note and the subsequent discussion by Parminder and > others around the ITfC declaration was not by my reading about > "monopoly" in the narrow economic sense but rather around the > uncontrolled and so far uncontrollable power (economic, political, > technical, communicative, informational etc.) that monopolies or near > monopolies in the Internet space are being entrusted with given the > overall significance, value and power that the Internet has acquired > and is continuing to acquire in the daily lives of people, groups, > communities, countries etc.etc. in every corner of the world. > > I think that it is very difficult to dispute this ITfC (and other's) > position and the need for some form of democratic, transparent and > accountable framework to ensure that this power is not used in an > irresponsible, repressive, quixotic, destructive, completely self- > interested way either by corporations or by governments or by rogue > elements of civil society for that matter. > > If for no other reason than that the Internet is so significant and > its continued effective functioning is becoming so central as an > electronic infrastructure for the well-being and future of mankind > some globally legitimate means needs to be found to "govern" it in the > interests of all. Whether that is through a mechanism such as CIRP > (which I don't personally see as being feasible) or some other yet to > be determined vehicle (as I've mentioned before I'm increasingly > attracted to the norm based OGP framework) is a matter of negotiation > and evolution. That such a mechanism is absolutely and unarguably > necessary and sooner rather later seems to me to be self-evident > except to those whose ideological, self-interested or commercial > blinkers are so strong as to make them blind to reality. > > And moreover I would have thought that those who have a genuine rather > than just a rhetorical interest in managing the egregious behaviour of > Internet rogue states would be the most interested in a framework of > norms and their operationalization as a way of putting globally > actionable boundaries around those outcomes. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:52 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] reality check on economics > > On 20 May 2012, at 10:11, Guru गुरु wrote: > > > On 20/05/12 18:54, Avri Doria wrote: > >> On 19 May 2012, at 23:39, Guru गुरु wrote: > >> > >>> I think you have begun a useful thread of thought - the need for > >>> global regulation of business. > >> I did not go that far. > >> > >> I was looking for what could be done at a global level to help > >> avoid local monopolies in information services. > > > > What is the difference between "what could be done at a global level > > to help avoid local monopolies in information services" and "global > > regulation". > > > >> I also spoke of global work to help produce local regulatory > >> reform. I do not not advocate global regulation of business. > > > > > Good question. I think this is where we need to be creative in > figuring out how to do things. E.g a global regulatory function, e.g > ICANN use of contracts, might be tried. I don't think that is has > worked as well as hoped*, but I think it is a thought in the right > direction. ICANN does not regulate, but oversees a regulatory > function that sometimes sort of works. > > In thinking about a regulatory function that is assisted but not > overseen by global multistakeholder work, I think of a situation where > the stakeholders can come to rough consensus on guidelines for local, > for some definition of local, regulatory functions. In turn, having > come to these guidelines on a voluntary and multistakeholder basis, > all parties pressure each other at the local level to live up to the > rough consensus re-shared to the local context using their own > methods: from governments making laws and regulations, to companies > giving and withdrawing their investment, technologists shaping > protocols to allow for the guidelines to be met (management frameworks > etc) and civil society either supporting by buying or going to the > streets with Occupy, boycotts and other civil actions and sometimes > even voting**. > > avri > > > * Before you ask: 1) contracts seem to need to be rooted in national > law, leaving us with the unfortunate situation of ICANN being anchored > in a single country, 2) compliance enforcement is horrid (then again > compliance enforcement is a problem in every regulatory system I have > ever looked at) both of these could be fixed if ICANN had the will to > do so. > > ** When that mechanism works properly and isn't just another form of > propaganda reaction. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 20 21:02:28 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 01:02:28 +0000 Subject: [governance] reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E6CDC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2179396@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>,,<77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E6CDC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E6D69@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> To follow on from my highlighting the multi-national regulation of firms with dominant positions, and the need to keep China in mind since it's...huge and richer by the year...from today's Wall Street Journal: the news is Chinese regulators have permitted Google (a US based firm) to acquire Motorola Mobility (another US based firm). US and European regulators have already signed off on the deal. Meaning: existing national laws do have impacts at least in the competition policy arena. The key requirement for the Chinese regulators? That Google would continue to offer Android to other device makers. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303360504577414280414923956.html?mod=WSJ_Tech_RightMostPopular So, turning back to Parminder's mention of how Taiwanese regulatory action led to Google withdrawing from its market; it could be that China has clout that Taiwan does not. Or, it could be that the Chinese regulators played their hand more skilfully. Hard to say without further inquiry. But my basic point remains the same: in some cases, in some contexts, multinational regulatory coordination including of dominant firms like Google works reasonably well. In other cases regulatory actions have less positive outcomes. Whether a truly global regulatory process would work better at regulating dominant firms, than relatively dominant governments (US, Chine, EU)....well we would have to specify exact areas of potential market regulation, and why one apporach would work better than another. For example, the global market regulation of the gTLD market by ICANN....that is the best of all possible regulatory outcomes right? ; ) Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Lee W McKnight [lmcknigh at syr.edu] Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 5:42 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; Milton L Mueller Subject: RE: [governance] reality check on economics To broaden our frame of reference sightly; if one were in China, just substitute 'Baidu' where Google appears below in Michael's comments below. So, in terms of monopolies or oligopolies, we need to look more closely market by market. The better phrasing as others have already noted are about who has market power; which does not require true monopoly but can be gained from a - dominant position. And now speaking of good old fashioned monopoly... China Telecom, China Unicom and China Mobile are really 1 state-owned company with 3 operating divisions. Which together have between them 1.1 billion subscribers. Now that's - a dominant position. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 4:54 PM To: Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] reality check on economics Milton, to continue pulling the bones out of your red herring... "Power: the ability to control people or events" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power I just did a Google on "monopoly power" and got 300,000 hits... From this one can conclude a few things concerning Google's "monopoly power" (whether they choose at this time to willfully exercise it or not... 1. that Google has demonstrated significant technological (algorithmic) "power"--I have no idea how their algorithm chose what it chose or why -- but I and I would guess virtually all of their billion or so users would passively go along as I did 2. that Google has demonstrated significant informational "power"-- I have no idea what they didn't include in their search or why but I and I would guess virtually all of their billion or so users would passively go along as I did 3. that Google has demonstrated significant communication "power"--this was all communicated to me (and anyone else who chose to look) in 4 seconds by some means or other which I have no knowledge of or control over but I and I would guess virtually all of their billion or so users would passively go along as I did 4. that Google has demonstrated significant economic "power"--by placing certain responses in the first few items/pages and leaving the others to uncontrolled and uncontrollable obscurity in the latter pages of the 300,000 items but I and I would guess virtually all of their billion or so users would passively go along as I did 5. that Google has demonstrated significant political "power"--by presenting certain definitions as the "top" ones in its set rather than others and thus effectively promoted one ideological position cocnerning the nature of monopoly power over other possible defintions but I and I would guess virtually all of their billion or so users would passively go along as I did I'm not "reserving the right" to anything. Nor are the criteria mine--made up or not. My point is that we are transferring those "rights" to a domininant corporate body (their market share in search is or was in the 90% range the last time I looked). And because of their market dominance they have a whole range of types of "power" i.e. the ability to control (or at least strongly influence) people or events (choices, decisions, actions) in each of the above areas etc.etc. rather beyond the simple economic. One could I believe replace Google with Facebook, Twitter, Gmail and other more or less Internet monopolies in the above "analysis". Best, M -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 1:14 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: RE: [governance] reality check on economics Michael, When I read your statement below, all I can get from it is that you are reserving the right to call something a "monopoly" irrespective of the economic definition, based on criteria that you have just made up, which I translate as follows: a monopoly is something that has no economic power necessarily but which nevertheless makes me feel vaguely threatened in some way. Did I get it right? > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 3:18 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: RE: [governance] reality check on economics > > BTW, I think that this discussion on "monopoly" while interesting and > useful is based on a significant red herring plopped on the IGC > cutting board by Milton. > > The original note and the subsequent discussion by Parminder and > others around the ITfC declaration was not by my reading about > "monopoly" in the narrow economic sense but rather around the > uncontrolled and so far uncontrollable power (economic, political, > technical, communicative, informational etc.) that monopolies or near > monopolies in the Internet space are being entrusted with given the > overall significance, value and power that the Internet has acquired > and is continuing to acquire in the daily lives of people, groups, > communities, countries etc.etc. in every corner of the world. > > I think that it is very difficult to dispute this ITfC (and other's) > position and the need for some form of democratic, transparent and > accountable framework to ensure that this power is not used in an > irresponsible, repressive, quixotic, destructive, completely self- > interested way either by corporations or by governments or by rogue > elements of civil society for that matter. > > If for no other reason than that the Internet is so significant and > its continued effective functioning is becoming so central as an > electronic infrastructure for the well-being and future of mankind > some globally legitimate means needs to be found to "govern" it in the > interests of all. Whether that is through a mechanism such as CIRP > (which I don't personally see as being feasible) or some other yet to > be determined vehicle (as I've mentioned before I'm increasingly > attracted to the norm based OGP framework) is a matter of negotiation > and evolution. That such a mechanism is absolutely and unarguably > necessary and sooner rather later seems to me to be self-evident > except to those whose ideological, self-interested or commercial > blinkers are so strong as to make them blind to reality. > > And moreover I would have thought that those who have a genuine rather > than just a rhetorical interest in managing the egregious behaviour of > Internet rogue states would be the most interested in a framework of > norms and their operationalization as a way of putting globally > actionable boundaries around those outcomes. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:52 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] reality check on economics > > On 20 May 2012, at 10:11, Guru गुरु wrote: > > > On 20/05/12 18:54, Avri Doria wrote: > >> On 19 May 2012, at 23:39, Guru गुरु wrote: > >> > >>> I think you have begun a useful thread of thought - the need for > >>> global regulation of business. > >> I did not go that far. > >> > >> I was looking for what could be done at a global level to help > >> avoid local monopolies in information services. > > > > What is the difference between "what could be done at a global level > > to help avoid local monopolies in information services" and "global > > regulation". > > > >> I also spoke of global work to help produce local regulatory > >> reform. I do not not advocate global regulation of business. > > > > > Good question. I think this is where we need to be creative in > figuring out how to do things. E.g a global regulatory function, e.g > ICANN use of contracts, might be tried. I don't think that is has > worked as well as hoped*, but I think it is a thought in the right > direction. ICANN does not regulate, but oversees a regulatory > function that sometimes sort of works. > > In thinking about a regulatory function that is assisted but not > overseen by global multistakeholder work, I think of a situation where > the stakeholders can come to rough consensus on guidelines for local, > for some definition of local, regulatory functions. In turn, having > come to these guidelines on a voluntary and multistakeholder basis, > all parties pressure each other at the local level to live up to the > rough consensus re-shared to the local context using their own > methods: from governments making laws and regulations, to companies > giving and withdrawing their investment, technologists shaping > protocols to allow for the guidelines to be met (management frameworks > etc) and civil society either supporting by buying or going to the > streets with Occupy, boycotts and other civil actions and sometimes > even voting**. > > avri > > > * Before you ask: 1) contracts seem to need to be rooted in national > law, leaving us with the unfortunate situation of ICANN being anchored > in a single country, 2) compliance enforcement is horrid (then again > compliance enforcement is a problem in every regulatory system I have > ever looked at) both of these could be fixed if ICANN had the will to > do so. > > ** When that mechanism works properly and isn't just another form of > propaganda reaction. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Guru at ITforChange.net Mon May 21 00:05:17 2012 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 09:35:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E6D69@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2179396@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>,,<77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E6CDC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E6D69@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FB9BEFD.408@ITforChange.net> On 21/05/12 06:32, Lee W McKnight wrote: > To follow on from my highlighting the multi-national regulation of firms with dominant positions, and the need to keep China in mind since it's...huge and richer by the year...from today's Wall Street Journal: the news is Chinese regulators have permitted Google (a US based firm) to acquire Motorola Mobility (another US based firm). US and European regulators have already signed off on the deal. Meaning: existing national laws do have impacts at least in the competition policy arena. > > The key requirement for the Chinese regulators? That Google would continue to offer Android to other device makers. > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303360504577414280414923956.html?mod=WSJ_Tech_RightMostPopular > > So, turning back to Parminder's mention of how Taiwanese regulatory action led to Google withdrawing from its market; it could be that China has clout that Taiwan does not. Or, it could be that the Chinese regulators played their hand more skilfully. Hard to say without further inquiry. > > But my basic point remains the same: in some cases, in some contexts, multinational regulatory coordination including of dominant firms like Google works reasonably well. In other cases regulatory actions have less positive outcomes. > > Whether a truly global regulatory process would work better at regulating dominant firms, than relatively dominant governments (US, Chine, EU)....well we would have to specify exact areas of potential market regulation, and why one apporach would work better than another. > What is more democratic? > For example, the global market regulation of the gTLD market by ICANN....that is the best of all possible regulatory outcomes right? ; ) > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Lee W McKnight [lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 5:42 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; Milton L Mueller > Subject: RE: [governance] reality check on economics > > To broaden our frame of reference sightly; if one were in China, just substitute 'Baidu' where Google appears below in Michael's comments below. So, in terms of monopolies or oligopolies, we need to look more closely market by market. The better phrasing as others have already noted are about who has market power; which does not require true monopoly but can be gained from a - dominant position. > > And now speaking of good old fashioned monopoly... China Telecom, China Unicom and China Mobile are really 1 state-owned company with 3 operating divisions. Which together have between them 1.1 billion subscribers. Now that's - a dominant position. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 4:54 PM > To: Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: RE: [governance] reality check on economics > > Milton, to continue pulling the bones out of your red herring... > > "Power: the ability to control people or events" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power > > I just did a Google on "monopoly power" and got 300,000 hits... > > From this one can conclude a few things concerning Google's "monopoly power" (whether they choose at this time to willfully exercise it or not... > 1. that Google has demonstrated significant technological (algorithmic) "power"--I have no idea how their algorithm chose what it chose or why -- but I and I would guess virtually all of their billion or so users would passively go along as I did > 2. that Google has demonstrated significant informational "power"-- I have no idea what they didn't include in their search or why but I and I would guess virtually all of their billion or so users would passively go along as I did > 3. that Google has demonstrated significant communication "power"--this was all communicated to me (and anyone else who chose to look) in 4 seconds by some means or other which I have no knowledge of or control over but I and I would guess virtually all of their billion or so users would passively go along as I did > 4. that Google has demonstrated significant economic "power"--by placing certain responses in the first few items/pages and leaving the others to uncontrolled and uncontrollable obscurity in the latter pages of the 300,000 items but I and I would guess virtually all of their billion or so users would passively go along as I did > 5. that Google has demonstrated significant political "power"--by presenting certain definitions as the "top" ones in its set rather than others and thus effectively promoted one ideological position cocnerning the nature of monopoly power over other possible defintions but I and I would guess virtually all of their billion or so users would passively go along as I did > > I'm not "reserving the right" to anything. Nor are the criteria mine--made up or not. My point is that we are transferring those "rights" to a domininant corporate body (their market share in search is or was in the 90% range the last time I looked). > > And because of their market dominance they have a whole range of types of "power" i.e. the ability to control (or at least strongly influence) people or events (choices, decisions, actions) in each of the above areas etc.etc. rather beyond the simple economic. > > One could I believe replace Google with Facebook, Twitter, Gmail and other more or less Internet monopolies in the above "analysis". > > Best, > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 1:14 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Subject: RE: [governance] reality check on economics > > > Michael, > When I read your statement below, all I can get from it is that you are reserving the right to call something a "monopoly" irrespective of the economic definition, based on criteria that you have just made up, which I translate as follows: a monopoly is something that has no economic power necessarily but which nevertheless makes me feel vaguely threatened in some way. > > Did I get it right? > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- >> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein >> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 3:18 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: RE: [governance] reality check on economics >> >> BTW, I think that this discussion on "monopoly" while interesting and >> useful is based on a significant red herring plopped on the IGC >> cutting board by Milton. >> >> The original note and the subsequent discussion by Parminder and >> others around the ITfC declaration was not by my reading about >> "monopoly" in the narrow economic sense but rather around the >> uncontrolled and so far uncontrollable power (economic, political, >> technical, communicative, informational etc.) that monopolies or near >> monopolies in the Internet space are being entrusted with given the >> overall significance, value and power that the Internet has acquired >> and is continuing to acquire in the daily lives of people, groups, >> communities, countries etc.etc. in every corner of the world. >> >> I think that it is very difficult to dispute this ITfC (and other's) >> position and the need for some form of democratic, transparent and >> accountable framework to ensure that this power is not used in an >> irresponsible, repressive, quixotic, destructive, completely self- >> interested way either by corporations or by governments or by rogue >> elements of civil society for that matter. >> >> If for no other reason than that the Internet is so significant and >> its continued effective functioning is becoming so central as an >> electronic infrastructure for the well-being and future of mankind >> some globally legitimate means needs to be found to "govern" it in the >> interests of all. Whether that is through a mechanism such as CIRP >> (which I don't personally see as being feasible) or some other yet to >> be determined vehicle (as I've mentioned before I'm increasingly >> attracted to the norm based OGP framework) is a matter of negotiation >> and evolution. That such a mechanism is absolutely and unarguably >> necessary and sooner rather later seems to me to be self-evident >> except to those whose ideological, self-interested or commercial >> blinkers are so strong as to make them blind to reality. >> >> And moreover I would have thought that those who have a genuine rather >> than just a rhetorical interest in managing the egregious behaviour of >> Internet rogue states would be the most interested in a framework of >> norms and their operationalization as a way of putting globally >> actionable boundaries around those outcomes. >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- >> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:52 AM >> To: IGC >> Subject: Re: [governance] reality check on economics >> >> On 20 May 2012, at 10:11, Guru गुरु wrote: >> >>> On 20/05/12 18:54, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> On 19 May 2012, at 23:39, Guru गुरु wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think you have begun a useful thread of thought - the need for >>>>> global regulation of business. >>>> I did not go that far. >>>> >>>> I was looking for what could be done at a global level to help >>>> avoid local monopolies in information services. >>> What is the difference between "what could be done at a global level >>> to help avoid local monopolies in information services" and "global >>> regulation". >>> >>>> I also spoke of global work to help produce local regulatory >>>> reform. I do not not advocate global regulation of business. >> >> Good question. I think this is where we need to be creative in >> figuring out how to do things. E.g a global regulatory function, e.g >> ICANN use of contracts, might be tried. I don't think that is has >> worked as well as hoped*, but I think it is a thought in the right >> direction. ICANN does not regulate, but oversees a regulatory >> function that sometimes sort of works. >> >> In thinking about a regulatory function that is assisted but not >> overseen by global multistakeholder work, I think of a situation where >> the stakeholders can come to rough consensus on guidelines for local, >> for some definition of local, regulatory functions. In turn, having >> come to these guidelines on a voluntary and multistakeholder basis, >> all parties pressure each other at the local level to live up to the >> rough consensus re-shared to the local context using their own >> methods: from governments making laws and regulations, to companies >> giving and withdrawing their investment, technologists shaping >> protocols to allow for the guidelines to be met (management frameworks >> etc) and civil society either supporting by buying or going to the >> streets with Occupy, boycotts and other civil actions and sometimes >> even voting**. >> >> avri >> >> >> * Before you ask: 1) contracts seem to need to be rooted in national >> law, leaving us with the unfortunate situation of ICANN being anchored >> in a single country, 2) compliance enforcement is horrid (then again >> compliance enforcement is a problem in every regulatory system I have >> ever looked at) both of these could be fixed if ICANN had the will to >> do so. >> >> ** When that mechanism works properly and isn't just another form of >> propaganda reaction. >> > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 21 02:59:23 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 08:59:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan In-Reply-To: <887ABA6B662D4EC198163729FF35AAE0@UserVAIO> References: <887ABA6B662D4EC198163729FF35AAE0@UserVAIO> Message-ID: Hi Mike On May 20, 2012, at 5:41 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Bill, > > Is this a fact that Iran and Pakistann have indicated that they "would like > 'the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical > infrastructure" to be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and > participative multilateral body.'" Uh, yes..? Both governments have made statements publicly and privately calling for intergovernmental control over CIR since WSIS phase I. "Democratic" and "multilateral" have been consistent, the other words have varied, sometimes "suitable," "inclusive" etc. > > If so would it be possible to share the reference and if possible a listing > of all the other countries that have similarly indicated this as a > preference. Sorry, I don't have handy copies of the transcripts from every WSIS, WGIG, IGF, CSTD, ITU etc. meeting in which they and others have expressed their preferences, but I imagine if you dig around with a search engine of your choice you should find some stuff. Cheers Bill > > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch] > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 8:36 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in > Pakistan > > > Hi Mike, > > Sorry, didn't think it was obscure. These are among the governments that > would like "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical > infrastructure" to be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and > participative multilateral body." There's not much chance that such a body > would produce a global treaty about Internet Rights/rights on the Internet > that would constrain them, when what they plainly want is a mechanism that > strengthens sovereign control and gives them international cover in taking > such actions. > > Best, > > Bill > > On May 20, 2012, at 5:03 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> Quite honestly Bill, the actual meaning/logic of your (I think meant >> to be) ironic comment escapes me (I read it four times and it still >> escapes me... >> >> (and by my reckoning had either or both of Iran and Pakistan signed on >> to some global treaty about Internet Rights/rights on the Internet (or >> something similar) it would I'm assuming, be even a wee bit more >> difficult for the respectie governments to act in this high-handed way >> by for example, giving those internally in opposition an international >> agreement to point to/argue for before the courts; and also give those >> externally who disagree with those actions some specific context for >> them to exercise their disagreement; or have I missed something here. >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William >> Drake >> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:39 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in >> Pakistan >> >> >> On May 20, 2012, at 3:30 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >>> Twitter officially shutdown in Pakistan - Twitter Banned in Pakistan >>> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/2012/05/twitter-officially-sh >>> u >>> tdown-in-pakistan.html >> >> >> If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and >> logical infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, >> democratic and participative multilateral body" so that Pakistan would >> not be forced to take unilateral action merely to shut out this evil >> monopolist that, with three other sites, controls "much of what is >> considered to be the Internet today by most people today". >> >> >> On May 13, 2012, at 12:25 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >>>> >>>> "The telecommunications minister has ordered the use of domain names >>>> ending with .ir" belonging to Iran, Asr Ertebatat reported. >>>> >>>> The order prohibits banks, insurance firms and telephone firms using >>>> foreign hosts for their sites or to inform their clients using >>>> foreign providers such as Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail or MSN, it said. >> >> >> If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and >> logical infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, >> democratic and participative multilateral body" so that Iran would not >> be forced to take unilateral action merely to shut out these evil >> monopolists... >> >> We demand it! >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Mon May 21 03:34:16 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 09:34:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation Note 1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FB9EFF8.5090200@apc.org> Here are the remarks I made on the CSTD panel on EC on 18 May 2012. Pasted below and attached as a PDF. Anriette ------------------------------------------------------------ Why are we here and why is this event so well attended? We are here because the internet matters to us. It matters more than in 2005 because more people and countries are connected to the internet. More poor people are connected as access expands. Therefore it follows that decisions made about internet policy and development matters. Global decisions, but also national decisions that influences how we use the internet. Sometimes national decisions influences how people everywhere use the internet, for example copyright enforcement by one country can limit access to knowledge and information for internet users everywhere. But even national decisions that are directed at people inside a particular country, such as censorship of filtering, or blocking affects people outside of that country as because the internet connects us all. We are also here because IG decision-making is complex and dispersed. The internet is not a publicly owned entity. Ownership and responsibility for managing and developing the internet is mixed. Users develop applications and content. Companies build platforms and provide services. Much of the infrastructure we use to access the internet was built by the public sector. Protocols and standards are developed by engineers, inventors and technicians. The internet is existentially and integrally multi-stakeholder. This is why governance of the internet cannot but be fully multi-stakeholder. We are also here because people are not happy with the current status quo in IG. Some stakeholders say that EC is already happening, others say it is not. Some countries have more power and influence than others, Some make more effort than others. Some feel that decisions are made that are not consistent with existing global agreements, e.g. in the case of human rights. Not only governments have concerns. There are also dissonances in the participation of business and civil society and the technical community. Small businesses and many in civil society have no real voice in IG. There are different interpretations of EC. Does it refer only to more cooperation with/among governments? And amidst all this it is often not clear where the public interest lies in IG, and who its defenders are. We are also here, perhaps primarily, because we have not done what the Tunis Agenda mandated: using the IGF to take forward the discussion on EC. Where to from here? My proposal is a working group on enhanced cooperation be established, in a similar way to how the WGIG (Working Group on Internet Governance) was formed (for example, 50% of the seats in this WGIG was reserved for States to ensure they were given adequate representation). It should work within the framework of the IGF. This is essential to respect the original purpose for the establishment of the IGF, and because the IGF brings together so many stakeholders already engaged in IG. It could also work in collaboration with the CSTD. It is critical that this WGEC is fully multi-stakeholder, and that all stakeholders should feel comfortable with how it was constituted and how it functions. Scope, output, success criteria for this WGEC: Definitions: It can address some of the definitions around which there is so much disagreement, e.g. 'enhanced cooperation', 'in their respective roles', 'equal footing', and what it means to be 'multilateral and multi-stakeholder'. Issues: It can identify what the issues are that most require better cooperation among stakeholders, and that governments feel most strongly they need more involvement in. Mapping: It should undertake mapping of existing IG institutions and processes, and assess progress in EC in each of there. Output of the WGEC: Aside from a report on its work, issues, definitions, etc. I think it would be most useful if this group can produce a “Multi-stakeholder Declaration on Enhanced Cooperation in Internet Governance” - a statement of common principles and commitments needed to ensure public-interest oriented IG based on cooperation among all stakeholders. It could also produce a report with recommendations regarding institutional arrangements for IG, where they are working well, where there are gaps, how these can be addressed, and so on. Success criteria for the WGEC would include the legitimacy of group and how it was constituted, its leadership, the extent of interaction and feedback with other bodies that are discussing these issues and with all who feel they are stakeholders in IG. I look forward to more discussion today, and, to us working together to find a fresh approach towards more inclusive spaces and processes in IG. 18 May 2012 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: AE_Remarks to CSTD meeting in EC 18052012.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 45360 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 Guru at ITforChange.net Mon May 21 03:38:27 2012 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 13:08:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2179386@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3A25FB52-4B98-443F-BD60-706F79D7CA44@acm.org> <4FB86768.3030905@ITforChange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2179386@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FB9F0F3.5020600@ITforChange.net> On 21/05/12 01:41, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> have not researched it myself, that in many areas in Asia and Africa, >> and perhaps some in the Americas and Europe, large parts of the >> population are captive of one company or another, i.e some of these >> companies get local monopoly, for some definition of local. > [Milton L Mueller] Well, that's a very important distinction. How you define a market very strongly affects what level of competition is found to exist in it. But of course it is true that there are localized monopolies. I am surprised by Guru's conclusion (below, in response) that the answer to local monopolies is global regulation of business. I did not say that. There are local and global monopolies and we need local and global regulation ... the nature/extent etc of each is a matter of specifics and requires analyses of the concerned markets. You also need to read Angela Daly's and Jeremy's mails for their views on how in the digital space, concentration of power has several other aspects which traditional competition law is unable to address. I was asking Avri how she would implement her 'all actors are equal' in policy making, which she is insistent to apply to global policy making, at her national level... and if it would not work at national level, how could she expect it to work at a global level. > Let me try to concretize for Guru what this means. Let's say there is a cartel or monopoly of some kind over telecom equipment production for the international market in an Indian state. That monopoly - if indeed it has monopoly power - is likely to be politically popular and politically protected locally. (Need I remind you of the controversy over allowing multinational retailers into India's cartelized local scene?) That is, the monopoly profits that are being made can easily be directed to local politicians, may create higher than market wages for the local workers and higher local tax revenues. > Cartelized local scene in India ??? you are moving even further away from reality than you began :-) The India retail sector today is the second biggest employer (after agriculture) and is overwhelmingly made of small shops. The entry of Walmart will simply decimate this group, as it has succesfully done in some countries ... neo-liberal economics is good at manufacturing poverty.... Faoud made some thought provoking points regarding the local-global connections and power inequalities wrt Internet as well... .. > If the consumers of these services, who pay too much, are diffused all over the world, and the suppliers/beneficiaries of market power are concentrated locally, then yes, it is unlikely that local political and regulatory institutions will respond properly. > > So, we need global institutions. > Do you realise that your point that *'it is unlikely that local political and regulatory institutions will respond properly", applies _first and foremost_ to US defacto global policy making, *based on its local political and economic priorities, which are harmful to the interests of developing countries... > We do have institutions for global regulation of business now. One of them is called the World Trade Organization, which tries to prevent national governments from discriminating against foreign entrants. But somehow, I get the feeling that the WTO is not too popular among the economic populists calling for global regulation of Internet businesses. But, maybe I am wrong, perhaps Parminder has discovered (belatedly) the virtues of neoliberal economic policies and is seeking to expand these benefits to the Internet domain. > Again reality is far more nuanced and complex Milton... global institutions are needed to replace current uni-polar domination... and then they need to be democratic - two issues which you are collapsing into one -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 21 03:38:47 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 09:38:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan In-Reply-To: <4FB915B4.1030207@itforchange.net> References: <4FB915B4.1030207@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <31FF4B32-E553-47D3-92C4-815DBCE91AC1@uzh.ch> Hi Parminder On May 20, 2012, at 6:03 PM, parminder wrote: > Bill, I too missed what exactly you are pointing to... > > However, since you are parodying the statement issued by IT for Change Parodying? I quoted from the doc. > and others (and supported by 66 organisations and 117 other individuals), apropos Michael's email, I must direct your attention to the fact that the statement seeks such a global Internet body to act primarily on the basis of human rights. Sure, I know you have a strong human rights orientation, even if the sentence on CIR doesn't actually specify that. But I don't believe that's what most of the governments supporting multilateral "oversight" are looking for or would agree to. If one of them raises the point at tomorrow's CSTD meeting, why don't you ask them, that could be illuminating... > > Incidentally, even India's CIRP proposal, among its 7 listed functions has the following function: promotion and protection of all human rights, namely, civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, including the Right to Development; Sure. BTW, since you've been working closely with the government on this, you must have info the rest of us lack. Could you clarify what India's current stance is viz. the CIRP proposal? I wanted to ask Mr. Govind but didn't get a chance. He was quoted in the press as saying they'd dropped it as "not well thought out;" is that accurate? My notes say the Indian statement Friday was that CIRP was a response to the Tunis Agenda but India wants to be pragmatic and flexible, have a debate without a fixed outcome, and favors a WG on EC, which is different. So are they still supporting the proposal, or no? Have any other governments ever expressed support for it? > > We all do know that governments do all kinds of things, do we therefore then refuse to agree to constitute them at all, and certainly refuse to vote.... Do you take and practise such an anarchic view with respect to your own national politics. If not, why so? One can easily construct many such parodies vis a vis the US government,and what it implies to vote in any government at all for governing the US. Anarchic? You're confusing me with Avri, maybe…? > > Why do such anarchic dispositions rise up only when global politics is concerned. Is it a fear by the rich parts of the world of having to share the undue benefits and advantages that they may be sitting on? The rich parts of the world (a couple billion people) aren't a singular actor with a singular preference for anarchy (?), but it's fair to say one doesn't hear many expressions of support from there for multilateral oversight of CIR. I don't believe the reasons for this can be fairly reduced to fear of sharing undue benefits and advantages, or that's it's obvious what that might mean in this context. See you tomorrow, Bill > > > > > On Sunday 20 May 2012 08:33 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> Quite honestly Bill, the actual meaning/logic of your (I think meant to be) >> ironic comment escapes me (I read it four times and it still escapes me... >> >> (and by my reckoning had either or both of Iran and Pakistan signed on to >> some global treaty about Internet Rights/rights on the Internet (or >> something similar) it would I'm assuming, be even a wee bit more difficult >> for the respectie governments to act in this high-handed way by for example, >> giving those internally in opposition an international agreement to point >> to/argue for before the courts; and also give those externally who disagree >> with those actions some specific context for them to exercise their >> disagreement; or have I missed something here. >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake >> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:39 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in >> Pakistan >> >> >> On May 20, 2012, at 3:30 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >> >>> Twitter officially shutdown in Pakistan - Twitter Banned in Pakistan >>> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/2012/05/twitter-officially-shu >>> tdown-in-pakistan.html >>> >> If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical >> infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and >> participative multilateral body" so that Pakistan would not be forced to >> take unilateral action merely to shut out this evil monopolist that, with >> three other sites, controls "much of what is considered to be the Internet >> today by most people today". >> >> >> On May 13, 2012, at 12:25 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> >>>> "The telecommunications minister has ordered the use of domain names >>>> ending with .ir" belonging to Iran, Asr Ertebatat reported. >>>> >>>> The order prohibits banks, insurance firms and telephone firms using >>>> foreign hosts for their sites or to inform their clients using foreign >>>> providers such as Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail or MSN, it said. >>>> >> If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical >> infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and >> participative multilateral body" so that Iran would not be forced to take >> unilateral action merely to shut out these evil monopolists... >> >> We demand it! >> >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 21 03:41:47 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 09:41:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E6D69@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2179396@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E6CDC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E6D69@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 3:02 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > To follow on from my highlighting the multi-national regulation of firms > with dominant positions, and the need to keep China in mind since > it's...huge and richer by the year...from today's Wall Street Journal: the > news is Chinese regulators have permitted Google (a US based firm) to > acquire Motorola Mobility (another US based firm). US and European > regulators have already signed off on the deal. Meaning: existing > national laws do have impacts at least in the competition policy arena. > > The key requirement for the Chinese regulators? That Google would continue > to offer Android to other device makers. > > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303360504577414280414923956.html?mod=WSJ_Tech_RightMostPopular > - - - > A chinese source provides for some more details (in french) http://french.cri.cn/621/2012/05/21/301s281846.htm It shows an increasing China's capacity to influence major western industrial deals. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 21 03:50:00 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 00:50:00 -0700 Subject: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <56FE412A6DA74C6FB32A3D885869D29D@UserVAIO> Actually Bill I did check Google with a variety of search terms and I couldn't find any references to this naming Pakistan or Iran as specific supporters of "an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral body.'" with or without the terms "appropriate" or "participative". Perhaps with your evidently superior knowledge you could provide the specifics which you appear to be quoting. Also, am I correct in understanding you to be asserting that indicating a support for "oversight" by "an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral body'" is synonomous with taking a position for "inter-governmental control over CIR". I don't doubt that there is likely diplomatic code words involved here but at least on the face of it "oversight" is not synomyous with "control" and "appropriate" and "participative oversight" would suggest a process somewhat different from that implied by a simple assertion of "inter-governmental control". But again you likely have superior knowledge here and some evidence or references to support this would be appreciated. Tks, M -----Original Message----- From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch] Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 11:59 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan Hi Mike On May 20, 2012, at 5:41 PM, michael gurstein wrote: Bill, Is this a fact that Iran and Pakistann have indicated that they "would like 'the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical infrastructure" to be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral body.'" Uh, yes..? Both governments have made statements publicly and privately calling for intergovernmental control over CIR since WSIS phase I. "Democratic" and "multilateral" have been consistent, the other words have varied, sometimes "suitable," "inclusive" etc. If so would it be possible to share the reference and if possible a listing of all the other countries that have similarly indicated this as a preference. Sorry, I don't have handy copies of the transcripts from every WSIS, WGIG, IGF, CSTD, ITU etc. meeting in which they and others have expressed their preferences, but I imagine if you dig around with a search engine of your choice you should find some stuff. Cheers Bill -----Original Message----- From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch] Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 8:36 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan Hi Mike, Sorry, didn't think it was obscure. These are among the governments that would like "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical infrastructure" to be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral body." There's not much chance that such a body would produce a global treaty about Internet Rights/rights on the Internet that would constrain them, when what they plainly want is a mechanism that strengthens sovereign control and gives them international cover in taking such actions. Best, Bill On May 20, 2012, at 5:03 PM, michael gurstein wrote: Quite honestly Bill, the actual meaning/logic of your (I think meant to be) ironic comment escapes me (I read it four times and it still escapes me... (and by my reckoning had either or both of Iran and Pakistan signed on to some global treaty about Internet Rights/rights on the Internet (or something similar) it would I'm assuming, be even a wee bit more difficult for the respectie governments to act in this high-handed way by for example, giving those internally in opposition an international agreement to point to/argue for before the courts; and also give those externally who disagree with those actions some specific context for them to exercise their disagreement; or have I missed something here. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:39 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan On May 20, 2012, at 3:30 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: Twitter officially shutdown in Pakistan - Twitter Banned in Pakistan http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/2012/05/twitter-officially-sh u tdown-in-pakistan.html If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral body" so that Pakistan would not be forced to take unilateral action merely to shut out this evil monopolist that, with three other sites, controls "much of what is considered to be the Internet today by most people today". On May 13, 2012, at 12:25 AM, michael gurstein wrote: "The telecommunications minister has ordered the use of domain names ending with .ir" belonging to Iran, Asr Ertebatat reported. The order prohibits banks, insurance firms and telephone firms using foreign hosts for their sites or to inform their clients using foreign providers such as Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail or MSN, it said. If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral body" so that Iran would not be forced to take unilateral action merely to shut out these evil monopolists... We demand it! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon May 21 04:31:48 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 10:31:48 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan References: <4FB915B4.1030207@itforchange.net> <31FF4B32-E553-47D3-92C4-815DBCE91AC1@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD57@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Just FYI: When we disucssed access to documents for the forthcoming ITU-WCIT conference in Dubai in December 2012 during the recent WSIS Forum, the governmental representative of the United Arab Emirates argued that there is no need that Civil Society people have access to those documents. They are represented by their national governments. At least the UAE represent "their people" he said and he hopes that also other governments represent "their people". Good to know. I would be interested how the "Emirates Identity Authority", which distributed in Geneva a 200 page publication advertising its "ID Card" project, which has fingerprints and other biometric individual data, included the local civil society organisations in developing the policy for the ID card. The UAE ID Card is obviously a great project which represents - as the authority says - the highest standard in the world. When I was searching for provisions for individual data protection I was unable to find even the word "data protection" or "privacy" in the 200 page report. I would be indeed interested to find out how the UAE governmental representative, who claimed to represent his people, has consulted the individuals who will get the ID card, in the PDP and decision making process for the making of the ID card. http://www.eida.gov.ae/en/home.aspx Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von William Drake Gesendet: Mo 21.05.2012 09:38 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Betreff: Re: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan Hi Parminder On May 20, 2012, at 6:03 PM, parminder wrote: Bill, I too missed what exactly you are pointing to... However, since you are parodying the statement issued by IT for Change Parodying? I quoted from the doc. and others (and supported by 66 organisations and 117 other individuals), apropos Michael's email, I must direct your attention to the fact that the statement seeks such a global Internet body to act primarily on the basis of human rights. Sure, I know you have a strong human rights orientation, even if the sentence on CIR doesn't actually specify that. But I don't believe that's what most of the governments supporting multilateral "oversight" are looking for or would agree to. If one of them raises the point at tomorrow's CSTD meeting, why don't you ask them, that could be illuminating... Incidentally, even India's CIRP proposal, among its 7 listed functions has the following function: promotion and protection of all human rights, namely, civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, including the Right to Development; Sure. BTW, since you've been working closely with the government on this, you must have info the rest of us lack. Could you clarify what India's current stance is viz. the CIRP proposal? I wanted to ask Mr. Govind but didn't get a chance. He was quoted in the press as saying they'd dropped it as "not well thought out;" is that accurate? My notes say the Indian statement Friday was that CIRP was a response to the Tunis Agenda but India wants to be pragmatic and flexible, have a debate without a fixed outcome, and favors a WG on EC, which is different. So are they still supporting the proposal, or no? Have any other governments ever expressed support for it? We all do know that governments do all kinds of things, do we therefore then refuse to agree to constitute them at all, and certainly refuse to vote.... Do you take and practise such an anarchic view with respect to your own national politics. If not, why so? One can easily construct many such parodies vis a vis the US government,and what it implies to vote in any government at all for governing the US. Anarchic? You're confusing me with Avri, maybe...? Why do such anarchic dispositions rise up only when global politics is concerned. Is it a fear by the rich parts of the world of having to share the undue benefits and advantages that they may be sitting on? The rich parts of the world (a couple billion people) aren't a singular actor with a singular preference for anarchy (?), but it's fair to say one doesn't hear many expressions of support from there for multilateral oversight of CIR. I don't believe the reasons for this can be fairly reduced to fear of sharing undue benefits and advantages, or that's it's obvious what that might mean in this context. See you tomorrow, Bill On Sunday 20 May 2012 08:33 PM, michael gurstein wrote: Quite honestly Bill, the actual meaning/logic of your (I think meant to be) ironic comment escapes me (I read it four times and it still escapes me... (and by my reckoning had either or both of Iran and Pakistan signed on to some global treaty about Internet Rights/rights on the Internet (or something similar) it would I'm assuming, be even a wee bit more difficult for the respectie governments to act in this high-handed way by for example, giving those internally in opposition an international agreement to point to/argue for before the courts; and also give those externally who disagree with those actions some specific context for them to exercise their disagreement; or have I missed something here. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:39 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan On May 20, 2012, at 3:30 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: Twitter officially shutdown in Pakistan - Twitter Banned in Pakistan http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/2012/05/twitter-officially-shu tdown-in-pakistan.html If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral body" so that Pakistan would not be forced to take unilateral action merely to shut out this evil monopolist that, with three other sites, controls "much of what is considered to be the Internet today by most people today". On May 13, 2012, at 12:25 AM, michael gurstein wrote: "The telecommunications minister has ordered the use of domain names ending with .ir" belonging to Iran, Asr Ertebatat reported. The order prohibits banks, insurance firms and telephone firms using foreign hosts for their sites or to inform their clients using foreign providers such as Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail or MSN, it said. If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral body" so that Iran would not be forced to take unilateral action merely to shut out these evil monopolists... We demand it! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 21 04:58:09 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 10:58:09 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation Note 1 References: <4FB9EFF8.5090200@apc.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD58@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Great speech Anriette. You are right, lets first clarify the substance of EC before we come to proposal to formalize (or not formalize) for EC. Well done. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Anriette Esterhuysen Gesendet: Mo 21.05.2012 09:34 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation Note 1 Here are the remarks I made on the CSTD panel on EC on 18 May 2012. Pasted below and attached as a PDF. Anriette ------------------------------------------------------------ Why are we here and why is this event so well attended? We are here because the internet matters to us. It matters more than in 2005 because more people and countries are connected to the internet. More poor people are connected as access expands. Therefore it follows that decisions made about internet policy and development matters. Global decisions, but also national decisions that influences how we use the internet. Sometimes national decisions influences how people everywhere use the internet, for example copyright enforcement by one country can limit access to knowledge and information for internet users everywhere. But even national decisions that are directed at people inside a particular country, such as censorship of filtering, or blocking affects people outside of that country as because the internet connects us all. We are also here because IG decision-making is complex and dispersed. The internet is not a publicly owned entity. Ownership and responsibility for managing and developing the internet is mixed. Users develop applications and content. Companies build platforms and provide services. Much of the infrastructure we use to access the internet was built by the public sector. Protocols and standards are developed by engineers, inventors and technicians. The internet is existentially and integrally multi-stakeholder. This is why governance of the internet cannot but be fully multi-stakeholder. We are also here because people are not happy with the current status quo in IG. Some stakeholders say that EC is already happening, others say it is not. Some countries have more power and influence than others, Some make more effort than others. Some feel that decisions are made that are not consistent with existing global agreements, e.g. in the case of human rights. Not only governments have concerns. There are also dissonances in the participation of business and civil society and the technical community. Small businesses and many in civil society have no real voice in IG. There are different interpretations of EC. Does it refer only to more cooperation with/among governments? And amidst all this it is often not clear where the public interest lies in IG, and who its defenders are. We are also here, perhaps primarily, because we have not done what the Tunis Agenda mandated: using the IGF to take forward the discussion on EC. Where to from here? My proposal is a working group on enhanced cooperation be established, in a similar way to how the WGIG (Working Group on Internet Governance) was formed (for example, 50% of the seats in this WGIG was reserved for States to ensure they were given adequate representation). It should work within the framework of the IGF. This is essential to respect the original purpose for the establishment of the IGF, and because the IGF brings together so many stakeholders already engaged in IG. It could also work in collaboration with the CSTD. It is critical that this WGEC is fully multi-stakeholder, and that all stakeholders should feel comfortable with how it was constituted and how it functions. Scope, output, success criteria for this WGEC: Definitions: It can address some of the definitions around which there is so much disagreement, e.g. 'enhanced cooperation', 'in their respective roles', 'equal footing', and what it means to be 'multilateral and multi-stakeholder'. Issues: It can identify what the issues are that most require better cooperation among stakeholders, and that governments feel most strongly they need more involvement in. Mapping: It should undertake mapping of existing IG institutions and processes, and assess progress in EC in each of there. Output of the WGEC: Aside from a report on its work, issues, definitions, etc. I think it would be most useful if this group can produce a "Multi-stakeholder Declaration on Enhanced Cooperation in Internet Governance" - a statement of common principles and commitments needed to ensure public-interest oriented IG based on cooperation among all stakeholders. It could also produce a report with recommendations regarding institutional arrangements for IG, where they are working well, where there are gaps, how these can be addressed, and so on. Success criteria for the WGEC would include the legitimacy of group and how it was constituted, its leadership, the extent of interaction and feedback with other bodies that are discussing these issues and with all who feel they are stakeholders in IG. I look forward to more discussion today, and, to us working together to find a fresh approach towards more inclusive spaces and processes in IG. 18 May 2012 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 21 06:40:07 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 15:40:07 +0500 Subject: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD57@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4FB915B4.1030207@itforchange.net> <31FF4B32-E553-47D3-92C4-815DBCE91AC1@uzh.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD57@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: After the very large local and global outcry: Twitter.com restored in Pakistan by Government after domestic and global outcry against the blocking! http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/2012/05/twittercom-restored-in-pakistan-by.html Best Fouad On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:31 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Just FYI: > > When we disucssed access to documents for the forthcoming ITU-WCIT conference in Dubai in December 2012 during the recent WSIS Forum, the governmental representative of the United Arab Emirates argued that there is no need that Civil Society people have access to those documents. They are represented by their national governments. At least the UAE represent "their people" he said and he hopes that also other governments represent "their people". Good to know. > > I would be interested how the "Emirates Identity Authority", which distributed in Geneva a 200 page publication advertising its "ID Card" project, which has fingerprints and other biometric individual data, included the local civil society organisations in developing the policy for the ID card. The UAE ID Card is obviously a great project which represents - as the authority says - the highest standard in the world. When I was searching for provisions for individual data protection I was unable to find even the word "data protection" or "privacy" in the 200 page report. I would be indeed interested to find out how the UAE governmental representative, who claimed to represent his people, has consulted the individuals who will get the ID card, in the PDP and decision making process for the making of the ID card. > > http://www.eida.gov.ae/en/home.aspx > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von William Drake > Gesendet: Mo 21.05.2012 09:38 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder > Betreff: Re: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan > > > Hi Parminder > > > On May 20, 2012, at 6:03 PM, parminder wrote: > > >          Bill, I too missed what exactly you are pointing to... > >        However, since you are parodying the statement issued by IT for Change > > > Parodying?  I quoted from the doc. > > >        and others (and supported by  66 organisations and 117 other individuals), apropos Michael's email, I must  direct your attention to the fact that the statement seeks such a global Internet body to act primarily on the basis of human rights. > > > > Sure, I know you have a strong human rights orientation, even if the sentence on CIR doesn't actually specify that.  But I don't believe that's what most of the governments supporting multilateral "oversight" are looking for or would agree to.  If one of them raises the point at tomorrow's CSTD meeting, why don't you ask them, that could be illuminating... > > > >        Incidentally, even India's CIRP proposal, among its 7 listed functions has the following function: promotion and protection of all human rights, namely, civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, including the Right to Development; > > > > Sure. BTW, since you've been working closely with the government on this, you must have info the rest of us lack.  Could you clarify what India's current stance is viz. the CIRP proposal?  I wanted to ask Mr. Govind but didn't get a chance.  He was quoted in the press as saying they'd dropped it as "not well thought out;" is that accurate?  My notes say the Indian statement Friday was that CIRP was a response to the Tunis Agenda but India wants to be pragmatic and flexible, have a debate without a fixed outcome, and favors a WG on EC, which is different.  So are they still supporting the proposal, or no?  Have any other governments ever expressed support for it? > > > >        We all do know that governments do all kinds of things, do we therefore then refuse to agree to constitute them at all, and certainly refuse to vote.... Do you take and practise such an anarchic view with respect to your own national politics. If not, why so? One can easily construct many such parodies vis a vis the US government,and what it implies to vote in any government at all for governing the US. > > > > Anarchic?  You're confusing me with Avri, maybe...? > > > >        Why do such anarchic dispositions rise up only when global politics is concerned. Is it a fear by the rich parts of the world of having to share the undue benefits and advantages that they may be sitting on? > > > > The rich parts of the world (a couple billion people) aren't a singular actor with a singular preference for anarchy (?), but it's fair to say one doesn't hear many expressions of support from there for multilateral oversight of CIR.  I don't believe the reasons for this can be fairly reduced to fear of sharing undue benefits and advantages, or that's it's obvious what that might mean in this context. > > See you tomorrow, > > Bill > > > > > > >        On Sunday 20 May 2012 08:33 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > >                Quite honestly Bill, the actual meaning/logic of your (I think meant to be) >                ironic comment escapes me (I read it four times and it still escapes me... > >                (and by my reckoning had either or both of Iran and Pakistan signed on to >                some global treaty about Internet Rights/rights on the Internet (or >                something similar) it would I'm assuming, be even a wee bit more difficult >                for the respectie governments to act in this high-handed way by for example, >                giving those internally in opposition an international agreement to point >                to/argue for before the courts; and also give those externally who disagree >                with those actions some specific context for them to exercise their >                disagreement; or have I missed something here. > >                M > >                -----Original Message----- >                From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >                [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake >                Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:39 AM >                To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >                Subject: Re: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in >                Pakistan > > >                On May 20, 2012, at 3:30 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > > >                        Twitter officially shutdown in Pakistan - Twitter Banned in Pakistan >                        http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/2012/05/twitter-officially-shu >                        tdown-in-pakistan.html > > >                If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical >                infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and >                participative multilateral body" so that Pakistan would not be forced to >                take unilateral action merely to shut out this evil monopolist that, with >                three other sites, controls "much of what is considered to be the Internet >                today by most people today". > > >                On May 13, 2012, at 12:25 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > >                                "The telecommunications minister has ordered the use of domain names >                                ending with .ir" belonging to Iran, Asr Ertebatat reported. > >                                The order prohibits banks, insurance firms and telephone firms using >                                foreign hosts for their sites or to inform their clients using foreign >                                providers such as Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail or MSN, it said. > > >                If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical >                infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and >                participative multilateral body" so that Iran would not be forced to take >                unilateral action merely to shut out these evil monopolists... > >                We demand it! > > > > > >        ____________________________________________________________ >        You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >            governance at lists.igcaucus.org >        To be removed from the list, visit: >            http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >        For all other list information and functions, see: >            http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >        To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >            http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >        Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 ginger at paque.net Mon May 21 06:43:13 2012 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 06:13:13 -0430 Subject: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan In-Reply-To: References: <4FB915B4.1030207@itforchange.net> <31FF4B32-E553-47D3-92C4-815DBCE91AC1@uzh.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD57@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Congratulations--when multistakeholder situations are not automatic, civil society is exercising its rights! On 21 May 2012 06:10, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > After the very large local and global outcry: > > Twitter.com restored in Pakistan by Government after domestic and > global outcry against the blocking! > > > http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/2012/05/twittercom-restored-in-pakistan-by.html > > > Best > > Fouad > > On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:31 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > wrote: > > Just FYI: > > > > When we disucssed access to documents for the forthcoming ITU-WCIT > conference in Dubai in December 2012 during the recent WSIS Forum, the > governmental representative of the United Arab Emirates argued that there > is no need that Civil Society people have access to those documents. They > are represented by their national governments. At least the UAE represent > "their people" he said and he hopes that also other governments represent > "their people". Good to know. > > > > I would be interested how the "Emirates Identity Authority", which > distributed in Geneva a 200 page publication advertising its "ID Card" > project, which has fingerprints and other biometric individual data, > included the local civil society organisations in developing the policy for > the ID card. The UAE ID Card is obviously a great project which represents > - as the authority says - the highest standard in the world. When I was > searching for provisions for individual data protection I was unable to > find even the word "data protection" or "privacy" in the 200 page report. I > would be indeed interested to find out how the UAE governmental > representative, who claimed to represent his people, has consulted the > individuals who will get the ID card, in the PDP and decision making > process for the making of the ID card. > > > > http://www.eida.gov.ae/en/home.aspx > > > > Wolfgang > > > > ________________________________ > > > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von William Drake > > Gesendet: Mo 21.05.2012 09:38 > > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder > > Betreff: Re: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users > in Pakistan > > > > > > Hi Parminder > > > > > > On May 20, 2012, at 6:03 PM, parminder wrote: > > > > > > Bill, I too missed what exactly you are pointing to... > > > > However, since you are parodying the statement issued by IT for > Change > > > > > > Parodying? I quoted from the doc. > > > > > > and others (and supported by 66 organisations and 117 other > individuals), apropos Michael's email, I must direct your attention to the > fact that the statement seeks such a global Internet body to act primarily > on the basis of human rights. > > > > > > > > Sure, I know you have a strong human rights orientation, even if the > sentence on CIR doesn't actually specify that. But I don't believe that's > what most of the governments supporting multilateral "oversight" are > looking for or would agree to. If one of them raises the point at > tomorrow's CSTD meeting, why don't you ask them, that could be > illuminating... > > > > > > > > Incidentally, even India's CIRP proposal, among its 7 listed > functions has the following function: promotion and protection of all human > rights, namely, civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, > including the Right to Development; > > > > > > > > Sure. BTW, since you've been working closely with the government on > this, you must have info the rest of us lack. Could you clarify what > India's current stance is viz. the CIRP proposal? I wanted to ask Mr. > Govind but didn't get a chance. He was quoted in the press as saying > they'd dropped it as "not well thought out;" is that accurate? My notes > say the Indian statement Friday was that CIRP was a response to the Tunis > Agenda but India wants to be pragmatic and flexible, have a debate without > a fixed outcome, and favors a WG on EC, which is different. So are they > still supporting the proposal, or no? Have any other governments ever > expressed support for it? > > > > > > > > We all do know that governments do all kinds of things, do we > therefore then refuse to agree to constitute them at all, and certainly > refuse to vote.... Do you take and practise such an anarchic view with > respect to your own national politics. If not, why so? One can easily > construct many such parodies vis a vis the US government,and what it > implies to vote in any government at all for governing the US. > > > > > > > > Anarchic? You're confusing me with Avri, maybe...? > > > > > > > > Why do such anarchic dispositions rise up only when global > politics is concerned. Is it a fear by the rich parts of the world of > having to share the undue benefits and advantages that they may be sitting > on? > > > > > > > > The rich parts of the world (a couple billion people) aren't a singular > actor with a singular preference for anarchy (?), but it's fair to say one > doesn't hear many expressions of support from there for multilateral > oversight of CIR. I don't believe the reasons for this can be fairly > reduced to fear of sharing undue benefits and advantages, or that's it's > obvious what that might mean in this context. > > > > See you tomorrow, > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday 20 May 2012 08:33 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > > Quite honestly Bill, the actual meaning/logic of your (I > think meant to be) > > ironic comment escapes me (I read it four times and it > still escapes me... > > > > (and by my reckoning had either or both of Iran and > Pakistan signed on to > > some global treaty about Internet Rights/rights on the > Internet (or > > something similar) it would I'm assuming, be even a wee > bit more difficult > > for the respectie governments to act in this high-handed > way by for example, > > giving those internally in opposition an international > agreement to point > > to/argue for before the courts; and also give those > externally who disagree > > with those actions some specific context for them to > exercise their > > disagreement; or have I missed something here. > > > > M > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf > Of William Drake > > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:39 AM > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to > Internet users in > > Pakistan > > > > > > On May 20, 2012, at 3:30 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > > > > > > > Twitter officially shutdown in Pakistan - Twitter > Banned in Pakistan > > > http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/2012/05/twitter-officially-shu > > tdown-in-pakistan.html > > > > > > If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical > technical and logical > > infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, > democratic and > > participative multilateral body" so that Pakistan would > not be forced to > > take unilateral action merely to shut out this evil > monopolist that, with > > three other sites, controls "much of what is considered > to be the Internet > > today by most people today". > > > > > > On May 13, 2012, at 12:25 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > > > > > > "The telecommunications minister has > ordered the use of domain names > > ending with .ir" belonging to Iran, Asr > Ertebatat reported. > > > > The order prohibits banks, insurance > firms and telephone firms using > > foreign hosts for their sites or to > inform their clients using foreign > > providers such as Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail > or MSN, it said. > > > > > > If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical > technical and logical > > infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, > democratic and > > participative multilateral body" so that Iran would not > be forced to take > > unilateral action merely to shut out these evil > monopolists... > > > > We demand it! > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 21 07:06:17 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 16:36:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2179386@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3A25FB52-4B98-443F-BD60-706F79D7CA44@acm.org> <4FB86768.3030905@ITforChange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2179386@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FBA21A9.9070206@itforchange.net> On Monday 21 May 2012 01:41 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > SNIP.... Let's say there is a cartel or monopoly of some kind over telecom equipment production for the international market in an Indian state. That monopoly - if indeed it has monopoly power - is likely to be politically popular and politically protected locally. (Need I remind you of the controversy over allowing multinational retailers into India's cartelized local scene?) That is, the monopoly profits that are being made can easily be directed to local politicians, may create higher than market wages for the local workers and higher local tax revenues. > > If the consumers of these services, who pay too much, are diffused all over the world, and the suppliers/beneficiaries of market power are concentrated locally, then yes, it is unlikely that local political and regulatory institutions will respond properly. > Yes, Milton, very good analysis. This is exactly the situation. The monopolies are almost all based in the US, and consumers are spread worldwide. And since the local politicians, and also economy, benefits from these monopolies, they would not take the necessary action. It has to be taken somewhere else. > So, we need global institutions. > Yes, very true. Exactly the right conclusion from your right analysis. thanks. So now I hope we can take it that you agree that we need some kind of global regulatory system for the global Internet industry.. :) parminder > We do have institutions for global regulation of business now. One of them is called the World Trade Organization, which tries to prevent national governments from discriminating against foreign entrants. But somehow, I get the feeling that the WTO is not too popular among the economic populists calling for global regulation of Internet businesses. But, maybe I am wrong, perhaps Parminder has discovered (belatedly) the virtues of neoliberal economic policies and is seeking to expand these benefits to the Internet domain. > > > >>> The question i have then, beyond the regional/local problem of >>> >> countries etc that allow such local capture, is there a global way to >> help with this. I think there may be, and thus it is worth discussing. >> Except for a very few companies, and these rather incompletely, most >> companies do not make social ethics a high priority and thus will take >> market power whenever they can, by whatever means they can get it. >> Unfortunately, it is only regulatory frameworks that stop most companies >> from this sort of behavior. So what can be done at a global level to >> keep local/regional monopolies from happening. >> >>> avri >>> >>> >> Avri, >> >> I think you have begun a useful thread of thought - the need for global >> regulation of business. This is an extension of the national regulation >> of business, to a global space as the Internet, and much required. The >> lack of global regulation has led to so many abuses of market power and >> political power. >> >> My question for you is - in the processes of framing national >> regulation, would you have the concerned companies "on an equal footing" >> as with the other stakeholders, wherein a verizon or google can veto any >> definition of net neutrality other than theirs. Or is it that each >> stakeholder group has an important yet distinct role - and that of >> business is certainly to forward arguments for their practices and >> provide any expertise... but business given their very nature/need to >> maximise their shareholder wealth cannot be expected to protect public >> interest or 'make social ethics their priority' as you put it. What is >> the implication of this for defining the nature of MSH? >> >> You must be familiar with the ALEC lobbying efforts in USA, and the >> impact on US regulation in the past few years. How can we ensure >> regulation/policy making to be based on negotiation of perceptions of >> public interest? What would be the implications of allowing powerful >> corporates 'equal place' at the policy table? How would it work? >> >> regards >> Guru >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 21 07:26:15 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 11:26:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <4FBA21A9.9070206@itforchange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3A25FB52-4B98-443F-BD60-706F79D7CA44@acm.org> <4FB86768.3030905@ITforChange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2179386@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>,<4FBA21A9.9070206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E6E86@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Just one more link re China's regulatory actions permitting the Google-Motorola Mobility merger to conclude: http://www.rethink-wireless.com/2012/05/21/android-remain-free-open-years-china.htm Main condition is Google cannot restrict access to the Android OS for the next 5 years. So returning to the original consumer/user focus of this thread; the regulatory approval process for M&A activities including of major multinational enterprises impacting the Internet seems to work more or less well. With China the notable newcomer joining the default gauntlet of US and EU regulators which those firms must pass by to conclude major deals. (Other national regulators matter too, of course, but from a power politics point of view, not so much.) However, to Guru's, Parminder's, Jeremy's and Louis' concerns for consumers/users and their democratic rights, we can't point to similarly effective opportunities for their direct intervention at global level, nor equally effective coordination of national regulators. Except perhaps...in areas of Internet governance where existing global MSH mechanisms, namely ICANN, are the market-makers and regulators. Eg, for gTLDs. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 7:06 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] reality check on economics On Monday 21 May 2012 01:41 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: SNIP.... Let's say there is a cartel or monopoly of some kind over telecom equipment production for the international market in an Indian state. That monopoly - if indeed it has monopoly power - is likely to be politically popular and politically protected locally. (Need I remind you of the controversy over allowing multinational retailers into India's cartelized local scene?) That is, the monopoly profits that are being made can easily be directed to local politicians, may create higher than market wages for the local workers and higher local tax revenues. If the consumers of these services, who pay too much, are diffused all over the world, and the suppliers/beneficiaries of market power are concentrated locally, then yes, it is unlikely that local political and regulatory institutions will respond properly. Yes, Milton, very good analysis. This is exactly the situation. The monopolies are almost all based in the US, and consumers are spread worldwide. And since the local politicians, and also economy, benefits from these monopolies, they would not take the necessary action. It has to be taken somewhere else. So, we need global institutions. Yes, very true. Exactly the right conclusion from your right analysis. thanks. So now I hope we can take it that you agree that we need some kind of global regulatory system for the global Internet industry.. :) parminder We do have institutions for global regulation of business now. One of them is called the World Trade Organization, which tries to prevent national governments from discriminating against foreign entrants. But somehow, I get the feeling that the WTO is not too popular among the economic populists calling for global regulation of Internet businesses. But, maybe I am wrong, perhaps Parminder has discovered (belatedly) the virtues of neoliberal economic policies and is seeking to expand these benefits to the Internet domain. The question i have then, beyond the regional/local problem of countries etc that allow such local capture, is there a global way to help with this. I think there may be, and thus it is worth discussing. Except for a very few companies, and these rather incompletely, most companies do not make social ethics a high priority and thus will take market power whenever they can, by whatever means they can get it. Unfortunately, it is only regulatory frameworks that stop most companies from this sort of behavior. So what can be done at a global level to keep local/regional monopolies from happening. avri Avri, I think you have begun a useful thread of thought - the need for global regulation of business. This is an extension of the national regulation of business, to a global space as the Internet, and much required. The lack of global regulation has led to so many abuses of market power and political power. My question for you is - in the processes of framing national regulation, would you have the concerned companies "on an equal footing" as with the other stakeholders, wherein a verizon or google can veto any definition of net neutrality other than theirs. Or is it that each stakeholder group has an important yet distinct role - and that of business is certainly to forward arguments for their practices and provide any expertise... but business given their very nature/need to maximise their shareholder wealth cannot be expected to protect public interest or 'make social ethics their priority' as you put it. What is the implication of this for defining the nature of MSH? You must be familiar with the ALEC lobbying efforts in USA, and the impact on US regulation in the past few years. How can we ensure regulation/policy making to be based on negotiation of perceptions of public interest? What would be the implications of allowing powerful corporates 'equal place' at the policy table? How would it work? regards Guru -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon May 21 07:32:45 2012 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 13:32:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] On Enhanced Cooperation and the opportunity of a working group Message-ID: Dear all, Please find below (and attached in word format) the main points I raised in my intervention in the CSTD last friday. I hope they will help in the discussions this week that I cannot attend. Best Bertrand ON “ENHANCED COOPERATION” AND THE OPPORTUNITY OF A WORKING GROUP Contribution for the discussions in the CSTD (*Comments made in a personal capacity, based on the intervention on May 18)*) *Benefits and limits of wording ambiguity* The formulations around “Enhanced Cooperation” in the Tunis Agenda were purposefully ambiguous enough to enable diverging interpretations. It was a traditional diplomatic situation enabling closure in Tunis in the absence of real consensus. The same ambiguity was present at the end of the first phase of WSIS in 2003, around the term “Internet Governance” (IG). Two main questions divided participants: - is “Internet Governance” limited to infrastructure and critical Internet resources (naming and addressing) or does it also cover issues like freedom of expression, privacy, cybercrime, etc ? - should IG remain the province of the technical/business community, or should it become the exclusive responsibility of governments, given the importance the network now plays in all domains of human activity? The creation of the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) helped address these issues and the definition of IG that it produced clarified that: - Internet Governance does cover both Governance OF the Internet and Governance ON the Internet (as the Tunis definition addresses “the evolution and use of the Internet” - Internet Governance is neither purely private nor purely intergovernmental, but “multi-stakeholder”, involving all categories of stakeholders, with the important caveat of the now famous “in their respective roles” *Key underlying questions* On “Enhanced Cooperation”, parties to the discussion can continue to reaffirm their divergent interpretations as they have done for the last seven years. But peremptory arguments are disingenuous at best. Fundamentally, the debate about “Enhanced Cooperation” is nothing else than exploring how to operationalize the definition of Internet Governance, and in particular clarify the question of the “respective roles” of the different stakeholders. Time has come to dig deeper and have the courage to address head on some of the key questions: - what is the scope of Enhanced Cooperation: all of Internet Governance, or only some of it ? - are we talking of Enhanced Cooperation as a single process or structure or rather thinking of Enhanced Cooperation*s* in the plural, to address a diversity of issues with different mechanisms? - are the respective roles of the different stakeholders set once and for all, or do they vary, for instance according to the issue, the venue and the stage of the discussion? *Moving forward* Such questions – and other – could contribute to a useful framing of the debate, but how to move forward? Some actors have proposed the creation of a working group, worried that annual sessions such as this year merely produce a succession of repetitive statements and no real interaction. Others have deep concern that a working group will be a waste of time and resources if it is not set up in an appropriate manner and with a clear willingness of all parties to move forward. * * *Two preliminary conditions* Without taking sides, I would like to highlight two elements to feed into the CSTD discussions this week on the possible formation of a working group: - experience teaches us that working groups are not efficient without the participation of all actors and article 71 of the Tunis Agenda requires it for legitimacy on the EC issue; to build on the successful precedent of the WSIS, the format of the WGIG should be the reference here, with its balanced composition and equal footing of the participants - secondly, it is essential that appropriate funding is available, without which the involvement of participants from developing countries cannot be ensured; but the same funders cannot be always called to task: the proponents of setting up a group should therefore be able to lead by example and put their money where their mouth is; it would be ironic otherwise to expect such funding only from countries or actors who do not particularly want the setting up of such an effort. These two elements – a WGIG format and appropriate funding – are likely to be prerequisites for any discussion on setting up a Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC ?). * * *Further points to address* Should those conditions be agreed upon and the CSTD willing to go in the direction of setting up such a group, other questions to be explored include: - what should be the scope/mandate of such a group? useful suggestions heard in the open consultation on May 18 included: - elaborating a better shared understanding of the concept of Enhanced Cooperation and the issues it covers - a mapping exercise of existing instances of Enhanced Cooperation - an identification of possible principles guiding the setting up of Enhanced Cooperation Frameworks - how open such a WG will be and in particular how it will solicit inputs from non-members and inform them of its process? - where such a working group would be attached (proposals include: the Chair of the CSTD, the IGF, the UN SG) and who would chair it? - how such an exercise should leverage/interact with the IGF? - how and to whom it should report to, and in what form? To avoid future misunderstanding, any draft resolution discussed in Geneva this week needs to address these issues as clearly as possible. * * *About good faith* If an agreement is reached on the creation of a working group and its modus operandi, an essential trust-building element is that the governments participating in preparing the draft resolution abide later on, in ECOSOC and the UNGA, by whatever compromise will have been reached in Geneva. Previous instances of reopening painfully agreed upon terms have sapped confidence: the word of one government in Geneva should not be different from its word in New York. Switzerland remarks during the open consultations also need to be kept in mind. The price we have all paid for not moving beyond the ambiguous formulations of Tunis is that discussion on a process to discuss process (!) has prevented actually addressing pressing issues. It is now time to move from parallel statements to actual interaction. But the setting up of a working group on this topic will only be useful if its modalities are right and the participants engage in good faith, fully assuming their responsibilities. Hoping this helps. -- ____________________ 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: On Enhanced Cooperation 2012.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 133586 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon May 21 08:22:38 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 08:22:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <8FFA3EA3-DB0D-4E51-9DC4-D7B821EB2AB3@ciroap.org> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8FFA3EA3-DB0D-4E51-9DC4-D7B821EB2AB3@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 19/05/2012, at 12:51 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > On 19/05/2012, at 12:11 AM, McTim wrote: > > On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > Monopolies aren't the only firms who act against the global public > interest(s), so too do run-of-the-mill firms in a competitive market. > > > both monopolies and "run of the mill" firms are also end-users in the > sense that they are allowed to run their networks and set their ToS as > they wish. > > > To the extent that they are allowed to do so.  What constraints are placed > upon them doing so is a policy decision. > > Not all of their abuses are checked by competition law. > > > Not all are abusive. > > > Not all abuses are abusive?  My mind is spinning. Not all companies are abusive. Or do you think all companies ARE abusive? -- 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 aizu at anr.org Mon May 21 08:31:53 2012 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 21:31:53 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: On Enhanced Cooperation and the opportunity of a working group In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Bertrand, Thank you for sharing this. At the meeting, I saw some sign of positive convergence to tackle this difficult problem by articulating what are the real problems in a mutually agreeable process, in a Working Group form, one way or another. In your words, "setting up of a working group on this topic will only be useful if its modalities are right and the participants engage in good faith, fully assuming their responsibilities." Of course, as I said, devils are in the details and where this WG be anchored, say under CSTD, UNSG directly (like WGIG), or IGF is one such devil I think. But they are not "uncompromiseable" elements, in a larger picture I think. izumi 2012/5/21 Bertrand de La Chapelle : > Dear all, > > Please find below (and attached in word format) the main points I raised in > my intervention in the CSTD last friday. I hope they will help in the > discussions this week that I cannot attend. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > ON “ENHANCED COOPERATION” AND THE OPPORTUNITY OF A WORKING GROUP > > Contribution for the discussions in the CSTD (Comments made in a personal > capacity, based on the intervention on May 18)) > > > > > > Benefits and limits of wording ambiguity > > > > The formulations around “Enhanced Cooperation” in the Tunis Agenda were > purposefully ambiguous enough to enable diverging interpretations. It was a > traditional diplomatic situation enabling closure in Tunis in the absence of > real consensus. > > > > The same ambiguity was present at the end of the first phase of WSIS in > 2003, around the term “Internet Governance” (IG). Two main questions divided > participants: > > is “Internet Governance” limited to infrastructure and critical Internet > resources (naming and addressing) or does it also cover issues like freedom > of expression, privacy, cybercrime, etc ? > should IG remain the province of the technical/business community, or should > it become the exclusive responsibility of governments, given the importance > the network now plays in all domains of human activity? > >  The creation of the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) helped > address these issues and the definition of IG that it produced clarified > that: > > Internet Governance does cover both Governance OF the Internet and > Governance ON the Internet (as the Tunis definition addresses “the evolution > and use of the Internet” > Internet Governance is neither purely private nor purely intergovernmental, > but “multi-stakeholder”, involving all categories of stakeholders, with the > important caveat of the now famous “in their respective roles” > > > Key underlying questions > > > On “Enhanced Cooperation”, parties to the discussion can continue to > reaffirm their divergent interpretations as they have done for the last > seven years. But peremptory arguments are disingenuous at best. > Fundamentally, the debate about “Enhanced Cooperation” is nothing else than > exploring how to operationalize the definition of Internet Governance, and > in particular clarify the question of the “respective roles” of the > different stakeholders. > > > Time has come to dig deeper and have the courage to address head on some of > the key questions: > > what is the scope of Enhanced Cooperation: all of Internet Governance, or > only some of it ? > are we talking of Enhanced Cooperation as a single process or structure or > rather thinking of Enhanced Cooperations in the plural, to address a > diversity of issues with different mechanisms? > are the respective roles of the different stakeholders set once and for all, > or do they vary, for instance according to the issue, the venue and the > stage of the discussion? > > > Moving forward > > > Such questions – and other – could contribute to a useful framing of the > debate, but how to move forward? Some actors have proposed the creation of a > working group, worried that annual sessions such as this year merely produce > a succession of repetitive statements and no real interaction. Others have > deep concern that a working group will be a waste of time and resources if > it is not set up in an appropriate manner and with a clear willingness of > all parties to move forward. > > > > Two preliminary conditions > > > Without taking sides, I would like to highlight two elements to feed into > the CSTD discussions this week on the possible formation of a working group: > > experience teaches us that working groups are not efficient without the > participation of all actors and article 71 of the Tunis Agenda requires it > for legitimacy on the EC issue; to build on the successful precedent of the > WSIS, the format of the WGIG should be the reference here, with its balanced > composition and equal footing of the participants > secondly, it is essential that appropriate funding is available, without > which the involvement of participants from developing countries cannot be > ensured; but the same funders cannot be always called to task: the > proponents of setting up a group should therefore be able to lead by example > and put their money where their mouth is; it would be ironic otherwise to > expect such funding only from countries or actors who do not particularly > want the setting up of such an effort. > >  These two elements – a WGIG format and appropriate funding – are likely to > be prerequisites for any discussion on setting up a Working Group on > Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC ?). > > > Further points to address > > > Should those conditions be agreed upon and the CSTD willing to go in the > direction of setting up such a group, other questions to be explored > include: > > what should be the scope/mandate of such a group? useful suggestions heard > in the open consultation on May 18 included: > > elaborating a better shared understanding of the concept of Enhanced > Cooperation and the issues it covers > a mapping exercise of existing instances of Enhanced Cooperation > an identification of possible principles guiding the setting up of Enhanced > Cooperation Frameworks > > how open such a WG will be and in particular how it will solicit inputs from > non-members and inform them of its process? > where such a working group would be attached (proposals include: the Chair > of the CSTD, the IGF, the UN SG) and who would chair it? > how such an exercise should leverage/interact with the IGF? > how and to whom it should report to, and in what form? > >  To avoid future misunderstanding, any draft resolution discussed in Geneva > this week needs to address these issues as clearly as possible. > > > About good faith > > > If an agreement is reached on the creation of a working group and its modus > operandi, an essential trust-building element is that the governments > participating in preparing the draft resolution abide later on, in ECOSOC > and the UNGA, by whatever compromise will have been reached in Geneva. > Previous instances of reopening painfully agreed upon terms have sapped > confidence: the word of one government in Geneva should not be different > from its word in New York. > > > > Switzerland remarks during the open consultations also need to be kept in > mind. The price we have all paid for not moving beyond the ambiguous > formulations of Tunis is that discussion on a process to discuss process (!) > has prevented actually addressing pressing issues. It is now time to move > from parallel statements to actual interaction. But the setting up of a > working group on this topic will only be useful if its modalities are right > and the participants engage in good faith, fully assuming their > responsibilities. > > > Hoping this helps. > > -- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 21 08:50:17 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 08:50:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: On Enhanced Cooperation and the opportunity of a working group In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 21 May 2012, at 08:31, Izumi AIZU wrote: > In your words, > "setting up of a working group on this topic will only be useful if > its modalities are right and the participants engage in good faith, > fully assuming their responsibilities." > > Of course, as I said, devils are in the details and where this WG be > anchored, say under CSTD, UNSG directly (like WGIG), or IGF is one > such devil I think. > But they are not "uncompromiseable" elements, in a larger picture I think. I think that wn you say under the UNSG, you have to mean under UNDESA as I think this UNSG has no, or perhaps, les interest in Internet governance. Besides what is the probability that a CSTD that wants to aggregate more power to itself will give the control it now has over the IGF to the IGF, DESA or anyone else. What I saw in Geneva was so regressive it was actually shocking. I expect this from repressive regimes who want to control every minutia of their people's lives. But when even some CS members join in wanting to roll back multitstakeholder participation to put control in government hands, the last hope to keep it out of government hands is that the Internet community itself not give up this model. With the left-right coalition in the IGC against the multistakeholder model, I do not see how we are going to be much help. 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 nb at bollow.ch Mon May 21 08:58:44 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 14:58:44 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Re: reality check on economics In-Reply-To: (message from McTim on Mon, 21 May 2012 08:22:38 -0400) References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8FFA3EA3-DB0D-4E51-9DC4-D7B821EB2AB3@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20120521125844.BC34C1605@quill.bollow.ch> McTim wrote: > Not all companies are abusive. Or do you think all companies ARE abusive? It seems to me that, as far as I can see, all of those companies that have great market power are abusive in some of what they do. It is true that some of these powerful companies commit much worse abuses than others. But I don't see a single one of which I could truthfully say that it is not in any way abusive. I think that the key success factor for creating Internet governance processes that work well and produce good results is this: The governance processes need to have the kind of dynamics that we can see in IETF, the RIRs, etc., where even though companies patricipate that have great market power and which desire to abuse this power as much as they can, these companies are nevertheless effectively forced by social dynamics and market realities - to either engage in the decision making processes in a non-abusive, contructive way, - or to simply accept the results of decision making processes in which they have opted not to participate. Consequently, it should be considered required education for anyone intending to be involved in the creation of new Internet governance structures (regardless of whether those structures get called "Enhanced Cooperation" or something else) to first participate, over a significant period of time, in these rough-consensus oriented Internet governance processes that exist already. Governments that lack the technical expertise that is necessary for effectively participating in technical discussions need to address that problem by hiring people for Internet governance related roles who have the necessary technical understanding, and not by attempting to transform Internet governance into something that people without technical understanding could do. 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 May 21 09:43:14 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 13:43:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <20120521125844.BC34C1605@quill.bollow.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8FFA3EA3-DB0D-4E51-9DC4-D7B821EB2AB3@ciroap.org> ,<20120521125844.BC34C1605@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E6F57@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Norbert, I agree with your sentiment; but there are areas of Internet governance where knowledge of technopolitical aspects of Internet (governance) and/or technoeconomic aspects of Internet (governance) are sufficient to be an effective participant, even if one lacks the technical depth to be a meaningful contributor to IETF. Not all lawyers that serve on UDRP panels need also have attended x IETF or RIR meetings to be positive contributors, for example. And for some reason, the very effective and high impact W3C is always left out of these discussions, when their specs for HTML5 are more likely to directly impact many more people worldwide than the guts of the inter-network as settled by IETF. I'd suggest W3C has more sessions newbies could get their feet wet with. That particular sausage-making factory (IETF) really is the province of the geeks, who no offense to all of us, don't really need or want a lot of unqualified newbies mucking things up. Lee PS: However, of course the IETF's virtual door is always 100% wide open, as all docs and all groups are 100% accessible online, so everyone so inclined is welcome to -dive in. ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Norbert Bollow [nb at bollow.ch] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 8:58 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: reality check on economics McTim wrote: > Not all companies are abusive. Or do you think all companies ARE abusive? It seems to me that, as far as I can see, all of those companies that have great market power are abusive in some of what they do. It is true that some of these powerful companies commit much worse abuses than others. But I don't see a single one of which I could truthfully say that it is not in any way abusive. I think that the key success factor for creating Internet governance processes that work well and produce good results is this: The governance processes need to have the kind of dynamics that we can see in IETF, the RIRs, etc., where even though companies patricipate that have great market power and which desire to abuse this power as much as they can, these companies are nevertheless effectively forced by social dynamics and market realities - to either engage in the decision making processes in a non-abusive, contructive way, - or to simply accept the results of decision making processes in which they have opted not to participate. Consequently, it should be considered required education for anyone intending to be involved in the creation of new Internet governance structures (regardless of whether those structures get called "Enhanced Cooperation" or something else) to first participate, over a significant period of time, in these rough-consensus oriented Internet governance processes that exist already. Governments that lack the technical expertise that is necessary for effectively participating in technical discussions need to address that problem by hiring people for Internet governance related roles who have the necessary technical understanding, and not by attempting to transform Internet governance into something that people without technical understanding could do. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Mon May 21 10:31:55 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 10:31:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] W3C was Re: [] reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E6F57@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> 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> Message-ID: <4A38B6CE-542D-46AB-A090-04733D2C54D6@acm.org> On 21 May 2012, at 09:43, Lee W McKnight wrote: > I'd suggest W3C has more sessions newbies could get their feet wet with. Isn't W3C a membership group primarily of businesses (they allow individuals, but have no individual class of membership and the dues are the same - starts at 2500 USFD and goes up 7900 USD after 2 years)? While they have some sideline groups that are open to non members, their WG, the focal point of their work, are pretty much only open to members (primarily business) and to a few invitees. I have never seen them as a multistakeholder group, but rather as an industry group. Please correct me if I am wrong, as a non member I have not delved very deeply except for once when I needed to understand the working group structure and their decision processes in a comparative study - but this was a few years ago. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Mon May 21 10:43:43 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 11:43:43 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: On Enhanced Cooperation and the opportunity of a working group In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Betrand, Thank you very much. I think these are very clear, objective points that may help to move forward. I think that the chair of the drafting exercise (when chosen) should have access to it. Dear Avri, That was certainly not the tone or the content of my intervention (sent to the list), and I think that it was not the content of the interventions of the other speakers from IGC. But since you were not specific, it is hard to make any other comments. Best, Marília On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 21 May 2012, at 08:31, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > In your words, > > "setting up of a working group on this topic will only be useful if > > its modalities are right and the participants engage in good faith, > > fully assuming their responsibilities." > > > > Of course, as I said, devils are in the details and where this WG be > > anchored, say under CSTD, UNSG directly (like WGIG), or IGF is one > > such devil I think. > > But they are not "uncompromiseable" elements, in a larger picture I > think. > > > I think that wn you say under the UNSG, you have to mean under UNDESA as I > think this UNSG has no, or perhaps, les interest in Internet governance. > > Besides what is the probability that a CSTD that wants to aggregate more > power to itself will give the control it now has over the IGF to the IGF, > DESA or anyone else. > > What I saw in Geneva was so regressive it was actually shocking. I expect > this from repressive regimes who want to control every minutia of their > people's lives. But when even some CS members join in wanting to roll back > multitstakeholder participation to put control in government hands, the > last hope to keep it out of government hands is that the Internet community > itself not give up this model. With the left-right coalition in the IGC > against the multistakeholder model, I do not see how we are going to be > much help. > > 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 > > -- 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 nb at bollow.ch Mon May 21 11:01:50 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 17:01:50 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Re: reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E6F57@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> (message from Lee W McKnight on Mon, 21 May 2012 13:43:14 +0000) 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> Message-ID: <20120521150150.9B0EE1605@quill.bollow.ch> Lee W McKnight wrote: > Not all lawyers that serve on UDRP panels need also have attended x IETF or > RIR meetings to be positive contributors, for example. Sure, but I was not asserting a precondition for participation in Internet governance processes in general. My assertion was this: : it should be considered required education for anyone : intending to be involved in the creation of new Internet governance : structures (regardless of whether those structures get called : "Enhanced Cooperation" or something else) to first participate, over a : significant period of time, in these rough-consensus oriented Internet : governance processes that exist already. > And for some reason, the very effective and high impact W3C is > always left out of these discussions, when their specs for HTML5 are > more likely to directly impact many more people worldwide than the > guts of the inter-network as settled by IETF. I'd suggest W3C has > more sessions newbies could get their feet wet with. The reason why I mentioned IETF and the RIRs but not W3C is that W3C (in my eyes at least) fails to be a compelling example for the kinds of dynamics that effectively prevent powerful companies from having undue influence. Maybe this is to a significant extent not W3C's fault, but a result of the task "prevent powerful companies from having undue influence" being much harder in regard to e.g. HTML5 than in regard to the topics that IETF and the RIRs are working on. But the fact remains that it is simply unreasonable to expect anyone to do a good job at creating a governance institution in a context where the chief problem is abuses of power by powerful corporations if they're not familiar with the existing insitutions who succeed in avoiding to succumb to that kind of power. Again, I'm *not* right now in the process of making suggestions to newbies in general about how to productively "get their feet wet". But if that "Enhanced Cooperation" thing is supposed to make sense and do its job well (regardless of how precisely this job is going to be defined, I think it's pretty clear that it's going to be something where "prevent powerful companies from having undue influence" is going to be critically important), the key actors in establishing the institutions and processes for "Enhanced Cooperation" had better make sure that they're represented by people who understand how preventing powerful companies from having undue influence can work in practice. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Mon May 21 11:17:19 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 11:17:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] On Enhanced Cooperation and the opportunity of a working group In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 21 May 2012, at 10:43, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Dear Betrand, > > Thank you very much. I think these are very clear, objective points that may help to move forward. I think that the chair of the drafting exercise (when chosen) should have access to it. > > Dear Avri, > That was certainly not the tone or the content of my intervention (sent to the list), and I think that it was not the content of the interventions of the other speakers from IGC. But since you were not specific, it is hard to make any other comments. In terms of statements, I referred primarily to those of several governments. In terms of CS, I am more referring to the position being taken on this list by several members against the multistakeholder model. And since many people read this list as a barometer of where CS is heading on IG, they are more then ready to accept that we no longer value the model and are ready to kick us right back out the door. As Izumi put it so well in the meeting - we were given very short shrift* in that meeting and many of our speakers never got a chance. CS and other other stakeholders were in the back of the bus at the CSTD consultation In any case I am not referring to your statement, I actually thought your statement was very good, and with the exception of things like IBSA generally think that Brazil has a strong commitment to the multistakeholder model and is putting it in practice in a local sense more than in most places - which i see as an exemplar. On the other hand India and Indian based civil society organizations seem to be heading away from the use of the model in favor of strong government oversight. And on the liberal right, Milton has periodically seemed to have disdain for the model. I find an 'alliance' of Parminder and Milton, two intelligent people who represent strong points of view on opposite sides of the spectrum within the IGC, against the multistakeholder model of participatory democracy, to be a possible threat to CS's participation going forward. I take Parminder's admonitions seriously that we have to better develop our notion of representativity (though i see us representing the interest of CS and not the entire CS population), and I take Milton's admonition seriously that the multistakeholder model is itself just a mechanism and not the end in itelf (though I disagree as i see this participatory democracy as one of the ends among many I am trying to argue for). But to have these two formidable gentlemen appearing to argue against multistakeholder models is, i beleive, unfortunate. avri * careless treatment; scant attention -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Mon May 21 11:09:02 2012 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 10:09:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation Note 1 In-Reply-To: <4FB9EFF8.5090200@apc.org> References: ,<4FB9EFF8.5090200@apc.org> Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F1@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> This is a very well-balanced presentation that suggests the right course of action; first decide on scope before the framework for EC is established. The real concern is power distribution. - Carlton ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen [anriette at apc.org] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 3:34 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation Note 1 Here are the remarks I made on the CSTD panel on EC on 18 May 2012. Pasted below and attached as a PDF. Anriette ------------------------------------------------------------ Why are we here and why is this event so well attended? We are here because the internet matters to us. It matters more than in 2005 because more people and countries are connected to the internet. More poor people are connected as access expands. Therefore it follows that decisions made about internet policy and development matters. Global decisions, but also national decisions that influences how we use the internet. Sometimes national decisions influences how people everywhere use the internet, for example copyright enforcement by one country can limit access to knowledge and information for internet users everywhere. But even national decisions that are directed at people inside a particular country, such as censorship of filtering, or blocking affects people outside of that country as because the internet connects us all. We are also here because IG decision-making is complex and dispersed. The internet is not a publicly owned entity. Ownership and responsibility for managing and developing the internet is mixed. Users develop applications and content. Companies build platforms and provide services. Much of the infrastructure we use to access the internet was built by the public sector. Protocols and standards are developed by engineers, inventors and technicians. The internet is existentially and integrally multi-stakeholder. This is why governance of the internet cannot but be fully multi-stakeholder. We are also here because people are not happy with the current status quo in IG. Some stakeholders say that EC is already happening, others say it is not. Some countries have more power and influence than others, Some make more effort than others. Some feel that decisions are made that are not consistent with existing global agreements, e.g. in the case of human rights. Not only governments have concerns. There are also dissonances in the participation of business and civil society and the technical community. Small businesses and many in civil society have no real voice in IG. There are different interpretations of EC. Does it refer only to more cooperation with/among governments? And amidst all this it is often not clear where the public interest lies in IG, and who its defenders are. We are also here, perhaps primarily, because we have not done what the Tunis Agenda mandated: using the IGF to take forward the discussion on EC. Where to from here? My proposal is a working group on enhanced cooperation be established, in a similar way to how the WGIG (Working Group on Internet Governance) was formed (for example, 50% of the seats in this WGIG was reserved for States to ensure they were given adequate representation). It should work within the framework of the IGF. This is essential to respect the original purpose for the establishment of the IGF, and because the IGF brings together so many stakeholders already engaged in IG. It could also work in collaboration with the CSTD. It is critical that this WGEC is fully multi-stakeholder, and that all stakeholders should feel comfortable with how it was constituted and how it functions. Scope, output, success criteria for this WGEC: Definitions: It can address some of the definitions around which there is so much disagreement, e.g. 'enhanced cooperation', 'in their respective roles', 'equal footing', and what it means to be 'multilateral and multi-stakeholder'. Issues: It can identify what the issues are that most require better cooperation among stakeholders, and that governments feel most strongly they need more involvement in. Mapping: It should undertake mapping of existing IG institutions and processes, and assess progress in EC in each of there. Output of the WGEC: Aside from a report on its work, issues, definitions, etc. I think it would be most useful if this group can produce a “Multi-stakeholder Declaration on Enhanced Cooperation in Internet Governance” - a statement of common principles and commitments needed to ensure public-interest oriented IG based on cooperation among all stakeholders. It could also produce a report with recommendations regarding institutional arrangements for IG, where they are working well, where there are gaps, how these can be addressed, and so on. Success criteria for the WGEC would include the legitimacy of group and how it was constituted, its leadership, the extent of interaction and feedback with other bodies that are discussing these issues and with all who feel they are stakeholders in IG. I look forward to more discussion today, and, to us working together to find a fresh approach towards more inclusive spaces and processes in IG. 18 May 2012 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From garth.graham at telus.net Mon May 21 11:50:34 2012 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 08:50:34 -0700 Subject: [governance] On Enhanced Cooperation and the opportunity of a working group In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2012-05-21, at 4:32 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Further points to address > > Should those conditions be agreed upon and the CSTD willing to go in the direction of setting up such a group, other questions to be explored include: > • what should be the scope/mandate of such a group? useful suggestions heard in the open consultation on May 18 included: > • elaborating a better shared understanding of the concept of Enhanced Cooperation and the issues it covers > • a mapping exercise of existing instances of Enhanced Cooperation > • an identification of possible principles guiding the setting up of Enhanced Cooperation Frameworks > • how open such a WG will be and in particular how it will solicit inputs from non-members and inform them of its process? > • where such a working group would be attached (proposals include: the Chair of the CSTD, the IGF, the UN SG) and who would chair it? > • how such an exercise should leverage/interact with the IGF? > • how and to whom it should report to, and in what form? > > To avoid future misunderstanding, any draft resolution discussed in Geneva this week needs to address these issues as clearly as possible. A practical and excellent synthesis of the issues within the framework of the discussion's own terms, but aren't those terms the essence of the problem? Instead of being trapped into playing by the rules, shouldn't "further points to address" include what next to alter the framework? When does it become time to apply (as I know you want to) Eleanor Ostrom's eight design principles of stable local common pool resource management to the analysis of the utility any such working group whether they like it or not? • Clearly defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external un-entitled parties); • Rules regarding the appropriation and provision of common resources that are adapted to local conditions; • Collective-choice arrangements that allow most resource appropriators to participate in the decision-making process; • Effective monitoring by monitors who are part of or accountable to the appropriators; • A scale of graduated sanctions for resource appropriators who violate community rules; • Mechanisms of conflict resolution that are cheap and of easy access; • Self-determination of the community recognized by higher-level authorities; • In the case of larger common-pool resources,organization in the form of multiple layers of nested enterprises, with small local CPRs at the base level. GG -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Mon May 21 11:51:52 2012 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 23:51:52 +0800 Subject: [governance] a reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <4FB86EA1.7090703@ITforChange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217838E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FB86EA1.7090703@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <9163769F-003A-42D7-A02E-21768FF5392A@difference.com.au> On 20/05/2012, at 12:10 PM, Guru गुरु wrote: > Milton > > The first problem of your 'reality check on economics' is that it is basically extreme neo-liberal economic thinking- let markets decide, least regulation is the best. I don't think Miltons praise of "powerful, well-resourced antitrust and economic regulatory agencies" and "antitrust authorities, privacy regulators and consumer protection regulators" constitutes extreme neo-liberal economic thinking. > The deregulation (repeal of glass-steagall for instance) as well as inadequate regulation of the financial markets is accepted as an important cause of the crash of the financial markets - and unfortunately while some sections of society made billions, the costs are being borne by others, most of who had no connection with the causes. And that was a case of deliberate legislative disempowerment of state regulatory agencies, which was pretty much the opposite of what Milton was advocating. > In the case of the Internet, which is a global phenomenon, we have no meaningful / democratic global regulation structures/processes yet. Which given the huge concentration of power is a dangerous situation and one which is no longer tenable. American regulation should not take the place of global regulation (remember wikileaks and paypal etc etc which is one of the cases the joint civil society statement/ background note highlights). And here I am quite aware of your concerns about American domination as well... (one point of agreement!!). While I wish there was a useful, meaningful, democratic global regulator there is not currently. And for the moment, US and EU regulatory agencies are the most effective check we have on the power of such companies - for example, the FCC privacy agreements with Facebook and Google. I would be happy to see some increased international cooperation, but currently national regulators are the best we have. > Your text book definition of monopoly is not useful or relevant in this debate - If you mean something different to monopoly, use a different term. > if you believe that the large transnational IT corporates do not have huge market power (and use it to their advantage) then your ideology is clouding your vision of reality. Can I seriously not use google search engine or facebook? I know many people who use other search engines by choice, and who do not use Facebook. They have significant market power - but that doesn't make them monopolies. This isn't necessarily good - in many ways, oligopolies are worse than monopolies. > Neoliberal economics (aka market fundamentalism) is discredited and a failure and is no answer to our challenges in IG - it is infact the problem... > Neoliberal economics might argue that less market regulation is always good, but I don't think anyone is arguing for that - rather, the question is what is an effective form for that regulation to take that is likely to ensure a good outcome. There are good reasons to be concerned about an international regulatory body, one of them being whether such a body would be likely to be democratic and open when some major states are not. > This does not mean (and sometimes you are eager to make this conclusion) that IT for Change is for the other extreme - Socialism or complete government control over the markets. I don't think anyone is making that argument. So your point about the failure of publicly funded search engines is superfluous. > > As economists agree, we are all mixed economies and we need to find the truth somewhere in between. The Internet itself gives us some new powerful methods for framing the processes for such regulation / policy making and while we debate the best way global democracy can be furthered, laissez faire is no option, and harmful as a governmental take-over of the Internet. I say again - an argument for strong state based regulatory agencies is not an argument for laissez faire - quite the opposite. Regards David > On 17/05/12 20:35, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> The “geopolitical influence” of the US and Europe is quite different, since all major Internet corporations –in fact monopolies in their respective domain- are American : Google, Cisco, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, e-Bay … Nowhere in the APC statement these monopolies are addressed despite the strong links they have with Internet governance. >> [Milton L Mueller] The dialogue on enhanced cooperation is becoming polluted with simplistic and inaccurate economic nostrums. >> May I request that the word “monopoly” be used with at least some attention paid to its actual meaning? >> From the MIT Dictionary of Economics: “a firm is a monopoly if it is the only supplier of a homogenous product for which there are no substitutes and many buyers.” This definition can be made less restrictive by relaxing the assumption that there are no substitutes, to include imperfect substitutes. >> But even so, none of the firms cited above are monopolies. None. Some have varying degrees of market power in specific sectors, but none are close to being _global_ monopolies. Apple, for example, does not even surpass Samsung in its share of smartphones. >> I am also curious to know what is going on when people group the regulation of equipment manufacturers (Apple, Cisco) under the rubric of “internet governance.” Same for computer operating systems. >> Moreover, I wonder whether the people who think UN-based institutions are an appropriate response to market power in the ICT sector have done their homework. There are powerful, well-resourced antitrust and economic regulatory agencies in the U.S., Europe, and various other countries in Latin America, Asia and elsewhere. The operate under specific laws, not under a theory of resentment (that’s a good thing), laws which have evolved for decades and which have established precedents and bodies of research behind them regarding the nature of market power, the impact of regulation and antitrust intervention on innovation and consumer welfare, etc. >> Moreover, it’s not like these firms are running amok. There have been in the recent past, or currently are underway, serious tangles with Microsoft, Intel, Google, Apple, and Facebook on various issues involving their market power* - by antitrust authorities, privacy regulators and consumer protection regulators. Have our agitators made a case that these entities are incapable of doing their jobs? If so, how would the political economy of regulating big business improve at the global level – or would it get worse? >> Is the absence of European companies in the list of globally competitive firms, Mssr. Fullsack, due to some cosmic injustice, or simply to the over-regulated, protectionist, nationalist structure of European Internet and ICT markets, which does not produce globally competitive firms? Why is it that tens of millions in subsidies for a European search engine haven’t produced anything? Might it be because consumers decide for themselves what is a better service and that people don’t care much whether a service provider is American, European or Chinese as long as they can use their own language? >> Could there be some serious engagement with these issues and, perhaps, a little more knowledge and a lot less populism? The idea that some vague notion of “governance” is going to save us from any and every problem in the internet economy sounds to me like the fulminations of wannabe politicians seeking power for themselves and not interested in actually solving problems. >> (*Note the absence of Cisco from that list – the equipment mfring biz is highly competitive and Cisco is declining in market share, flat in revenue, and considered “on the ropes” by stock investors for the past 2 years). Huawei, on the other hand… >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 21 12:24:43 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 16:24:43 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <20120521150150.9B0EE1605@quill.bollow.ch> 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> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E6FF3@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Norbert, Ok, fair enough. And yes W3C is indeed more of a closed shop where large corporations do have a lot of sway, point taken. And I have a few favorite stories demonstrating your point that IETF has been generally speaking, very effective over the years in preventing businesses, and governments, to push it around, which we might discuss over a beer some day but not on the list. But....while you are positing the essential threat to 'enhanced cooperation' on Internet governance being the potential for large corporations to have undue sway; others fear governments gaining undue sway over Internet governance through 'enhanced cooperation,' more. Which perhaps gets us back to Anriette, Bertrand, and Izumi's comments, noting that if we can't agree on what the problem is, then it's hard to design a working group to address it. 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, May 21, 2012 11:01 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: reality check on economics Lee W McKnight wrote: > Not all lawyers that serve on UDRP panels need also have attended x IETF or > RIR meetings to be positive contributors, for example. Sure, but I was not asserting a precondition for participation in Internet governance processes in general. My assertion was this: : it should be considered required education for anyone : intending to be involved in the creation of new Internet governance : structures (regardless of whether those structures get called : "Enhanced Cooperation" or something else) to first participate, over a : significant period of time, in these rough-consensus oriented Internet : governance processes that exist already. > And for some reason, the very effective and high impact W3C is > always left out of these discussions, when their specs for HTML5 are > more likely to directly impact many more people worldwide than the > guts of the inter-network as settled by IETF. I'd suggest W3C has > more sessions newbies could get their feet wet with. The reason why I mentioned IETF and the RIRs but not W3C is that W3C (in my eyes at least) fails to be a compelling example for the kinds of dynamics that effectively prevent powerful companies from having undue influence. Maybe this is to a significant extent not W3C's fault, but a result of the task "prevent powerful companies from having undue influence" being much harder in regard to e.g. HTML5 than in regard to the topics that IETF and the RIRs are working on. But the fact remains that it is simply unreasonable to expect anyone to do a good job at creating a governance institution in a context where the chief problem is abuses of power by powerful corporations if they're not familiar with the existing insitutions who succeed in avoiding to succumb to that kind of power. Again, I'm *not* right now in the process of making suggestions to newbies in general about how to productively "get their feet wet". But if that "Enhanced Cooperation" thing is supposed to make sense and do its job well (regardless of how precisely this job is going to be defined, I think it's pretty clear that it's going to be something where "prevent powerful companies from having undue influence" is going to be critically important), the key actors in establishing the institutions and processes for "Enhanced Cooperation" had better make sure that they're represented by people who understand how preventing powerful companies from having undue influence can work in practice. 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon May 21 14:20:47 2012 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 20:20:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] On Enhanced Cooperation and the opportunity of a working group In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Garth, Thanks for the comment. E. Ostrom's design principles are typically what participants of a working group could introduce under the bullet point : "identification of possible principles guiding the setting up of EC frameworks". Indeed EC frameworks for Critical Internet Resources could be a type of Ostrom's CPR (common pool resource) frameworks; however, all IG issues are not common pool issues. More later if time comes. Best B. On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Garth Graham wrote: > On 2012-05-21, at 4:32 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > Further points to address > > > > Should those conditions be agreed upon and the CSTD willing to go in the > direction of setting up such a group, other questions to be explored > include: > > • what should be the scope/mandate of such a group? useful > suggestions heard in the open consultation on May 18 included: > > • elaborating a better shared understanding of the concept > of Enhanced Cooperation and the issues it covers > > • a mapping exercise of existing instances of Enhanced > Cooperation > > • an identification of possible principles guiding the > setting up of Enhanced Cooperation Frameworks > > • how open such a WG will be and in particular how it will solicit > inputs from non-members and inform them of its process? > > • where such a working group would be attached (proposals include: > the Chair of the CSTD, the IGF, the UN SG) and who would chair it? > > • how such an exercise should leverage/interact with the IGF? > > • how and to whom it should report to, and in what form? > > > > To avoid future misunderstanding, any draft resolution discussed in > Geneva this week needs to address these issues as clearly as possible. > > A practical and excellent synthesis of the issues within the framework of > the discussion's own terms, but aren't those terms the essence of the > problem? Instead of being trapped into playing by the rules, shouldn't > "further points to address" include what next to alter the framework? When > does it become time to apply (as I know you want to) Eleanor Ostrom's > eight design principles of stable local common pool resource management to > the analysis of the utility any such working group whether they like it or > not? > • Clearly defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external > un-entitled parties); > • Rules regarding the appropriation and provision of common > resources that are adapted to local conditions; > • Collective-choice arrangements that allow most resource > appropriators to participate in the decision-making process; > • Effective monitoring by monitors who are part of or accountable > to the appropriators; > • A scale of graduated sanctions for resource appropriators who > violate community rules; > • Mechanisms of conflict resolution that are cheap and of easy > access; > • Self-determination of the community recognized by higher-level > authorities; > • In the case of larger common-pool resources,organization in the > form of multiple layers of nested enterprises, with small local CPRs at the > base level. > > GG -- ____________________ 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 anriette at apc.org Mon May 21 17:52:34 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 23:52:34 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation Note 1 In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD58@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4FB9EFF8.5090200@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD58@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4FBAB922.9040401@apc.org> Thanks Wolfgang and others who have sent comments. The question is, what is the best way of taking this clarification forward? Anriette On 21/05/2012 10:58, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Great speech Anriette. You are right, lets first clarify the substance of EC before we come to proposal to formalize (or not formalize) for EC. Well done. > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Anriette Esterhuysen > Gesendet: Mo 21.05.2012 09:34 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: Re: [governance] CSTD Meeting on Enhanced Cooperation Note 1 > > > > Here are the remarks I made on the CSTD panel on EC on 18 May 2012. > Pasted below and attached as a PDF. > > Anriette > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Why are we here and why is this event so well attended? > > We are here because the internet matters to us. It matters more than in > 2005 because more people and countries are connected to the internet. > More poor people are connected as access expands. > Therefore it follows that decisions made about internet policy and > development matters. Global decisions, but also national decisions that > influences how we use the internet. > > Sometimes national decisions influences how people everywhere use the > internet, for example copyright enforcement by one country can limit > access to knowledge and information for internet users everywhere. But > even national decisions that are directed at people inside a particular > country, such as censorship of filtering, or blocking affects people > outside of that country as because the internet connects us all. > > We are also here because IG decision-making is complex and dispersed. > The internet is not a publicly owned entity. Ownership and > responsibility for managing and developing the internet is mixed. Users > develop applications and content. Companies build platforms and provide > services. Much of the infrastructure we use to access the internet was > built by the public sector. Protocols and standards are developed by > engineers, inventors and technicians. The internet is existentially and > integrally multi-stakeholder. This is why governance of the internet > cannot but be fully multi-stakeholder. > > We are also here because people are not happy with the current status > quo in IG. Some stakeholders say that EC is already happening, others > say it is not. Some countries have more power and influence than others, > Some make more effort than others. Some feel that decisions are made > that are not consistent with existing global agreements, e.g. in the > case of human rights. Not only governments have concerns. There are also > dissonances in the participation of business and civil society and the > technical community. Small businesses and many in civil society have no > real voice in IG. There are different interpretations of EC. Does it > refer only to more cooperation with/among governments? > And amidst all this it is often not clear where the public interest lies > in IG, and who its defenders are. > > We are also here, perhaps primarily, because we have not done what the > Tunis Agenda mandated: using the IGF to take forward the discussion on EC. > > Where to from here? My proposal is a working group on enhanced > cooperation be established, in a similar way to how the WGIG (Working > Group on Internet Governance) was formed (for example, 50% of the seats > in this WGIG was reserved for States to ensure they were given adequate > representation). It should work within the framework of the IGF. This is > essential to respect the original purpose for the establishment of the > IGF, and because the IGF brings together so many stakeholders already > engaged in IG. It could also work in collaboration with the CSTD. It is > critical that this WGEC is fully multi-stakeholder, and that all > stakeholders should feel comfortable with how it was constituted and how > it functions. > > Scope, output, success criteria for this WGEC: > > Definitions: It can address some of the definitions around which there > is so much disagreement, e.g. 'enhanced cooperation', 'in their > respective roles', 'equal footing', and what it means to be > 'multilateral and multi-stakeholder'. > > Issues: It can identify what the issues are that most require better > cooperation among stakeholders, and that governments feel most strongly > they need more involvement in. > Mapping: It should undertake mapping of existing IG institutions and > processes, and assess progress in EC in each of there. > > Output of the WGEC: Aside from a report on its work, issues, > definitions, etc. I think it would be most useful if this group can > produce a "Multi-stakeholder Declaration on Enhanced Cooperation in > Internet Governance" - a statement of common principles and commitments > needed to ensure public-interest oriented IG based on cooperation among > all stakeholders. It could also produce a report with recommendations > regarding institutional arrangements for IG, where they are working > well, where there are gaps, how these can be addressed, and so on. > > Success criteria for the WGEC would include the legitimacy of group and > how it was constituted, its leadership, the extent of interaction and > feedback with other bodies that are discussing these issues and with all > who feel they are stakeholders in IG. I look forward to more discussion > today, and, to us working together to find a fresh approach towards > more inclusive spaces and processes in IG. > > 18 May 2012 > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From garth.graham at telus.net Mon May 21 20:12:31 2012 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 17:12:31 -0700 Subject: [governance] On Enhanced Cooperation and the opportunity of a working group In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2012-05-21, at 11:20 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Indeed EC frameworks for Critical Internet Resources could be a type of Ostrom's CPR (common pool resource) frameworks; however, all IG issues are not common pool issues. We might want to think about that. While in terms of Ostrom's principles there are certainly lots of boundary definition issues, as you have said about the resolution of ambiguities in your original post: > Internet Governance does cover both Governance OF the Internet and Governance ON the Internet (as the Tunis definition addresses “the evolution and use of the Internet” That "use" of the Internet as a common pool resource would seem to cover a lot of ground? GG "We say nothing essential about the cathedral when we speak of its stones. We say nothing essential about Man when we seek to define him by the qualities of men. … Man is a knot, a web, a mesh into which relationships are tied. Only those relationships matter." Antoine de Saint-Exupery. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joy at apc.org Tue May 22 02:01:24 2012 From: joy at apc.org (Joy Liddicoat) Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 18:01:24 +1200 Subject: [governance] RE: website In-Reply-To: <28d711e8-454d-e096-99fc-9afb1282e129@me.com> References: <28d711e8-454d-e096-99fc-9afb1282e129@me.com> Message-ID: <00a801cd37e0$54601f40$fd205dc0$@apc.org> Hi sorry for the delay in getting back to you Don't worry about being new to NCUC - I haven't even been there a year yet ;-) There has been a lot of concern about the ITU initiatives - are you following that debate? A lot of it is on the internet governance caucus list - you can join by emailing here: governance at lists.igcaucus.org I think your ideas are excellent and well worth sharing - don't be shy - but also don't be worried if there is "robust" comment - it is kind of the culture of NCUC Are you going to the Prague meeting? Joy From: Kristina Macaulay [mailto:kristinamac at mac.com] Sent: Wednesday, 16 May 2012 8:37 p.m. To: Joy Liddicoat Subject: RE: website Hi Joy, I'm very new to the NCUC, so forgive me if I've raised something is irrelevant. I'm still find my feet as to what is the full remit/ focus "reality"/ Scope of the NCUC. For example, I don't see why we should be concerned about OpenNIC, as its an alternative that has too many risks associated. If we are going to choose an alternative to raise/discuss, it should be the IPV6 Chinese one... I've been speaking with the CEO of http://www.wcit2012.org/en/ They have changed their focus to discuss a harmonised approach to policy instead for the October Conference. They are discussing with various Governments, the ITU- e-governance remit does not sit with the GATT's agreement. So from what I can see e-governance is a WTO push through http://www.wcit2012.org/en/. What is of interest is that they look to reflect the non-commercial sector yet I can't see any non-commercial representation 'official body' for the Digital Society. Which is in my view is really necessary as the ITU (unless your very rich) is expensive to join annually ($10 000). I've negotiated to be represented at the WCIT and wrote the Scottish IT Strategic Agenda for them to discuss. One of the points was about the long term representation of non-commercial environment within the Internet, under the general ethos of accredited governance. So regarding the working group, what I found of interest, was that they seem to have some prominent players behind them, (.secure) for instance. Why I've followed this, is because I think they are running a high risk solution. What I mean by this, is if you are going to suggest a better policy for the Internet gTLD's (example) you require a clear methodology and process for review. Not just a alternative suggestion report drafted by prominent players. But as we have seen with the IRT sometimes such like reports get taken on board. What I'm suggesting is that as there isn't a unanimously endorsed process of how an issue should be reviewed, amended or changed...which renders the legitimacy of validation fragile. Anyway as I said, maybe this is not a NCUC issue...you'll know. Warmly, Kristina -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 22 02:56:20 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 07:56:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] W3C was Re: [] reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <4A38B6CE-542D-46AB-A090-04733D2C54D6@acm.org> 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> <4A38B6CE-542D-46AB-A090-04733D2C54D6@acm.org> Message-ID: <45gnMROUizuPFAzE@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <4A38B6CE-542D-46AB-A090-04733D2C54D6 at acm.org>, at 10:31:55 on Mon, 21 May 2012, Avri Doria writes >Isn't W3C a membership group primarily of businesses (they allow individuals, but have no individual class of membership and the dues are the >same - starts at 2500 USFD and goes up 7900 USD after 2 years)? While they have some sideline groups that are open to non members, their WG, >the focal point of their work, are pretty much only open to members (primarily business) and to a few invitees. > >I have never seen them as a multistakeholder group, but rather as an industry group. > >Please correct me if I am wrong, as a non member I have not delved very deeply except for once when I needed to understand the working group >structure and their decision processes in a comparative study - but this was a few years ago. W3C were asked their opinion on matters such as these, and their submission was published by UNDESA. Including: The IETF and W3C are not "industry consortia" and, in fact, work in most ways like de jure standards bodies. ... W3C is an international consortium where Member organizations, a full-time staff, and the public work together to develop Web standards. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue May 22 03:59:43 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 09:59:43 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E6FF3@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> (message from Lee W McKnight on Mon, 21 May 2012 16:24:43 +0000) 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> Message-ID: <20120522075943.5B2DB1605@quill.bollow.ch> Lee W McKnight wrote: > But....while you are positing the essential threat to 'enhanced > cooperation' on Internet governance being the potential for large > corporations to have undue sway; others fear governments gaining > undue sway over Internet governance through 'enhanced cooperation,' > more. Yes, absolutely - indeed I was not accurate in that respect. In future iterations of this argument, I'll be talking about "powerful stakeholders, such as e.g. corporations with great market power or government stakeholders who might also be tempted to abuse their power" rather than just about "powerful companies". Also, in thinking this through again (in order to double-check whether I would still arrive at the same conclusion) I realized that it is sufficient when each stakeholder organization that wants to engage in the creation of "Enhanced Cooperation" institutions (or other new Internet governance institutions) has someone on the team who has understanding and experience of how the robustness of IETF (against attempts of powerful stakeholders to exercise undue influence) works in practice. It is not necessary for all members of each stakeholder's team to have this experience. Governments and large corporations should not find it too hard to extend their team by one, if necessary hiring someone with this expertise to assist and advise them. (For civil society organizations funding challenges are potentially more severe of course, but here the chances are bigger that this expertise is there already.) > And yes W3C is indeed more of a closed shop where large corporations > do have a lot of sway, point taken. And I have a few favorite > stories demonstrating your point that IETF has been generally > speaking, very effective over the years in preventing businesses, > and governments, to push it around, which we might discuss over a > beer some day but not on the list. Sounds great! Will you be at the Baku IGF? > Which perhaps gets us back to Anriette, Bertrand, and Izumi's > comments, noting that if we can't agree on what the problem is, then > it's hard to design a working group to address it. If I understood them right, the point which they have been making is primarily that in the absence of any agreement on what the substantive problem areas are that shall be addressed, it is hard to establish a working group that can go forward. That is in my eyes a valid and important point. Even if the working group would at first only debate matters of procedure (such as what kind of procedures und institutions will be robust enough against attempted abuses of power by powerful stakeholders) it is important from a human perspective to know what the substantive topic areas are that are ultimately intended to be addressed. Otherwise the participants in debates about procedures and institutions will not be able to remain motivated and engaged for as long as necessary. It seems to me that the concerns about risks of undue influence from powerful stakeholders have a lot to do with the difficulty of agreeing about any substantive problem area that it should be addressed by a formalized "Enhanced Cooperation" process: Until there is a strong expectation that a formalized "Enhanced Cooperation" process will be robust against undue influence from powerful stakeholders with opposed interests, nobody in their right mind will agree with any important area of Internet governance being made subject to that formalized "Enhanced Cooperation" process. So I would suggest that the way forward will have to involve proposals of concrete substantive topic areas to be addressed by the "Enhanced Cooperation" process and its institutions, together with a strong commitment to seek, through true multistakeholder discussions, a good way to model this "Enhanced Cooperation" process on how things work in the IETF. 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 andrea at digitalpolicy.it Tue May 22 04:21:00 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 10:21:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <20120522075943.5B2DB1605@quill.bollow.ch> 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> Message-ID: Dear Norbert, dear all, On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > So I would suggest that the way forward will have to involve proposals > of concrete substantive topic areas to be addressed by the "Enhanced > Cooperation" process and its institutions, together with a strong > commitment to seek, through true multistakeholder discussions, a good > way to model this "Enhanced Cooperation" process on how things work in > the IETF. > I may have misunderstood and/or missed something, but it seems to me you are suggesting that there is something in the procedures of the IETF that shields it from "undue influence" by "powerful stakeholders" etc. I am not questioning this assumption (at least not right now) but I wonder whether - assuming I have correctly understood - there are some analytical bases to this assumption. Not the least because one may distill such processes / characteristics and try to replicate them elsewhere (although I must say I am by default unconvinced of the possibility to replicate the processes of the IETF outside of the very narrow remit of the "organisation"). Best, -- 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue May 22 06:14:26 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 07:14:26 -0300 Subject: [governance] Remote observation session on IGF improvement and EC Message-ID: Dear all, The session about IGF improvements is about to start. Remote observation is possible for anyone. Participation is allowed only to organizations with ECOSOC status or WSIS participants. In the afternoon, there will be the session on enhanced cooperation. Marília *Remote Access for the 15th Session of the CSTD* We will strive to provide remote access to as much of the proceedings of the 15th session as feasibly possible, thanks to continued assistance from Cisco. The meeting has been scheduled in WebEx. Below you will find details on how to connect. As the meeting runs for five days, each separate day is scheduled as a separate meeting in WebEx. The details below correspond to the second day. We will send separate e-mails with details to connect for the remaining days of the meeting. This information has already been sent to those who have confirmed their intent to participate remotely. We are also sharing it with the entire listserv in case Working Group members also desire to connect. Remote participants are encouraged to join the meeting early to ensure everything is configured properly, especially if this is their first time using WebEx. (The actual starting time of the meeting is 10 a.m. Geneva time.) In addition to using WebEx, interested parties can also dial into the conference room to hear the audio of the live proceedings. To do this, please dial +41 22 917 0901 and follow the instructions (remember that the CSTD session is taking place in room 19). Best regards, Jason Munyan United Nations Conference on Trade and Development E-mail: jason.munyan at unctad.org Topic: CSTD 15th Session - Day 2 of 5 Date: Tuesday, 22. May 2012 Time: 10:00, Europe Summer Time (Paris, GMT+02:00) Meeting Number: 953 955 631 Meeting Password: CSTD15 ------------------------------------------------------- To join the online meeting (Now from mobile devices!) ------------------------------------------------------- 1. Go to https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?ED=8485937&UID=0&PW=NYmZmOWM0ZTM1&RT=MTYjMjM%3D 2. If requested, enter your name and email address. 3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: CSTD15 4. Click "Join". To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link: https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?ED=8485937&UID=0&PW=NYmZmOWM0ZTM1&ORT=MTYjMjM%3D ------------------------------------------------------- To join the audio conference only ------------------------------------------------------- Call-in toll number (UK): +44-20-310-64804 Global call-in numbers: https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=8485937&tollFree=0 Access code:953 955 631 ------------------------------------------------------- For assistance ------------------------------------------------------- 1. Go to https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/mc 2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support". You can contact me at: jason.munyan at unctad.org To add this meeting to your calendar program (for example Microsoft Outlook), click this link: https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?ED=8485937&UID=0&ICS=MI&LD=1&RD=16&ST=1&SHA2=eiPV6oFVi4Fng1Kk369WJEzOQCcaWjvtfaIks8HCyr0=&RT=MTYjMjM%3D The playback of UCF (Universal Communications Format) rich media files requires appropriate players. To view this type of rich media files in the meeting, please check whether you have the players installed on your computer by going to https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/systemdiagnosis.php. Sign up for a free trial of WebEx http://www.webex.com/go/mcemfreetrial http://www.webex.com CCP:+442031064804x953955631# IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that allows audio and any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed during the session to be recorded. By joining this session, you automatically consent to such recordings. If you do not consent to the recording, discuss your concerns with the meeting host prior to the start of the recording or do not join the session. Please note that any such recordings may be subject to discovery in the event of litigation. -- 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 nb at bollow.ch Tue May 22 07:26:25 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 13:26:25 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: (message from Andrea Glorioso on Tue, 22 May 2012 10:21:00 +0200) 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> Message-ID: <20120522112625.7BEF71605@quill.bollow.ch> Andrea Glorioso wrote: > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > So I would suggest that the way forward will have to involve proposals > > of concrete substantive topic areas to be addressed by the "Enhanced > > Cooperation" process and its institutions, together with a strong > > commitment to seek, through true multistakeholder discussions, a good > > way to model this "Enhanced Cooperation" process on how things work in > > the IETF. > > > > I may have misunderstood and/or missed something, but it seems to me you > are suggesting that there is something in the procedures of the IETF that > shields it from "undue influence" by "powerful stakeholders" etc. I am not > questioning this assumption (at least not right now) but I wonder whether > - assuming I have correctly understood - there are some analytical bases > to this assumption. Not the least because one may distill such processes / > characteristics and try to replicate them elsewhere (although I must say I > am by default unconvinced of the possibility to replicate the processes of > the IETF outside of the very narrow remit of the "organisation"). Hello Andrea and all Alas I currently do not have any formal analysis. So far the only basis for my assertion is my own observations, as well as confirming anecdotical evidence that I have heard from others. However I am optimistic about the possibility of replicating this "robustness against undue influence attempts from powerful stakeholders" property in the context of other topic areas. In particular, I would suggest that the principles of openness of participation and rough consensus may be applicable quite broadly, while for the criterion of "running code", it will probably be necessary to figure out, for each topic area, a suitable criterion which has similar socioeconomic effects. I would suggest to look, for each topic area, for an informal criterion that provides guidance about when sufficient information is available among the participants of the discussion so that they can, as a group, make a reasonably well-informed rough consensus decision. Anyway, the principles that IETF is based on (absolute openness of participation, rough consensus and running code) are well-known and reasonably well-understood, at least by the people who have participated there. I would expect the big challenge to be in the area of convincing governments to give this kind of approach, with a suitable replacement for "running code" according to whatever is the particular topic area, a serious chance. What kind of analysis document would be helpful for that? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue May 22 09:23:14 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 13:23:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] W3C was Re: [] reality check on economics In-Reply-To: <4A38B6CE-542D-46AB-A090-04733D2C54D6@acm.org> 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>,<4A38B6CE-542D-46AB-A090-04733D2C54D6@acm.org> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E75A0@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, First, I personally prefer the IETF model as well. I highlight the W3C because....they do an incredibly good job of staying off everyone's radar screen, even though a lot of the action happens there. So if we're talking real world of Internet governance we should notice the gorilla in the corner with more impact than ITU on how the net operates, today, for users worldwide. Forget IPv6 and the Chinese net; end users of either run to the same W3C specs. Even if Sir Tim Berners-Lee is a good guy so noone wants to pick on him. Coming up with the web gives you a lifetime free pass I guess ; ). Second, of W3C's 366 current members, there are a range of major multinationals, government agencies, universities and ngo's like center for democracy and technology....so relatively MSH. Albeit, a membership-based, dues-paying MSH club. Just go to their website and check out the list. Fees for orgs from the first country listed, Afghanistan: For-profit organization that has annual gross revenue, as measured by the most recent audited statement, of greater than or equal to 50,000,000 USD. 68,500 USD For-profit organization that has annual gross revenue, as measured by the most recent audited statement, of greater than or equal to 7,500,000 USD and less than 50,000,000 USD. 7,900 USD All other organizations, including non-profit organizations and government agencies. 953 USD Fees for orgs from US: Organization Type in United States (HIC category) Annual Fee for Memberships Starting 2012-04-01 For-profit organization that has annual gross revenue, as measured by the most recent audited statement, of greater than or equal to 50,000,000 USD. 68,500 USD All other organizations, including non-profit organizations and government agencies. 7,900 USD Enterprises and non-profits with 10 or fewer employees, who are not also membership organizations, revenues less than 3,000,000 USD and have never been a W3C Member. This fee only valid for the first two years of W3C Membership. 2,250 USD You will note that if you're a business, worldwide, of some scale, the fee is flat rate. If you're a CS organization of some scale, based in a high income nation, fees are a bit lower than ITU. Coincidentally I am sure. Third, when they're doing something major, like cooking up XML or HTML5, that means a lot of public/user outreach and requests for feedback beyond the bona fide club members, and individual experts can get in to one or another activity without paying - dues. Anyway, I'm not suggesting we lay off the IETF, which is indeed a great model to look to. But the elephant in that room is that it got its semi-formal start with some cross-subsidies from the same USG agencies folks on this list are trying to get the net away from; and now for past decades has support for its activities from ISOC. So yeah IETF is free for all and has a great model for developing internetworking protocols; but someone somewhere is paying the ISOC dues and donations to help keep the thing virtually up and running. Both are preferrable of course from a CS view to the states-only, businesses tolerated, cs stay away attitudes and practices of ITU and most other UN orgs, but let's not pretend there is a free lunch at IETF, either. And, let's not forget that a dues-paying club of major firms (and others) is setting the specs we're using to...do pretty much anything on the web. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Avri Doria [avri at acm.org] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 10:31 AM To: IGC Subject: [governance] W3C was Re: [] reality check on economics On 21 May 2012, at 09:43, Lee W McKnight wrote: > I'd suggest W3C has more sessions newbies could get their feet wet with. Isn't W3C a membership group primarily of businesses (they allow individuals, but have no individual class of membership and the dues are the same - starts at 2500 USFD and goes up 7900 USD after 2 years)? While they have some sideline groups that are open to non members, their WG, the focal point of their work, are pretty much only open to members (primarily business) and to a few invitees. I have never seen them as a multistakeholder group, but rather as an industry group. Please correct me if I am wrong, as a non member I have not delved very deeply except for once when I needed to understand the working group structure and their decision processes in a comparative study - but this was a few years ago. 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue May 22 10:01:00 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 11:01:00 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Remote observation session on IGF improvement and EC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The session on enhanced cooperation is starting now. The same link can be used to join the session remotely. On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > Dear all, > > The session about IGF improvements is about to start. Remote observation > is possible for anyone. Participation is allowed only to organizations with > ECOSOC status or WSIS participants. > > In the afternoon, there will be the session on enhanced cooperation. > > > Marília > > *Remote Access for the 15th Session of the CSTD* > > We will strive to provide remote access to as much of the proceedings of > the 15th session as feasibly possible, thanks to continued assistance from > Cisco. > > The meeting has been scheduled in WebEx. Below you will find details on > how to connect. > > As the meeting runs for five days, each separate day is scheduled as a > separate meeting in WebEx. The details below correspond to the second day. > We will send separate e-mails with details to connect for the remaining > days of the meeting. > > This information has already been sent to those who have confirmed their > intent to participate remotely. We are also sharing it with the entire > listserv in case Working Group members also desire to connect. > > Remote participants are encouraged to join the meeting early to ensure > everything is configured properly, especially if this is their first time > using WebEx. (The actual starting time of the meeting is 10 a.m. Geneva > time.) > > In addition to using WebEx, interested parties can also dial into the > conference room to hear the audio of the live proceedings. To do this, > please dial +41 22 917 0901 and follow the instructions (remember that > the CSTD session is taking place in room 19). > > Best regards, > > Jason Munyan > United Nations Conference on Trade and Development > E-mail: jason.munyan at unctad.org > > Topic: CSTD 15th Session - Day 2 of 5 > Date: Tuesday, 22. May 2012 > Time: 10:00, Europe Summer Time (Paris, GMT+02:00) > Meeting Number: 953 955 631 > Meeting Password: CSTD15 > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > To join the online meeting (Now from mobile devices!) > ------------------------------------------------------- > 1. Go to > https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?ED=8485937&UID=0&PW=NYmZmOWM0ZTM1&RT=MTYjMjM%3D > > 2. If requested, enter your name and email address. > 3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: CSTD15 > 4. Click "Join". > > To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link: > > https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?ED=8485937&UID=0&PW=NYmZmOWM0ZTM1&ORT=MTYjMjM%3D > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > To join the audio conference only > ------------------------------------------------------- > Call-in toll number (UK): +44-20-310-64804 > Global call-in numbers: > https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=8485937&tollFree=0 > > > Access code:953 955 631 > > ------------------------------------------------------- > For assistance > ------------------------------------------------------- > 1. Go to https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/mc > 2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support". > > You can contact me at: > jason.munyan at unctad.org > > > To add this meeting to your calendar program (for example Microsoft > Outlook), click this link: > > https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?ED=8485937&UID=0&ICS=MI&LD=1&RD=16&ST=1&SHA2=eiPV6oFVi4Fng1Kk369WJEzOQCcaWjvtfaIks8HCyr0=&RT=MTYjMjM%3D > > > The playback of UCF (Universal Communications Format) rich media files > requires appropriate players. To view this type of rich media files in the > meeting, please check whether you have the players installed on your > computer by going to > https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/systemdiagnosis.php. > > Sign up for a free trial of WebEx > http://www.webex.com/go/mcemfreetrial > > http://www.webex.com > > CCP:+442031064804x953955631# > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that allows audio > and any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed during the > session to be recorded. By joining this session, you automatically consent > to such recordings. If you do not consent to the recording, discuss your > concerns with the meeting host prior to the start of the recording or do > not join the session. Please note that any such recordings may be subject > to discovery in the event of litigation. > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Tue May 22 11:01:59 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 11:01:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <20120522112625.7BEF71605@quill.bollow.ch> 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: Hi, 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. 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 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. 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. avri On 22 May 2012, at 07:26, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Andrea Glorioso wrote: >> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> So I would suggest that the way forward will have to involve proposals >>> of concrete substantive topic areas to be addressed by the "Enhanced >>> Cooperation" process and its institutions, together with a strong >>> commitment to seek, through true multistakeholder discussions, a good >>> way to model this "Enhanced Cooperation" process on how things work in >>> the IETF. >>> >> >> I may have misunderstood and/or missed something, but it seems to me you >> are suggesting that there is something in the procedures of the IETF that >> shields it from "undue influence" by "powerful stakeholders" etc. I am not >> questioning this assumption (at least not right now) but I wonder whether >> - assuming I have correctly understood - there are some analytical bases >> to this assumption. Not the least because one may distill such processes / >> characteristics and try to replicate them elsewhere (although I must say I >> am by default unconvinced of the possibility to replicate the processes of >> the IETF outside of the very narrow remit of the "organisation"). > > Hello Andrea and all > > Alas I currently do not have any formal analysis. So far the only > basis for my assertion is my own observations, as well as confirming > anecdotical evidence that I have heard from others. However I am > optimistic about the possibility of replicating this "robustness > against undue influence attempts from powerful stakeholders" > property in the context of other topic areas. In particular, I would > suggest that the principles of openness of participation and rough > consensus may be applicable quite broadly, while for the criterion > of "running code", it will probably be necessary to figure out, for > each topic area, a suitable criterion which has similar socioeconomic > effects. I would suggest to look, for each topic area, for an informal > criterion that provides guidance about when sufficient information is > available among the participants of the discussion so that they can, > as a group, make a reasonably well-informed rough consensus decision. > Anyway, the principles that IETF is based on (absolute openness of > participation, rough consensus and running code) are well-known and > reasonably well-understood, at least by the people who have > participated there. > > I would expect the big challenge to be in the area of convincing > governments to give this kind of approach, with a suitable replacement > for "running code" according to whatever is the particular topic area, > a serious chance. > > What kind of analysis document would be helpful for that? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue May 22 17:03:12 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 07:03:12 +1000 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I continually find the argument that "IETF works well" to be based on very little real analysis. I consider the IETF model to be one which which may have been suitable in the early internet days but which has probably outlived its usefulness. I think Tim Berners Lee knew that as long ago as the early 1990s when he moved WWW standards setting elsewhere. If the criteria for judging IETF is solving the Internet's main technical problems, it's hard to rank them highly. Basic matters such as security and identity and seem to still need a lot of work. If the basic criteria is creating lots of standards, they do quite well. There are thousands of them, often overlapping and sometimes unable to operate with each other. But if the criteria is adoption of standards, they don't do very well - from the 20-year-to-date slow adoption of IPv6 to many other standards that just wallow in the RFC archives. I think we should stop pretending that IETF creates some sort of model to follow, and analyse its performance and figure whether some other structure, merger, replacement, or set of improvements might be more suitable for this day and age. IETF was recently described on this list as a meritocracy. Is that a reasonable assessment, and if so, is that the sort of model for internet governance we wish to propagate? Again, I would like to see some decent analysis rather than the belief that since it has been with us since the good old days it must be good. Ian Peter PS one of the things that seems fairly standard in business management is that the sort of structures that work well for organisations in their early stages don't necessarily scale to mature and much more complex organisational needs, and radical change of structure is fairly normal evolution. We seem to resist that in internet matters. > From: Avri > Reply-To: , Avri > Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 11:01:59 -0400 > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on > economics) > > Hi, > > 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. > > 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 > > 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. > > 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. > > avri > > > On 22 May 2012, at 07:26, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Andrea Glorioso wrote: >>> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>> So I would suggest that the way forward will have to involve proposals >>>> of concrete substantive topic areas to be addressed by the "Enhanced >>>> Cooperation" process and its institutions, together with a strong >>>> commitment to seek, through true multistakeholder discussions, a good >>>> way to model this "Enhanced Cooperation" process on how things work in >>>> the IETF. >>>> >>> >>> I may have misunderstood and/or missed something, but it seems to me you >>> are suggesting that there is something in the procedures of the IETF that >>> shields it from "undue influence" by "powerful stakeholders" etc. I am not >>> questioning this assumption (at least not right now) but I wonder whether >>> - assuming I have correctly understood - there are some analytical bases >>> to this assumption. Not the least because one may distill such processes / >>> characteristics and try to replicate them elsewhere (although I must say I >>> am by default unconvinced of the possibility to replicate the processes of >>> the IETF outside of the very narrow remit of the "organisation"). >> >> Hello Andrea and all >> >> Alas I currently do not have any formal analysis. So far the only >> basis for my assertion is my own observations, as well as confirming >> anecdotical evidence that I have heard from others. However I am >> optimistic about the possibility of replicating this "robustness >> against undue influence attempts from powerful stakeholders" >> property in the context of other topic areas. In particular, I would >> suggest that the principles of openness of participation and rough >> consensus may be applicable quite broadly, while for the criterion >> of "running code", it will probably be necessary to figure out, for >> each topic area, a suitable criterion which has similar socioeconomic >> effects. I would suggest to look, for each topic area, for an informal >> criterion that provides guidance about when sufficient information is >> available among the participants of the discussion so that they can, >> as a group, make a reasonably well-informed rough consensus decision. >> Anyway, the principles that IETF is based on (absolute openness of >> participation, rough consensus and running code) are well-known and >> reasonably well-understood, at least by the people who have >> participated there. >> >> I would expect the big challenge to be in the area of convincing >> governments to give this kind of approach, with a suitable replacement >> for "running code" according to whatever is the particular topic area, >> a serious chance. >> >> What kind of analysis document would be helpful for that? >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 22 17:23:20 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 17:23:20 -0400 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, You are right, I have not done a professional comparative analysis. Nor do I know of one. But from a 30 year career of participating in all sort of organizations with all sorts of models, I find it to be the the most effective and the least prone to corruption of any I have had the pleasure to serve in. Also from a professional point of view based on an advanced degree that included counseling in organizational settings based on group dynamics , I find it to have the healthiest group dynamics of any organization I have been part of. If you have spent years serving in the IETF as well as other organizations and judge it inferior, I would be glad to hear why. But unsubstantiated comments and the lack of a study we can all agree is unbiased, is hardly evidence. avri On 22 May 2012, at 17:03, Ian Peter wrote: > I continually find the argument that "IETF works well" to be based on very > little real analysis. > > I consider the IETF model to be one which which may have been suitable in > the early internet days but which has probably outlived its usefulness. I > think Tim Berners Lee knew that as long ago as the early 1990s when he moved > WWW standards setting elsewhere. > > If the criteria for judging IETF is solving the Internet's main technical > problems, it's hard to rank them highly. Basic matters such as security and > identity and seem to still need a lot of work. > > If the basic criteria is creating lots of standards, they do quite well. > There are thousands of them, often overlapping and sometimes unable to > operate with each other. But if the criteria is adoption of standards, they > don't do very well - from the 20-year-to-date slow adoption of IPv6 to many > other standards that just wallow in the RFC archives. > > I think we should stop pretending that IETF creates some sort of model to > follow, and analyse its performance and figure whether some other structure, > merger, replacement, or set of improvements might be more suitable for this > day and age. > > IETF was recently described on this list as a meritocracy. Is that a > reasonable assessment, and if so, is that the sort of model for internet > governance we wish to propagate? > > Again, I would like to see some decent analysis rather than the belief that > since it has been with us since the good old days it must be good. > > Ian Peter > > PS one of the things that seems fairly standard in business management is > that the sort of structures that work well for organisations in their early > stages don't necessarily scale to mature and much more complex > organisational needs, and radical change of structure is fairly normal > evolution. We seem to resist that in internet matters. > > >> From: Avri >> Reply-To: , Avri >> Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 11:01:59 -0400 >> To: IGC >> Subject: Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on >> economics) >> >> Hi, >> >> 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. >> >> 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 >> >> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 22 May 2012, at 07:26, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> Andrea Glorioso wrote: >>>> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>> So I would suggest that the way forward will have to involve proposals >>>>> of concrete substantive topic areas to be addressed by the "Enhanced >>>>> Cooperation" process and its institutions, together with a strong >>>>> commitment to seek, through true multistakeholder discussions, a good >>>>> way to model this "Enhanced Cooperation" process on how things work in >>>>> the IETF. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I may have misunderstood and/or missed something, but it seems to me you >>>> are suggesting that there is something in the procedures of the IETF that >>>> shields it from "undue influence" by "powerful stakeholders" etc. I am not >>>> questioning this assumption (at least not right now) but I wonder whether >>>> - assuming I have correctly understood - there are some analytical bases >>>> to this assumption. Not the least because one may distill such processes / >>>> characteristics and try to replicate them elsewhere (although I must say I >>>> am by default unconvinced of the possibility to replicate the processes of >>>> the IETF outside of the very narrow remit of the "organisation"). >>> >>> Hello Andrea and all >>> >>> Alas I currently do not have any formal analysis. So far the only >>> basis for my assertion is my own observations, as well as confirming >>> anecdotical evidence that I have heard from others. However I am >>> optimistic about the possibility of replicating this "robustness >>> against undue influence attempts from powerful stakeholders" >>> property in the context of other topic areas. In particular, I would >>> suggest that the principles of openness of participation and rough >>> consensus may be applicable quite broadly, while for the criterion >>> of "running code", it will probably be necessary to figure out, for >>> each topic area, a suitable criterion which has similar socioeconomic >>> effects. I would suggest to look, for each topic area, for an informal >>> criterion that provides guidance about when sufficient information is >>> available among the participants of the discussion so that they can, >>> as a group, make a reasonably well-informed rough consensus decision. >>> Anyway, the principles that IETF is based on (absolute openness of >>> participation, rough consensus and running code) are well-known and >>> reasonably well-understood, at least by the people who have >>> participated there. >>> >>> I would expect the big challenge to be in the area of convincing >>> governments to give this kind of approach, with a suitable replacement >>> for "running code" according to whatever is the particular topic area, >>> a serious chance. >>> >>> What kind of analysis document would be helpful for that? >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 22 19:08:59 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 16:08:59 -0700 Subject: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5AD4128A4AEC4AF8AA0CD94FA9061FD8@UserVAIO> Avri, The difference as I interpret it between making a technical decision and making a policy decision is not the inputs to the process but rather the outputs. In a technical decision there are for the most part fairly clear and more or less objective criteria for success or failure (at its crudest whether something works or not). For policy decisions the success or failure is rather more unclear and may depend in large part on the values of those being impacted by the decision or by how the benefits of the decision are distributed (and how the recipients perceive and evaluate the distribution of those benefits). That's why policy decisions are almost inevitably "political" in the sense of involving negotiation, compromise, coalition building, support mobilization and so on rather than attempting to assess (and convince others of one's assessment) of the "correctness" or not of a particular "technical" "solution". I have no experience with the IETF but I have spent a lot of time around both technical folks and policy folks and the interface between them and from my experience what works for one group doesn't necessarily work for the other (different mind sets, decision making approaches, tolerance for ambiguity and so and so on... Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 8:02 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) Hi, 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. 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 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. 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. avri On 22 May 2012, at 07:26, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Andrea Glorioso wrote: >> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> So I would suggest that the way forward will have to involve >>> proposals of concrete substantive topic areas to be addressed by the >>> "Enhanced Cooperation" process and its institutions, together with a >>> strong commitment to seek, through true multistakeholder >>> discussions, a good way to model this "Enhanced Cooperation" process >>> on how things work in the IETF. >>> >> >> I may have misunderstood and/or missed something, but it seems to me >> you are suggesting that there is something in the procedures of the >> IETF that shields it from "undue influence" by "powerful >> stakeholders" etc. I am not questioning this assumption (at least not >> right now) but I wonder whether >> - assuming I have correctly understood - there are some analytical bases >> to this assumption. Not the least because one may distill such processes / >> characteristics and try to replicate them elsewhere (although I must say I >> am by default unconvinced of the possibility to replicate the processes of >> the IETF outside of the very narrow remit of the "organisation"). > > Hello Andrea and all > > Alas I currently do not have any formal analysis. So far the only > basis for my assertion is my own observations, as well as confirming > anecdotical evidence that I have heard from others. However I am > optimistic about the possibility of replicating this "robustness > against undue influence attempts from powerful stakeholders" property > in the context of other topic areas. In particular, I would suggest > that the principles of openness of participation and rough consensus > may be applicable quite broadly, while for the criterion of "running > code", it will probably be necessary to figure out, for each topic > area, a suitable criterion which has similar socioeconomic effects. I > would suggest to look, for each topic area, for an informal criterion > that provides guidance about when sufficient information is available > among the participants of the discussion so that they can, as a group, > make a reasonably well-informed rough consensus decision. Anyway, the > principles that IETF is based on (absolute openness of participation, > rough consensus and running code) are well-known and reasonably > well-understood, at least by the people who have participated there. > > I would expect the big challenge to be in the area of convincing > governments to give this kind of approach, with a suitable replacement > for "running code" according to whatever is the particular topic area, > a serious chance. > > What kind of analysis document would be helpful for that? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Wed May 23 00:46:43 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 06:46:43 +0200 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It seems to me Ian provided at least two metrics (solution of basic architectural issues such as security and identity, and adoption of IPv6) which one may use to judge the success of IETF. They seem to me to be fairly objective and operational. Best, Andrea On May 23, 2012 12:06 AM, "Avri Doria" wrote: > > Hi, > > You are right, I have not done a professional comparative analysis. Nor > do I know of one. > > But from a 30 year career of participating in all sort of organizations > with all sorts of models, I find it to be the the most effective and the > least prone to corruption of any I have had the pleasure to serve in. Also > from a professional point of view based on an advanced degree that included > counseling in organizational settings based on group dynamics , I find it > to have the healthiest group dynamics of any organization I have been part > of. > > If you have spent years serving in the IETF as well as other organizations > and judge it inferior, I would be glad to hear why. But unsubstantiated > comments and the lack of a study we can all agree is unbiased, is hardly > evidence. > > avri > > On 22 May 2012, at 17:03, Ian Peter wrote: > > > I continually find the argument that "IETF works well" to be based on > very > > little real analysis. > > > > I consider the IETF model to be one which which may have been suitable in > > the early internet days but which has probably outlived its usefulness. I > > think Tim Berners Lee knew that as long ago as the early 1990s when he > moved > > WWW standards setting elsewhere. > > > > If the criteria for judging IETF is solving the Internet's main technical > > problems, it's hard to rank them highly. Basic matters such as security > and > > identity and seem to still need a lot of work. > > > > If the basic criteria is creating lots of standards, they do quite well. > > There are thousands of them, often overlapping and sometimes unable to > > operate with each other. But if the criteria is adoption of standards, > they > > don't do very well - from the 20-year-to-date slow adoption of IPv6 to > many > > other standards that just wallow in the RFC archives. > > > > I think we should stop pretending that IETF creates some sort of model to > > follow, and analyse its performance and figure whether some other > structure, > > merger, replacement, or set of improvements might be more suitable for > this > > day and age. > > > > IETF was recently described on this list as a meritocracy. Is that a > > reasonable assessment, and if so, is that the sort of model for internet > > governance we wish to propagate? > > > > Again, I would like to see some decent analysis rather than the belief > that > > since it has been with us since the good old days it must be good. > > > > Ian Peter > > > > PS one of the things that seems fairly standard in business management is > > that the sort of structures that work well for organisations in their > early > > stages don't necessarily scale to mature and much more complex > > organisational needs, and radical change of structure is fairly normal > > evolution. We seem to resist that in internet matters. > > > > > >> From: Avri > >> Reply-To: , Avri > >> Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 11:01:59 -0400 > >> To: IGC > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on > >> economics) > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> 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. > >> > >> 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 > >> > >> 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. > >> > >> 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. > >> > >> avri > >> > >> > >> On 22 May 2012, at 07:26, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> > >>> Andrea Glorioso wrote: > >>>> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >>>>> So I would suggest that the way forward will have to involve > proposals > >>>>> of concrete substantive topic areas to be addressed by the "Enhanced > >>>>> Cooperation" process and its institutions, together with a strong > >>>>> commitment to seek, through true multistakeholder discussions, a good > >>>>> way to model this "Enhanced Cooperation" process on how things work > in > >>>>> the IETF. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I may have misunderstood and/or missed something, but it seems to me > you > >>>> are suggesting that there is something in the procedures of the IETF > that > >>>> shields it from "undue influence" by "powerful stakeholders" etc. I > am not > >>>> questioning this assumption (at least not right now) but I wonder > whether > >>>> - assuming I have correctly understood - there are some analytical > bases > >>>> to this assumption. Not the least because one may distill such > processes / > >>>> characteristics and try to replicate them elsewhere (although I must > say I > >>>> am by default unconvinced of the possibility to replicate the > processes of > >>>> the IETF outside of the very narrow remit of the "organisation"). > >>> > >>> Hello Andrea and all > >>> > >>> Alas I currently do not have any formal analysis. So far the only > >>> basis for my assertion is my own observations, as well as confirming > >>> anecdotical evidence that I have heard from others. However I am > >>> optimistic about the possibility of replicating this "robustness > >>> against undue influence attempts from powerful stakeholders" > >>> property in the context of other topic areas. In particular, I would > >>> suggest that the principles of openness of participation and rough > >>> consensus may be applicable quite broadly, while for the criterion > >>> of "running code", it will probably be necessary to figure out, for > >>> each topic area, a suitable criterion which has similar socioeconomic > >>> effects. I would suggest to look, for each topic area, for an informal > >>> criterion that provides guidance about when sufficient information is > >>> available among the participants of the discussion so that they can, > >>> as a group, make a reasonably well-informed rough consensus decision. > >>> Anyway, the principles that IETF is based on (absolute openness of > >>> participation, rough consensus and running code) are well-known and > >>> reasonably well-understood, at least by the people who have > >>> participated there. > >>> > >>> I would expect the big challenge to be in the area of convincing > >>> governments to give this kind of approach, with a suitable replacement > >>> for "running code" according to whatever is the particular topic area, > >>> a serious chance. > >>> > >>> What kind of analysis document would be helpful for that? > >>> > >>> Greetings, > >>> Norbert > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From zeeshan_shoki at yahoo.com Wed May 23 02:45:51 2012 From: zeeshan_shoki at yahoo.com (Zeeshan shoki) Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 23:45:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Message-ID: <1337755551.60460.YahooMailClassic@web125805.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Dear Friends,                    As you are aware of the Madrid Scam and hacking of my e-mail account resulted in deletion of all of my data.But As I requested to Yahoo through Yahoo Helpdek and all of my data have been recovered.I thank to Yahoo and Allah . Regards, Zeeshan Shoki -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed May 23 02:53:32 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 15:53:32 +0900 Subject: [governance] In-Reply-To: <1337755551.60460.YahooMailClassic@web125805.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1337755551.60460.YahooMailClassic@web125805.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: DearZeeshan, Very glad to hearthst at least you could recover your data. And also glad to know that Yahoo also helped you. This thing could happen to anyone. As I am using Gmail, Google calendar, Dropbox, Evernote, Facebook etc. etc. I heard today that there is move now in Japan to set-up industy self-regulation on mobile spams, mainly on Smartphones, Izumi 2012年5月23日水曜日 Zeeshan shoki zeeshan_shoki at yahoo.com: > Dear Friends, > As you are aware of the Madrid Scam and hacking of my > e-mail account resulted in deletion of all of my data.But As I requested to > Yahoo through Yahoo Helpdek and all of my data have been recovered.I thank > to Yahoo and Allah . > > Regards, > > Zeeshan Shoki > > -- >> 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 nb at bollow.ch Wed May 23 03:43:49 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 09:43:49 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: (message from Andrea Glorioso on Wed, 23 May 2012 06:46:43 +0200) References: Message-ID: <20120523074349.DE4223CD@quill.bollow.ch> Andrea Glorioso wrote: > It seems to me Ian provided at least two metrics (solution of basic > architectural issues such as security and identity, and adoption of IPv6) > which one may use to judge the success of IETF. They seem to me to be > fairly objective and operational. On what basis do you blame the failure of providing good solutions to these problems specifically on the IETF? IETF does not have a monopoly on trying to come up with solutions to these or any other problems! I am not saying that IETF is particularly good at problem-solving, in the sense of delivering solutions that can be considered architectually optimal or close to optimal. In fact in the areas that you mention, strong arguments can be made that the solutions which IETF is giving us are architectually very far from optimal. Nevertheless, IETF is giving us solutions that allow us to communicate, while being highly resistant to capture by powerful stakeholders. If someone were to suggest to try to evolve the IETF model into something that is still based on the principles of absolute openness of participation, rough consensus and running code, but with a fresh start on architectural matters (i.e. without perpetuating design choices that look frankly stupid from my perspective of today that is based on the significant progress that has been made in the fields of systems analysis, software engineering, and information processing system architecture, in the past decades since the IETF has essentially irreversibly chosen its path -- these fields have progressed very significantly since the IETF made fundamental design choices that are today practically impossible to change within IETF because they have so much momentum there), so that this "fork of the IETF" might be better at delivering solutions that don't only work but which are architectually closer to being optimal solutions, I'd be all in favor of that. In fact if someone were to give me a big sum of money with no strings attached, that'd probably be a significant part of what I'd try to get going. But we shouldn't dismiss the IETF model as irrelevant just because we're not totally happy with the solutions that IETF is giving us. In fact, it seems to me that even while there is a strong desire and an actual need for Enhanced Cooperation, right now it doesn't look to me like anything of value being likely to come out of the discussions around that topic. And it appears to me that the reason for this is precisely that pretty much all stakeholders are afraid that in the institutions and processes of Enhanced Cooperation, powerful stakeholders with opposing interests might have undue influence. This risk and fear appears to me to be the show-stopper right now. What I'm suggesting is that the IETF model contains a solution to this problem that is right now an absolute obstacle to progress on any kind of internationally institutionalized Enhanced Cooperation. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Wed May 23 03:57:21 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 09:57:21 +0200 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <20120523074349.DE4223CD@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20120523074349.DE4223CD@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Dear Norbert, dear all, On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > It seems to me Ian provided at least two metrics (solution of basic > > architectural issues such as security and identity, and adoption of IPv6) > > which one may use to judge the success of IETF. They seem to me to be > > fairly objective and operational. > > On what basis do you blame the failure of providing good solutions to > these problems specifically on the IETF? IETF does not have a monopoly > on trying to come up with solutions to these or any other problems! > As a matter of fact, I did not blame the IETF for anything. I simply pointed out that one person suggested two metrics on which the success of the "IETF model" could be evaluated in a more objective manner than simply saying "I've been in organisation X for Y number of years and I think it is better than organisation Z". However, let me point out that although the IETF may not have a "monopoly" in solving these and/or similar problems, its supporters do tend to present it as the best option for Internet-related standards-setting and, therefore, one may infer that other options should not be pursued. 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 andrea at digitalpolicy.it Wed May 23 04:13:34 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 10:13:34 +0200 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: Dear Avri, dear all, On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > 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. > Actually, that may also be interpreted as collusion between large companies > 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 > As a matter of fact, it is my experience (which I do not claim is scientific, of course) that *as long as there is no official position of a country/organisation* (I imagine you refer to public organisations) discussions, sometimes even in the open, are quite normal. It is true that public administrations tend to conduct these discussions more in-house; but even then, many people would be surprised by the "roughness" of internal exchanges within, for example, the European Commission. One reason for conducting these discussions mostly in-house may be that - again in my non-scientific experience - too many people fail to understand the difference between an official position of the organisation as a whole, official positions of parts of an organisation, professional opinions of a civil servant in the course of a discussion that will lead to an official position, and purely personal positions of a civil servant. I have been bitten myself several times by this lack of understanding, to the extent that I am extremely careful to express my position or my differences with colleagues in public, while I have no problem to do so in an environment where the "rules of the game" are clearer for everyone. [...] 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 have strong reservations of your characterisation of "policy people" as "arguing what they are paid to believe in". Of course, civil servants follow instructions coming from the decision-makers (again, people often confuse the two). That does not mean that civil servants are some kind of mercenaries (not to use worse words) or that they only get hired if they agree with the position of the organisation - as a matter of fact, it is my (non scientific) experience that in the European Commission you are often valued when you tell the decision-makers what they need to hear, not what they want to hear. I also find it very difficult to believe that "technology people" would take a technical position, whether in the IETF or elsewhere, that ran directly counter to the instructions they receive from those who foot the bill. I do not want to infer too much from written exchanges - emails are a notorious difficult medium for this kind of exchanges - but let me point out that this kind of characterisation, which I consciouly over-simplify as the "geek heroes who always speak their mind in defence of Internet openness and freedoms" v the "sneaky bureaucratic mercenaries who will sell the Internet to the highest bidder", is (a) simplistic and (b) exactly what makes those civil servants who would be willing to cooperate with the "geeks" - and, having been called one for a long part of my life and dealing with the category rather frequently, is not the most interesting task you may get as a civil servant, believe me - rather cautious in doing so. 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed May 23 04:49:44 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 10:49:44 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) References: <5AD4128A4AEC4AF8AA0CD94FA9061FD8@UserVAIO> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD6C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Michael: I have no experience with the IETF but I have spent a lot of time around both technical folks and policy folks and the interface between them and from my experience what works for one group doesn't necessarily work for the other (different mind sets, decision making approaches, tolerance for ambiguity and so and so on... Wolfgang: Michaels observations is correct and matches my own experiences. However, the problem is, that nowadays, where the "technical Internet" penetrates all areas of "public policy" it is impossible to sperate the two worlds. I do not expect that one culture will overtake the other one or that the two worlds will be - sooner or later - "harmonized" (take the best from both sides) and create a new "third way culture". To avoid a new "cold war" the way forward is to go to the next (higher) layer. The challenge is that the two different cultures HAVE to learn to work together, have to respect each other and have to develop "protocols" which allow an enhanced communication, coordination and collaboration. BTW, to investigate such possibilities and opportunities would belong to the tasks for a new "UNCSTD Enhanced Cooperation Improvement Working Group" (ECIWOG). Regards wolfgang Hi, 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. 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 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. 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. avri On 22 May 2012, at 07:26, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Andrea Glorioso wrote: >> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> So I would suggest that the way forward will have to involve >>> proposals of concrete substantive topic areas to be addressed by the >>> "Enhanced Cooperation" process and its institutions, together with a >>> strong commitment to seek, through true multistakeholder >>> discussions, a good way to model this "Enhanced Cooperation" process >>> on how things work in the IETF. >>> >> >> I may have misunderstood and/or missed something, but it seems to me >> you are suggesting that there is something in the procedures of the >> IETF that shields it from "undue influence" by "powerful >> stakeholders" etc. I am not questioning this assumption (at least not >> right now) but I wonder whether >> - assuming I have correctly understood - there are some analytical bases >> to this assumption. Not the least because one may distill such processes / >> characteristics and try to replicate them elsewhere (although I must say I >> am by default unconvinced of the possibility to replicate the processes of >> the IETF outside of the very narrow remit of the "organisation"). > > Hello Andrea and all > > Alas I currently do not have any formal analysis. So far the only > basis for my assertion is my own observations, as well as confirming > anecdotical evidence that I have heard from others. However I am > optimistic about the possibility of replicating this "robustness > against undue influence attempts from powerful stakeholders" property > in the context of other topic areas. In particular, I would suggest > that the principles of openness of participation and rough consensus > may be applicable quite broadly, while for the criterion of "running > code", it will probably be necessary to figure out, for each topic > area, a suitable criterion which has similar socioeconomic effects. I > would suggest to look, for each topic area, for an informal criterion > that provides guidance about when sufficient information is available > among the participants of the discussion so that they can, as a group, > make a reasonably well-informed rough consensus decision. Anyway, the > principles that IETF is based on (absolute openness of participation, > rough consensus and running code) are well-known and reasonably > well-understood, at least by the people who have participated there. > > I would expect the big challenge to be in the area of convincing > governments to give this kind of approach, with a suitable replacement > for "running code" according to whatever is the particular topic area, > a serious chance. > > What kind of analysis document would be helpful for that? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed May 23 05:39:29 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 11:39:29 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: (message from Andrea Glorioso on Wed, 23 May 2012 09:57:21 +0200) References: <20120523074349.DE4223CD@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20120523093930.158AB3CD@quill.bollow.ch> Andrea Glorioso wrote: > However, let me point out that although the IETF may not have a "monopoly" > in solving these and/or similar problems, its supporters do tend to present > it as the best option for Internet-related standards-setting and, therefore, > one may infer that other options should not be pursued. Ok, fair enough, IETF's failure to create convincing solutions in some of the areas that it has worked on is a valid counterargument against a "no other options should be pursued" viewpoint. I still think though that this is not a valid counterargument to my assertion that IETF's fundamental model (absolute openness of participation, rough consensus, and deferring decision-making about draft standards until several members of the group have hands-on experience with implementation and interoperability testing for the draft specifications) is an effective means of creating robustness against undue influence from powerful stakeholders. Are there any other known ways of organizing Internet governance (or global governance in any field, really) with a similar track record of robustness against undue influence from powerful stakeholders? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed May 23 06:25:10 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 11:25:10 +0100 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: <$pVmY0uGsLvPFA7b@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 10:13:34 on Wed, 23 May 2012, Andrea Glorioso writes >I do not want to infer too much from written exchanges - emails are a >notorious difficult medium for this kind of exchanges Which is why I have some reservations about policy making forums whose mantra is "anyone can join the mailing list". And why I spend a lot of my time trying to get people to participate *in person*, and wherever possible turn up in person myself. In other words, I don't think teleworking is the answer to everything. Something which can often be taken as heresy in an industry which facilitates that very teleworking. Just so there's no confusion, teleworking can be a very good way to enable small groups of people who are already very familiar with each other and remote participation (as an observer) is better than nothing, but we are very long way from remote public *input* to these various forums being any more than lip service. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed May 23 07:41:09 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 04:41:09 -0700 Subject: FW: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan Message-ID: Bill, I don't think that you responded to this below as yet although of course, I might have missed it. The questions which were sincerely meant (I just don't know and haven't had the opportunity to observe the discussions around these issues first hand), are not I think trivial since it would appear that significant portions of the US (and other) media and others seem to be taking the same positions as yours i.e 1. equating "oversight through an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral body'" with "inter-governmental control over CIR" (which don't on the face of it appear to be equivalent) and 2. damning the suggestion of "oversight through an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral body'" because of support from countries such as Iran and Pakistan (for which I couldn't find any evidence (for Iran and Pakistan at least) after some fairly extensive searching on Google--but perhaps I got the search terms wrong... I'm asking for some specific references to justify either or both positions. Tks, Mike -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:recent:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 12:50 AM To: 'William Drake' : 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org' Subject: RE: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan Actually Bill I did check Google with a variety of search terms and I couldn't find any references to this naming Pakistan or Iran as specific supporters of "an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral body.'" with or without the terms "appropriate" or "participative". Perhaps with your evidently superior knowledge you could provide the specifics which you appear to be quoting. Also, am I correct in understanding you to be asserting that indicating a support for "oversight" by "an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral body'" is synonomous with taking a position for "inter-governmental control over CIR". I don't doubt that there is likely diplomatic code words involved here but at least on the face of it "oversight" is not synomyous with "control" and "appropriate" and "participative oversight" would suggest a process somewhat different from that implied by a simple assertion of "inter-governmental control". But again you likely have superior knowledge here and some evidence or references to support this would be appreciated. Tks, M -----Original Message----- From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch] Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 11:59 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan Hi Mike On May 20, 2012, at 5:41 PM, michael gurstein wrote: Bill, Is this a fact that Iran and Pakistann have indicated that they "would like 'the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical infrastructure" to be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral body.'" Uh, yes..? Both governments have made statements publicly and privately calling for intergovernmental control over CIR since WSIS phase I. "Democratic" and "multilateral" have been consistent, the other words have varied, sometimes "suitable," "inclusive" etc. If so would it be possible to share the reference and if possible a listing of all the other countries that have similarly indicated this as a preference. Sorry, I don't have handy copies of the transcripts from every WSIS, WGIG, IGF, CSTD, ITU etc. meeting in which they and others have expressed their preferences, but I imagine if you dig around with a search engine of your choice you should find some stuff. Cheers Bill -----Original Message----- From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch] Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 8:36 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan Hi Mike, Sorry, didn't think it was obscure. These are among the governments that would like "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical infrastructure" to be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral body." There's not much chance that such a body would produce a global treaty about Internet Rights/rights on the Internet that would constrain them, when what they plainly want is a mechanism that strengthens sovereign control and gives them international cover in taking such actions. Best, Bill On May 20, 2012, at 5:03 PM, michael gurstein wrote: Quite honestly Bill, the actual meaning/logic of your (I think meant to be) ironic comment escapes me (I read it four times and it still escapes me... (and by my reckoning had either or both of Iran and Pakistan signed on to some global treaty about Internet Rights/rights on the Internet (or something similar) it would I'm assuming, be even a wee bit more difficult for the respectie governments to act in this high-handed way by for example, giving those internally in opposition an international agreement to point to/argue for before the courts; and also give those externally who disagree with those actions some specific context for them to exercise their disagreement; or have I missed something here. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:39 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan On May 20, 2012, at 3:30 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: Twitter officially shutdown in Pakistan - Twitter Banned in Pakistan http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/2012/05/twitter-officially-sh u tdown-in-pakistan.html If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral body" so that Pakistan would not be forced to take unilateral action merely to shut out this evil monopolist that, with three other sites, controls "much of what is considered to be the Internet today by most people today". On May 13, 2012, at 12:25 AM, michael gurstein wrote: "The telecommunications minister has ordered the use of domain names ending with .ir" belonging to Iran, Asr Ertebatat reported. The order prohibits banks, insurance firms and telephone firms using foreign hosts for their sites or to inform their clients using foreign providers such as Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail or MSN, it said. If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral body" so that Iran would not be forced to take unilateral action merely to shut out these evil monopolists... We demand it! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed May 23 07:41:09 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 04:41:09 -0700 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <20120523093930.158AB3CD@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <2E0295FA5E2E40E2BD39297EBF6F760D@UserVAIO> Norbert (or Avri or anyone... Without at this point a preference for models of decision making in the area of EC... For the sake of argument let's take your description of the IETF process "absolute openness of participation, rough consensus, and deferring decision-making about draft standards until several members of the group have hands-on experience with implementation and interoperability testing for the draft specifications" and let's do a thought experiment applying it to an area of potential EC policy making such as say "Net Neutrality" could you or anyone explain how the process you have described above might lead to a generally acceptable (and usable) outcome? M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 2:39 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) Andrea Glorioso wrote: > However, let me point out that although the IETF may not have a > "monopoly" in solving these and/or similar problems, its supporters do > tend to present it as the best option for Internet-related > standards-setting and, therefore, one may infer that other options > should not be pursued. Ok, fair enough, IETF's failure to create convincing solutions in some of the areas that it has worked on is a valid counterargument against a "no other options should be pursued" viewpoint. I still think though that this is not a valid counterargument to my assertion that IETF's fundamental model (absolute openness of participation, rough consensus, and deferring decision-making about draft standards until several members of the group have hands-on experience with implementation and interoperability testing for the draft specifications) is an effective means of creating robustness against undue influence from powerful stakeholders. Are there any other known ways of organizing Internet governance (or global governance in any field, really) with a similar track record of robustness against undue influence from powerful stakeholders? 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 andrea at digitalpolicy.it Wed May 23 08:27:40 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 14:27:40 +0200 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <20120523093930.158AB3CD@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20120523074349.DE4223CD@quill.bollow.ch> <20120523093930.158AB3CD@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Dear Norbert, On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > However, let me point out that although the IETF may not have a > "monopoly" > > in solving these and/or similar problems, its supporters do tend to > present > > it as the best option for Internet-related standards-setting and, > therefore, > > one may infer that other options should not be pursued. > > Ok, fair enough, IETF's failure to create convincing solutions in some > of the areas that it has worked on is a valid counterargument against > a "no other options should be pursued" viewpoint. > You are still reading more in my message than I meant to express, which could of course be my error in drafting. I am *not* claiming that the IETF has failed; I am suggesting (actually, agreeing with another person's suggestion) that there are objective criteria through which one may evaluate whether the IETF is succesful or not, and/or whether it should be taken as the universal model for decisions concerning the Internet, including besides its rather technological remit. > I still think though that this is not a valid counterargument to my > assertion that IETF's fundamental model (absolute openness of > participation, rough consensus, and deferring decision-making about > draft standards until several members of the group have hands-on > experience with implementation and interoperability testing for the > draft specifications) is an effective means of creating robustness > against undue influence from powerful stakeholders. > I am asking because I am genuinely interested in an analysis of the IETF that goes beyond the rather childish and stale mantras, which unfortunately permeate so much of Internet governance discussions: - is "absolute openness" of participation a potential or an actual feature of the IETF? While it is true that the IETF does not require fees, it does require at least an Internet connection, which is beyond the reach of a not-insignificant part of the world. Which means that this part of the world is de facto "delegating" the power to decide technological matters with an impact on public policy to third parties, not necessarily their elected representatives. So, if you have to delegate, why not delegate to your government, in which you have at least some (more or less functioning) means of redress and accountability? - the definition of "rough consensus" has always struck me as rather context-dependent, to be diplomatic. :) From the "TAO of the IETF" ( http://www.ietf.org/tao.html) one can read that "*The general rule on disputed topics is that the Working Group has to come to "rough consensus", meaning that a very large majority of those who care must agree. The exact method of determining rough consensus varies from Working Group to Working Group. Sometimes consensus is determined by "humming" -- if you agree with a proposal, you hum when prompted by the chair; if you disagree, you keep your silence [...] The IETF is run by rough consensus, and it is the IESG that judges whether a WG has come up with a result that has community consensus*". Now, even not considering the inherent arbitrariness of such loosely-defined process for taking decisions and assuming for the sake of argument that on average it does produce better results in terms of protocols/technical specifications, I wonder how you could possibly transfer such method to public policy decisions? Would a decision on network neutrality rules, privacy/data protection regulation, etc that impact half a billion people (referring to the European Union) be legitimate if taken following this "rough consensus" approach? How can one determine the legal and political responsibility of a certain decision if such decision is taken by "humming"? - on deferring decision-making, which I understand is the "and running code" part of the IETF approach: how is it possible to have "running code" and/or "implementations of draft specifications" in public policy matters? The best we can do, in my view, is checking what previous regulation has produced and assess if/how future approaches in the same area should be modeled - which, to take the example of the European Commission, we are obliged to do via evaluations and impact assessments. But is this the same as the IETF model? Are there any other known ways of organizing Internet governance (or > global governance in any field, really) with a similar track record of > robustness against undue influence from powerful stakeholders? > It is difficult to answer this question, because I do not believe we have a "rough consensus" whether the IETF is truly exempt from capture or "undue influence". Again (and I say it only because often discussions on these matters require lengthy and boring "caveat' as everyone is convinced the other side is basically untrustworthy) I am not claiming the IETF is captured; but I have not seen objective metrics and analyses to assert so. The 100+ years of experience of any single person, or even a limited number of person, is not a proper metric. Best, -- 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed May 23 08:26:52 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 13:26:52 +0100 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <2E0295FA5E2E40E2BD39297EBF6F760D@UserVAIO> References: <20120523093930.158AB3CD@quill.bollow.ch> <2E0295FA5E2E40E2BD39297EBF6F760D@UserVAIO> Message-ID: In message <2E0295FA5E2E40E2BD39297EBF6F760D at UserVAIO>, at 04:41:09 on Wed, 23 May 2012, michael gurstein writes >Without at this point a preference for models of decision making in the area >of EC... > >For the sake of argument let's take your description of the IETF process >"absolute openness of participation, rough consensus, and deferring >decision-making about draft standards until several members of the group >have hands-on experience with implementation and interoperability testing >for the draft specifications" and let's do a thought experiment applying it >to an area of potential EC policy making such as say "Net Neutrality" could >you or anyone explain how the process you have described above might lead to >a generally acceptable (and usable) outcome? That's the kind of exercise that the OECD undertakes (for example their recent study of Internet Intermediaries). The secretariat looks at what's been implemented in various different jurisdictions, the membership examines, edits and approves the report, which is then available for policy makers to draw conclusions from. No doubt it would be possible to have a look at a topic such as NN from the point of view "of what has worked and what hasn't", then perhaps recommend that more regulators adopt the "does work" than the "doesn't". However, there are a number of problems with this, not least of which is that people don't even agree what NN is, and local [eg commercial/ monopoly/network capacity] circumstances differ a lot from one country to another. Whereas "delivering an IP packet" is a fairly well understood concept, and happens much the same inside routers in one country as another. (That's not to say it's any easier, but at least there's a high degree of agreement about what you are trying to achieve and the type of equipment used to do that). To take a telephony example (which are ITU standards rather than IETF, which although a less transparent process, is otherwise very similar) the reasons why there is not de-facto worldwide NN for VoIP traffic are not generally technical (eg: I can't figure out how to get the packets through my NAT router) but are political and commercial, and refer to matters such as Revenue Abstraction from conventional telephony, access by Law Enforcement, and users becoming "Bandwidth Hogs" on mobile broadband which was sold to them on the assumption of occasional web browsing, not regular videophone use. Another analogy: the alcohol equivalent of the IETF can design a reliable test for the percentage content in a glass of beer, but is it their role to decide who can drink that beer, where and when, and in what quantity? -- 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 May 23 08:56:20 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 08:56:20 -0400 Subject: FW: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is this caucus ready to accept "multilateralism" in IG? If so, I'm out! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 7:41 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Bill, I don't think that you responded to this below as yet although of > course, I might have missed it. > > The questions which were sincerely meant (I just don't know and haven't had > the opportunity to observe the discussions around these issues first > hand), are not I think trivial since it would appear that significant > portions of the US (and other) media and others seem to be taking the > same positions as yours i.e >     1. equating "oversight through an appropriate, democratic and > participative multilateral body'" with "inter-governmental control over CIR" > (which don't on the face of it appear to be equivalent) and >     2. damning the suggestion of "oversight through an appropriate, > democratic and participative multilateral body'" because of support from > countries such as Iran and Pakistan (for which I couldn't find any evidence > (for Iran and Pakistan at least) after some fairly extensive searching on > Google--but perhaps I got the search terms wrong... > > I'm asking for some specific references to justify either or both positions. > > Tks, > > Mike > >  -----Original Message----- > From: michael gurstein [mailto:recent:gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 12:50 AM > To: 'William Drake' : 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org' > Subject: RE: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in > Pakistan > Actually Bill I did check Google with a variety of search terms and I > couldn't find any references to this naming Pakistan or Iran as specific > supporters of  "an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral > body.'" with or without the terms "appropriate" or "participative". Perhaps > with your evidently superior knowledge you could provide the specifics which > you appear to be quoting. > > Also, am I correct in understanding you to be asserting that indicating a > support for "oversight" by "an appropriate, democratic and participative > multilateral body'" is synonomous with taking a position for > "inter-governmental control over CIR". > > I don't doubt that there is likely diplomatic code words involved here but > at least on the face of it "oversight" is not synomyous with "control" and > "appropriate" and "participative oversight" would suggest a process somewhat > different from that implied by a simple assertion of "inter-governmental > control".  But again you likely have superior knowledge here > and some evidence or references to support this would be appreciated. > > Tks, > > M > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch] > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 11:59 PM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in > Pakistan > > Hi Mike > > On May 20, 2012, at 5:41 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > Bill, > > Is this a fact that Iran and Pakistann have indicated that they  "would like > 'the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical > infrastructure" to be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and > participative multilateral body.'" > > > Uh, yes..?  Both governments have made statements publicly and privately > calling for intergovernmental control over CIR since WSIS phase I. >  "Democratic" and "multilateral" have been consistent, the other words have > varied, sometimes "suitable," "inclusive" etc. > > > If so would it be possible to share the reference and if possible a listing > of all the other countries that have similarly indicated this as a > preference. > > > Sorry, I don't have handy copies of the transcripts from every WSIS, WGIG, > IGF, CSTD, ITU etc. meeting in which they and others have expressed their > preferences, but I imagine if you dig around with a search engine of your > choice you should find some stuff. > > Cheers > > Bill > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch] > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 8:36 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in > Pakistan > > > Hi Mike, > > Sorry, didn't think it was obscure.  These are among the governments that > would like "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical > infrastructure" to be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and > participative multilateral body."  There's not much chance that such a body > would produce a global treaty about Internet Rights/rights on the Internet > that would constrain them, when what they plainly want is a mechanism that > strengthens sovereign control and gives them international cover in taking > such actions. > > Best, > > Bill > > On May 20, 2012, at 5:03 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Quite honestly Bill, the actual meaning/logic of your (I think meant > > to be) ironic comment escapes me (I read it four times and it still > > escapes me... > > > (and by my reckoning had either or both of Iran and Pakistan signed on > > to some global treaty about Internet Rights/rights on the Internet (or > > something similar) it would I'm assuming, be even a wee bit more > > difficult for the respectie governments to act in this high-handed way > > by for example, giving those internally in opposition an international > > agreement to point to/argue for before the courts; and also give those > > externally who disagree with those actions some specific context for > > them to exercise their disagreement; or have I missed something here. > > > M > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William > > Drake > > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:39 AM > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in > > Pakistan > > > > On May 20, 2012, at 3:30 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > > Twitter officially shutdown in Pakistan - Twitter Banned in Pakistan > > http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/2012/05/twitter-officially-sh > > u > > tdown-in-pakistan.html > > > > If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and > > logical infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, > > democratic and participative multilateral body" so that Pakistan would > > not be forced to take unilateral action merely to shut out this evil > > monopolist that, with three other sites, controls "much of what is > > considered to be the Internet today by most people today". > > > > On May 13, 2012, at 12:25 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > > "The telecommunications minister has ordered the use of domain names > > ending with .ir" belonging to Iran, Asr Ertebatat reported. > > > The order prohibits banks, insurance firms and telephone firms using > > foreign hosts for their sites or to inform their clients using > > foreign providers such as Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail or MSN, it said. > > > > If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and > > logical infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, > > democratic and participative multilateral body" so that Iran would not > > be forced to take unilateral action merely to shut out these evil > > monopolists... > > > We demand it! > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 23 09:11:32 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 06:11:32 -0700 Subject: [governance] A Question Concerning Enhanced Cooperation and Regulation in the Information Society Message-ID: <13396A4FEC004E989C2BEFFFA102DC78@UserVAIO> A question concerning EC: would the situation described in http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/technology/google-privacy-inquiries-get-li ttle-cooperation.html?partner=rss&emc=rss be a possible subject to be dealt with under EC? If the answer is "no" where could it reasonably be dealt with in the current regulatory/legal regime? Answering "at the national level" seems to me to be bizarre since even countries like Germany seem unable to effectively deal with Google in an area which intimately affects their citizens but ultimately will affect all countries in the world--great and small with well developed regulatory regimes and the state structure to support these and less developed countries without such an infrastructure. Perhaps EC, coming out of a relatively narrowly focussed (at the insistence of the Developed Countries) initiative such as WSIS is too narrowly focussed to allow for this but, at least for the moment it seems to be the only framework available for dealing with issues such as the one being described in the NYT article and the broad array of similar issues that are emerging with increasing frequency. Mike -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Wed May 23 09:12:17 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 15:12:17 +0200 Subject: FW: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear McTim, On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:56 PM, McTim wrote: > Is this caucus ready to accept "multilateralism" in IG? > > If so, I'm out! > It is interesting you put the word "multilateralism" in quotes. Is this because you feel there isn't a broadly accepted (a "rough consensus"? :) notion of what "multilateralism" actually means, or because you feel that multilateralism it is *per se* incompatible with multi-stakeholderism (which I strongly disagree with, but then again I guess it would depend on our respective understandings of the latter concept) ? It is even more interesting, at least for me, to think that "multilateralism" as a political philosophy/practice is in fact a response to unilateralism, which basically means a country doing whatever it can get away with because, at least in the short term, it has the means and the power to do so. So I personally find "multilateralism" to be an extremely positive approach in politics, not the least because the unilateral approach is essentially myopic and based on over-optimistic assumptions (not the least that you will have the same level of means and power forever, even though history teaches us that's a very unreasonable assumption). Ciao, -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed May 23 09:17:14 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 06:17:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: A Question Concerning Enhanced Cooperation and Regulation in the Information Society In-Reply-To: <13396A4FEC004E989C2BEFFFA102DC78@UserVAIO> Message-ID: <73928F15F25645C5A48E9A4561DC4AB4@UserVAIO> Tiny URL http://tinyurl.com/cxd9893 M -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 6:12 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: A Question Concerning Enhanced Cooperation and Regulation in the Information Society A question concerning EC: would the situation described in http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/technology/google-privacy-inquiries-get-li ttle-cooperation.html?partner=rss&emc=rss be a possible subject to be dealt with under EC? If the answer is "no" where could it reasonably be dealt with in the current regulatory/legal regime? Answering "at the national level" seems to me to be bizarre since even countries like Germany seem unable to effectively deal with Google in an area which intimately affects their citizens but ultimately will affect all countries in the world--great and small with well developed regulatory regimes and the state structure to support these and less developed countries without such an infrastructure. Perhaps EC, coming out of a relatively narrowly focussed (at the insistence of the Developed Countries) initiative such as WSIS is too narrowly focussed to allow for this but, at least for the moment it seems to be the only framework available for dealing with issues such as the one being described in the NYT article and the broad array of similar issues that are emerging with increasing frequency. Mike -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed May 23 09:28:14 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 09:28:14 -0400 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > It seems to me Ian provided at least two metrics (solution of basic > architectural issues such as security and identity, Are you sure these are architecture issues? > and adoption of IPv6) Why would adoption be a metric of success of a standards body? I would think the metric would be the standard itself! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Wed May 23 09:31:01 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 09:31:01 -0400 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: <20120523074349.DE4223CD@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <7DA34771-D58A-49CF-B166-7028BF86FCC4@acm.org> On 23 May 2012, at 03:57, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > However, let me point out that although the IETF may not have a "monopoly" > in solving these and/or similar problems, its supporters do tend to present > it as the best option for Internet-related standards-setting and, therefore, > one may infer that other options should not be pursued. That was never my point. If anything my point is that it works and while casting about the models that work, this one should not be denigrated and ignored. I was also arguing that government people could be as qualified as anyone to operate in a IETF millieau. I do not know how that became "IETF is the only model and all others should be ignored." avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Wed May 23 09:38:22 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 09:38:22 -0400 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 23 May 2012, at 09:28, McTim wrote: >> >> and adoption of IPv6) > > Why would adoption be a metric of success of a standards body? I > would think the metric would be the standard itself! And another one of my controversial arguments, in other fora, is that the reason IPv6 has failed up till know (see how conciliatory I am being - this time it may really really be for real), is that the IETF broke with its normal model and policies in its effort to act like a government a force people to accept one of its solutions. They not only forced a top down decision in choosing which of the several options would be followed, they then started working to try and convince people that they had to do accept his tech. If anything as a metric, this is an indication that top down does not work and the IETF should not make any further errors like this. Oh, yeah, IETF isn't perfect. And I do not remember saying it was, and when it deviates from its model, it risks error. 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 andrea at digitalpolicy.it Wed May 23 09:54:24 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 15:54:24 +0200 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 3:28 PM, McTim wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Andrea Glorioso > wrote: > > It seems to me Ian provided at least two metrics (solution of basic > > architectural issues such as security and identity, > > Are you sure these are architecture issues? > I am sure of very few things, but security and identity do seem to me to be strictly linked to the architecture of an inter-networking system. I imagine some people may argue that these are matters for end-points, which (for some) are not part of the architecture. But I'd love to hear your views on the matter. > and adoption of IPv6) > > Why would adoption be a metric of success of a standards body? I > would think the metric would be the standard itself! > What's the use of a standards-making body if nobody uses those standards? And, to make the parallel between the IETF and public policy making bodies that some people have proposed (not sure you are actually proposing it) would a public authority be judged on the beauty, elegance, etc of the legislation it produces or on the fact that such legislation is actually used/respected and it achieves the objectives it is supposed to achieve? 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Wed May 23 10:21:58 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 10:21:58 -0400 Subject: FW: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > Dear McTim, > > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:56 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> Is this caucus ready to accept "multilateralism" in IG? >> >> If so, I'm out! > > > It is interesting you put the word "multilateralism" in quotes. Is this > because you feel there isn't a broadly accepted (a "rough consensus"? :) > notion of what "multilateralism" actually means, or because you feel that > multilateralism it is per se incompatible with multi-stakeholderism neither. I put it in quotes to point out that it was the only thing on offer in this context. I don't think IG should be multilateral at all. I don't think the CSIGC should roll over and play dead on this point. If we do, then the IGC is no longer useful IMHO. -- 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 andrea at digitalpolicy.it Wed May 23 10:26:00 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 16:26:00 +0200 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <7DA34771-D58A-49CF-B166-7028BF86FCC4@acm.org> References: <20120523074349.DE4223CD@quill.bollow.ch> <7DA34771-D58A-49CF-B166-7028BF86FCC4@acm.org> Message-ID: Dear Avri, On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 23 May 2012, at 03:57, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > > However, let me point out that although the IETF may not have a > "monopoly" > > in solving these and/or similar problems, its supporters do tend to > present > > it as the best option for Internet-related standards-setting and, > therefore, > > one may infer that other options should not be pursued. > > That was never my point. > > If anything my point is that it works and while casting about the models > that work, this one should not be denigrated and ignored. > > I was also arguing that government people could be as qualified as anyone > to operate in a IETF millieau. > > I do not know how that became "IETF is the only model and all others > should be ignored." Actually, I was not referring to you and my email was in reaction to Norbert's, which seemed to me to have a slightly more sanguine approach to the IETF. And I said "some supporters do tend". I would hope you do not consider yourself as summarising the characteristics of the whole universality of IETF supporters. ;) Ciao, -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Wed May 23 10:31:42 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 16:31:42 +0200 Subject: FW: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 4:21 PM, McTim wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Andrea Glorioso > wrote: > > > It is interesting you put the word "multilateralism" in quotes. Is this > > because you feel there isn't a broadly accepted (a "rough consensus"? :) > > notion of what "multilateralism" actually means, or because you feel that > > multilateralism it is per se incompatible with multi-stakeholderism > > neither. I put it in quotes to point out that it was the only thing > on offer in this context. > I'm not an expert in quotology, but I must say this is the strangest use of quotes I ever saw. :) Anyway, there are many forms of multilateralism, some of which may include more or less attention to multi-stakeholderism. It seems to me you are simplifying reality. > I don't think IG should be multilateral at all. I don't think the > CSIGC should roll over and play dead on this point. > So I assume that for you "multi-lateralism" and "multi-stakeholderism" are mutually exclusive? > If we do, then the IGC is no longer useful IMHO. > I will not argue on this as I guess this is a decision for IGC members to take - perhaps by "humming"? (Yes, I'm being ironical, my apologies - I know the IGC has a rather sophisticated online voting system, which begs the question whether on strategic decision-making the IGC works mostly by "rough consensus" or by old-style voting). Best, -- 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 avri at ella.com Wed May 23 10:31:28 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 10:31:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 On 23 May 2012, at 10:21, McTim wrote: > > I don't think IG should be multilateral at all. I don't think the > CSIGC should roll over and play dead on this point. > > If we do, then the IGC is no longer useful IMHO. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 23 10:41:18 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 10:41:18 -0400 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: <20120523074349.DE4223CD@quill.bollow.ch> <7DA34771-D58A-49CF-B166-7028BF86FCC4@acm.org> Message-ID: Dear Andrea, As you, and others, were denigrating a model I think works and is an exemplar, I considered it necessary make common cause with those who defend the model from those who denigrate it. There are few enough workable instances of multistakeholder participatory democracy (MPD). While these MPDs are imperfect and must continue to evolve and improve, I do not think any of us who are part of these organizations and who support these organizations can allow them to be rendered irrelevant by those who appear to support a multilateral government oversight (MGO) approach. cheers, avri On 23 May 2012, at 10:26, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > Dear Avri, > > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 23 May 2012, at 03:57, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > > However, let me point out that although the IETF may not have a "monopoly" > > in solving these and/or similar problems, its supporters do tend to present > > it as the best option for Internet-related standards-setting and, therefore, > > one may infer that other options should not be pursued. > > That was never my point. > > If anything my point is that it works and while casting about the models that work, this one should not be denigrated and ignored. > > I was also arguing that government people could be as qualified as anyone to operate in a IETF millieau. > > I do not know how that became "IETF is the only model and all others should be ignored." > > Actually, I was not referring to you and my email was in reaction to Norbert's, which seemed to me to have a slightly more sanguine approach to the IETF. > > And I said "some supporters do tend". I would hope you do not consider yourself as summarising the characteristics of the whole universality of IETF supporters. ;) > > Ciao, > > -- > I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. > Twitter: @andreaglorioso > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 23 10:45:43 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 10:45:43 -0400 Subject: FW: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 4:21 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Andrea Glorioso >> wrote: >> >> > It is interesting you put the word "multilateralism" in quotes. Is this >> > because you feel there isn't a broadly accepted (a "rough consensus"? :) >> > notion of what "multilateralism" actually means, or because you feel >> > that >> > multilateralism it is per se incompatible with multi-stakeholderism >> >> neither.  I put it in quotes to point out that it was the only thing >> on offer in this context. > > > I'm not an expert in quotology, but I must say this is the strangest use of > quotes I ever saw. :) > > Anyway, there are many forms of multilateralism, some of which may include > more or less attention to multi-stakeholderism. It seems to me you are > simplifying reality. perhaps (not that there is anything wrong with that). > >> >> I don't think IG should be multilateral at all.  I don't think the >> CSIGC should roll over and play dead on this point. > > > So I assume that for you "multi-lateralism" and "multi-stakeholderism" are > mutually exclusive? I think multilateralism leaves us outside the room, we did that at WSIS. MSHism gives us a seat at the table. > >> >> If we do, then the IGC is no longer useful IMHO. > > > I will not argue on this as I guess this is a decision for IGC members to > take - perhaps by "humming"? (Yes, I'm being ironical, my apologies - I know > the IGC has a rather sophisticated online voting system, which begs the > question whether on strategic decision-making the IGC works mostly by "rough > consensus" or by old-style voting). If you scroll thru the archives, you will find I opposed the evoting development on the grounds that it makes gauging consensus too much like an election. -- 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 iza at anr.org Wed May 23 10:49:48 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 23:49:48 +0900 Subject: [governance] our workshop proposal assessment results Message-ID: Dear list, Last week, MAG made the evaluation of the all workshop proposals. CS IGC's proposal, #85. " Quo Vadis IGF – or Evolution of IGF" was rated as "green", top category with average marks above 12.0. which means it is now accepted. It was also designated as "Feeder workshop" together with another proposal, only two for "Taking Stock and Way Forward" designated. (See: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/w2012/proposals) More than 120 proposals were graded and 32 got "green", Though ours was bottom of the green on par with some 6 proposals. The highest was 13.9 and lowest in the green, or ours, 12.0. Not bad at all. Yellow is above 8.0 to 11.9 (need improvements to be accepted) and there are some 80 plus. Red is basicaly "out",m which are below 8, lowest 5.5, and are rejected unless very significant improvements are made. I have received the attached email from the IGF secretariat, which asks to take care of the followings. 2. Geographical diversity 3. Include members of the CSTD WG on IGF 4. Broader stakeholders diversity 5. Include regional perspective 6. Should involve youth 7. Gender-balance And more details are asked, such as complete the Speakers list and provide agenda, send background paper. Please see below for more info. Any further comments and suggestions are very much welcome. best, izumi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: IGF Date: 2012/5/22 Subject: IGF 2012 workshop assessment results To: iza at anr.org Dear Mr. Aizu Thank you for submitting the proposed workshop  no. 85   to be taken into consideration for the 7th Annual IGF Meeting to be held in Baku. We are pleased to inform you that your proposal was accepted by the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). The MAG has suggested to take into account the following in your proposal: 1. Deleting “or” in the title 2. Geographical diversity 3. Include members of the CSTD WG on IGF 4. Broader stakeholders diversity 5. Include regional perspective 6. Should involve youth 7. Gender-balance Editing of proposals has now been re-enabled and we kindly ask you to further update the proposal with the following information by 31 July: 1. A complete list of the panellists, indicating their status as “confirmed” 2. An agenda of the workshop 3.  Registering the panellists and uploading their biographies on the IGF website, so that their information can be included in the programme material. The panellists sign up form will be available shortly. If you have not yet assigned a remote moderator to the workshop, please do so by 30 June. It was also noted at the MAG meeting that there is a lack of least developed and developing countries representation across all workshops, we therefore encourage you  to include a panellist from these under represented regions. Please note that a resource person list is provided on the IGF website to assist workshop organizers to reach a balance among their workshop panellists. You can access the list at : http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/resource-person Additionally, if you have not provided a background paper, we also encourage you to do so. We look forward to working together to make the 7th Annual IGF Meeting a resounding success. Sincerely, IGF Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 23 10:53:15 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 07:53:15 -0700 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4CFCFB89FAAC48229B435FE80E839DA4@UserVAIO> I think that Andrea's comment concerning the understanding of "multilateralism" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilateralism in international relations-speak as counterposed to "unilateralism" rather than to "multi-stakeholderism" moves the discussion along quite significantly. Again without pre-judging the discussion it seems to me to be quite reasonable to assume (unless there is clear evidence to the contrary) that "multilateralism" is to be seen not as an endpoint (in geek speak an "ontology") rather it can be seen as something that can be further disassembled (redefined) as Andrea did in his most recent note, to include a variety of different modalities of or within "multilateralism" including "multi-stakeholderism", "enhanced democracy" and so on. An answer from Bill concerning my original question would probably help to clarify and perhaps resolve this issue. Equally, a response from Norbert (and or Avri) about how the IETF model could/would actually work in an area of global policy making (EC) such as Net Neutrality or regulating Google concerning privacy would also move the discussion along beyond rather calcified positions. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 7:41 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) Dear Andrea, As you, and others, were denigrating a model I think works and is an exemplar, I considered it necessary make common cause with those who defend the model from those who denigrate it. There are few enough workable instances of multistakeholder participatory democracy (MPD). While these MPDs are imperfect and must continue to evolve and improve, I do not think any of us who are part of these organizations and who support these organizations can allow them to be rendered irrelevant by those who appear to support a multilateral government oversight (MGO) approach. cheers, avri On 23 May 2012, at 10:26, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > Dear Avri, > > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 23 May 2012, at 03:57, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > > However, let me point out that although the IETF may not have a > > "monopoly" in solving these and/or similar problems, its supporters > > do tend to present it as the best option for Internet-related > > standards-setting and, therefore, one may infer that other options > > should not be pursued. > > That was never my point. > > If anything my point is that it works and while casting about the > models that work, this one should not be denigrated and ignored. > > I was also arguing that government people could be as qualified as > anyone to operate in a IETF millieau. > > I do not know how that became "IETF is the only model and all others > should be ignored." > > Actually, I was not referring to you and my email was in reaction to > Norbert's, which seemed to me to have a slightly more sanguine approach to the IETF. > > And I said "some supporters do tend". I would hope you do not consider > yourself as summarising the characteristics of the whole universality > of IETF supporters. ;) > > Ciao, > > -- > I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. > Keep it in mind. > Twitter: @andreaglorioso > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 23 11:13:27 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 17:13:27 +0200 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: <20120523074349.DE4223CD@quill.bollow.ch> <7DA34771-D58A-49CF-B166-7028BF86FCC4@acm.org> Message-ID: Dear Avri, On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Dear Andrea, > > As you, and others, were denigrating a model I think works and is an > exemplar, I considered it necessary make common cause with those who defend > the model from those who denigrate it. There are few enough workable > instances of multistakeholder participatory democracy (MPD). While these > MPDs are imperfect and must continue to evolve and improve, I do not think > any of us who are part of these organizations and who support these > organizations can allow them to be rendered irrelevant by those who appear > to support a multilateral government oversight (MGO) approach. > Frankly, if you think that my comments on the IETF amounted to denigrating the organisation (DTO), we have a serious communication problem (SCP). As a matter of fact, I conceded for the sake of discussion (SOD) that the IETF is free from capture by large industry players (LIP); and that the decision-making model (DMM) used by the IETF is producing good results within the specific remit of the organisation (GRWTSROTO). I did, however, question in a very socratic sense (VSS), being myself at the ignorant side of the relationship, whether and how the IETF model could be applied to public policy making (PPM); as well as which kind of objective metrics one could use to analyse all of the above (AOTA), rather than relying on the say-so of anyone. For the time being, I concluded there is hope, since some civil servants and some IETF participants do seem to have something in common, namely the (forced?) passion for acronyms - I am currently writing an NtF for a pre-JF with the CAB in which the LTT for the SC of next week will be discussed. I kid you not, these are all real acronyms in an eurocrat daily life and I welcome you to try and guess what they mean. :) Ciao, -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed May 23 11:24:30 2012 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 00:24:30 +0900 Subject: [governance] our workshop proposal assessment results In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Aizu-san congratulations for the approval of workshop and the good work done there. I just wanted to ask about the 6th criteria to consider workshops, unfortunately it seems that many accepted workshops proponents forget to fill it as it looked optional. maybe other MAG members present in IGC list can give some insights? Best, Rafik > I have received the attached email from the IGF secretariat, which asks > to take care of the followings. > > 2. Geographical diversity > 3. Include members of the CSTD WG on IGF > 4. Broader stakeholders diversity > 5. Include regional perspective > 6. Should involve youth > 7. Gender-balance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 23 12:11:22 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 12:11:22 -0400 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: <20120523074349.DE4223CD@quill.bollow.ch> <7DA34771-D58A-49CF-B166-7028BF86FCC4@acm.org> Message-ID: <142A6B2C-34F7-460B-A3A7-4574DBE9F106@ella.com> On 23 May 2012, at 11:13, Andrea Glorioso wrote: I found your example-ad-absurdum with acronyms to be LOL though not quite ROTFL. Actually though, I am rather fond of Multistakeholder Participatory Democracy (MPD) and plan to use the phrase and the acronym more frequently. I think it is so much better than MSH. (which I pronounce Mesh but others pronounce Mush - an acronym should not be so easy to politicize by pronunciation) Also I beleive that acronyms that are longer than 3-4 letters lose their value as they get longer, as most people cannot remember the string in its proper ordering. > For the time being, I concluded there is hope, since some civil servants and some IETF participants do seem to have something in common, namely the (forced?) passion for acronyms - The names are often so long and ungainly that acronyms are useful. > I am currently writing an NtF for a pre-JF with the CAB in which the LTT for the SC of next week will be discussed. I kid you not, these are all real acronyms in an eurocrat daily life and I welcome you to try and guess what they mean. :) Well I beleive that proper writing should include full expansion, or at least a reference, on first use in a document that might be read by non insiders, (-: that may even be IETF policy for Internet Drafts (ID) and other documents like Request for Comments (RFC - though in this case the acronym may be more than the fully spelled out version)). I can't guess what your acronyms mean, but if you forgive my presumption, I now understand why you are engaging in this debate on IGC: work avoidance - one of my prime immediate motivators, beyond the general belief in the importance of such topics, for extended political discussions on email lists. > I did, however, question in a very socratic sense (VSS), being myself at the ignorant side of the relationship, whether and how the IETF model could be applied to public policy making (PPM); as well as which kind of objective metrics one could use to analyse all of the above (AOTA), rather than relying on the say-so of anyone. Always awed in the presence of a Socratic teacher, but it brings out the rebel in me. Parmenides was one of my heroes in the dialogues. I think that finding reasonable ways, perhaps metrics, of analyzing the usefulness of a particular MPD model for a particular purpose is indeed a good task. In looking at organization, and in terms of analyzing them, I know that I naturally apply several criteria in deciding whether various aspects of a model can be reasonably applied to a solution in another problem space. This is, in fact a very similar process I use to decide whether a protocol can be repurposed* or whether components of that protocol can be 'borrowed'. So for the IETF, I think the exercise would involve breaking down the IETF into some of its component parts, e.g. rough consensus, working groups, standard development process, types of appeal mechanism, leadership progression, capacity building mechanisms, methods of picking leaders and their term limits, forms of communication, relationship of leadership to the body politic etc... Some of these are more effective than others and some of these are mechanisms are useful in other organizations. I don't think any thinks that the IETF, or any other organization, is the one size fits all pattern for all other organizations, it is just that in creating other forms of MPD I think it offers some good clue. The exercise might also include a look at the mission, (In the IETF case part of which in my own words) is to act as a steward to the internet by designing and maintaining protocols that allow the Internet to continue to grow according to the Internet's generative nature, and the degree to which it meets that mission. Has the IETF succeeded in producing and maintaing protocols that have allowed the internet to thrive and grow? Is there perhaps another model we can compare its success to: how does it compare to the ITU, W3C, IEEE, ETSI ... and others (in some cases perhaps better/worse than others). We can apply this same type of analysis to any organization from the EC to the local rugby or knitting society) As for the degree for how objective these metrics can be, that would probably involve another spirited discussion on the epistemological balance between subjectivity and objectivity or human psychological ability to distinguish between the two. I would also bring us into discussion of well formed theories of evidence, both anecdotal and statistical. But I have some work I really should do. avri * an aside, as a protocol designer, one of the greatest joys in life for me is discovering that a protocol i participated in designing is being repurposed to solve a problem that never even occurred to the designers. I think of this as success. Is this a metric? the same goes for using an organizational structure that I participated in creating being applied to other organization problems. (No, I am _not_ saying I participated in creating IETF, I was there early, but not that early). for example, i think it is hard to beat the 3-way handshake (hello, hello to you too, oh thanks for responding to my hello or I beleive X..., you said you beleive X..., yes - that is indeed what I meant when I said X...) as a protocol element. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From correia.rui at gmail.com Wed May 23 12:48:19 2012 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 17:48:19 +0100 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: <20120523074349.DE4223CD@quill.bollow.ch> <7DA34771-D58A-49CF-B166-7028BF86FCC4@acm.org> Message-ID: Oh, good. By the end of the evening we shall have enough alphabet pasta (AP)/ alphabet spaghetti (AS) to boil up a cauldron of soup. Don't know about the north, but it would go down very well down here in freezing Namibia. ;-) Bon appétit (BA) Rui (R) ;-) On 23 May 2012 16:13, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > Dear Avri, > > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> >> Dear Andrea, >> >> As you, and others, were denigrating a model I think works and is an >> exemplar, I considered it necessary make common cause with those who defend >> the model from those who denigrate it. There are few enough workable >> instances of multistakeholder participatory democracy (MPD).  While these >> MPDs are imperfect and must continue to evolve and improve, I do not think >> any of us who are part of these organizations and who support these >> organizations can allow them to be rendered irrelevant by those who appear >> to support a multilateral government oversight (MGO) approach. > > > Frankly, if you think that my comments on the IETF amounted to denigrating > the organisation (DTO), we have a serious communication problem (SCP). As a > matter of fact, I conceded for the sake of discussion (SOD) that the IETF is > free from capture by large industry players (LIP); and that the > decision-making model (DMM) used by the IETF is producing good results > within the specific remit of the organisation (GRWTSROTO). > > I did, however, question in a very socratic sense (VSS), being myself at the > ignorant side of the relationship, whether and how the IETF model could be > applied to public policy making (PPM); as well as which kind of objective > metrics one could use to analyse all of the above (AOTA), rather than > relying on the say-so of anyone. > > For the time being, I concluded there is hope, since some civil servants and > some IETF participants do seem to have something in common, namely the > (forced?) passion for acronyms - I am currently writing an NtF for a pre-JF > with the CAB in which the LTT for the SC of next week will be discussed. I > kid you not, these are all real acronyms in an eurocrat daily life and I > welcome you to try and guess what they mean. :) > > Ciao, > > -- > I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it > in mind. > Twitter: @andreaglorioso > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- _________________________ Mobile Number in Namibia +264 81 445 1308 Número de Telemóvel na Namíbia +264 81 445 1308 I am away from Johannesburg - you cannot contact me on my South African numbers Estou fora de Joanesburgo - não poderá entrar em contacto comigo através dos meus números sul-africanos Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant _______________ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 23 13:46:34 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 19:46:34 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: (message from Andrea Glorioso on Wed, 23 May 2012 14:27:40 +0200) References: <20120523074349.DE4223CD@quill.bollow.ch> <20120523093930.158AB3CD@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20120523174635.5721D3CD@quill.bollow.ch> Andrea Glorioso wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > > However, let me point out that although the IETF may not have a > > > "monopoly" in solving these and/or similar problems, its > > > supporters do tend to present it as the best option for > > > Internet-related standards-setting and, therefore, > > > one may infer that other options should not be pursued. > > > > Ok, fair enough, IETF's failure to create convincing solutions in some > > of the areas that it has worked on is a valid counterargument against > > a "no other options should be pursued" viewpoint. > > You are still reading more in my message than I meant to express, which > could of course be my error in drafting. I am *not* claiming that the IETF > has failed; I am suggesting (actually, agreeing with another person's > suggestion) that there are objective criteria through which one may > evaluate whether the IETF is succesful or not, and/or whether it should be > taken as the universal model for decisions concerning the Internet, > including besides its rather technological remit. Dear Andrea In my view, if those specific criteria (which are really a short list of topics on which IETF has tried and IMO failed to create good solutions) are adopted, as criteria for evaluating "whether the IETF is succesful or not", the result of the evaluation must necessarily be "IETF is not successful". Which would in my eyes be a ridiculous result since IETF has in fact very successfully contributed to making the Internet the success that it is today. I would suggest that any proposal "to evaluate whether the IETF is succesful or not" is fundamentally flawed because it's based on a false dichotomy. In the same way, "whether it should be taken as the universal model for decisions concerning the Internet, including besides its rather technological remit" is IMO a false dichotomy. We can learn from what what works in IETF without ideologically taking it as "the universal model". > > I still think though that this is not a valid counterargument to my > > assertion that IETF's fundamental model (absolute openness of > > participation, rough consensus, and deferring decision-making about > > draft standards until several members of the group have hands-on > > experience with implementation and interoperability testing for the > > draft specifications) is an effective means of creating robustness > > against undue influence from powerful stakeholders. > > > > I am asking because I am genuinely interested in an analysis of the IETF > that goes beyond the rather childish and stale mantras, which unfortunately > permeate so much of Internet governance discussions: > > - is "absolute openness" of participation a potential or an actual feature > of the IETF? While it is true that the IETF does not require fees, it does > require at least an Internet connection, which is beyond the reach of a > not-insignificant part of the world. With "absolute openness" I mean the kind of openness that IETF has, a kind of openness that has been demonstrated to be practically achievable. It is absolute in the sense that IETF is absolutely not creating any hurdles of accreditation, registration, paywalls, etc., before someone can participate. If you object to calling this kind of openness "absolute" because e.g. as you correctly say people without reasonably good Internet access are not able to participate effectively (and there are other groups who are also not able to participate effectively, such as e.g. those who lack in-depth understanding of the topics under discussion, those who lack adequate communication skills in the English language, etc) please feel free to suggest another term for the kind of openness that IETF has. > Which means that this part of the world is de facto "delegating" the > power to decide technological matters with an impact on public > policy to third parties, not necessarily their elected > representatives. So, if you have to delegate, why not delegate to > your government, in which you have at least some (more or less functioning) > means of redress and accountability? First of all, what is "my government"? I'm a EU citizen living outside the EU, in Switzerland. Maybe "my government" is the Swiss government because this is the government that has jurisdiction here. In fact the Swiss government is the government that I have been interacting with in trying (to some extent successfully) to influence decision-making processes. My lack of Swiss citizenship has never been an issue, not even when attending meetings in government buildings were you need an explicit invitation and you need to present your passport at the door in order to get in. On the Internet governance issues that I care about, the Swiss government doesn't currently seem to have anyone with expert-level knowledge of the technical, economic and socio-economic aspects. They seem to have only experts on the legal and diplomatic aspects. The problem is that there is a company with strong market power which will, on all topics where it might be to their disadvantage if the Swiss government had sufficient understanding to make informed decisions, muddy the waters by having their lobbyists tell the Swiss government half-truths as well complete lies. There is no effective means of redress and accountability available against this strategy. By contrast, if a similar strategy was tried in IETF, I would simply give counterarguments and demonstrate the assertions of that lobbyist to be false, and I would be understood. Demonstrating the assertions of the lobbyist to be factually false is an effective means of redress in IETF but not in meetings with government officials who don't have the background knowledge to understand the arguments. I don't know whether perhaps the European Commission has enough people with expert knowledge on all kinds of aspects of Internet governance that this is not a problem, but from what I hear from other countries where I know people who have been interacting with their respective governments in similar ways, I know for sure that Switzerland is certainly not alone in having this kind of problem. > transfer such method to public policy decisions? Would a decision on > network neutrality rules, privacy/data protection regulation, etc that > impact half a billion people (referring to the European Union) be > legitimate if taken following this "rough consensus" approach? How can one > determine the legal and political responsibility of a certain decision if > such decision is taken by "humming"? I would envision the body that is modeled on the IETF to not make the final decisions, but develop a set of models of potential regulations on these topics, with documentation of advantages and drawbacks of each, and leave it to the relevant parliaments to make the choice between them. Choices that involve seeking the balance between significant legitimate conflicting interests cannot be made by the rough consensus method. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Wed May 23 14:25:18 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 14:25:18 -0400 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <20120523174635.5721D3CD@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20120523074349.DE4223CD@quill.bollow.ch> <20120523093930.158AB3CD@quill.bollow.ch> <20120523174635.5721D3CD@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On 23 May 2012, at 13:46, Norbert Bollow wrote: > I would envision the body that is modeled on the IETF to not make the > final decisions, but develop a set of models of potential regulations on > these topics, with documentation of advantages and drawbacks of each, > and leave it to the relevant parliaments to make the choice between > them. I like this way of looking at it. I wonder, would willing countries, or other localities, need to try implementation of the regulatory models before they were actually recommended by the body? Or is this a part of the model (running code) that would not carry over? Or would it more like the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) where the output was more of an experimental definition. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed May 23 16:28:52 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 23:28:52 +0300 Subject: [governance] Governments pose greatest threat to internet, says Google's Eric Schmidt Message-ID: <4FBD4884.1040600@gmail.com> [Government's are the leviathans, BigCorporates are decidedly not? Is self-interest and Public Choice theory that incompatible?] Governments pose greatest threat to internet, says Google's Eric Schmidt Schmidt warns about rise of censorship and government cybercrime in speech at London's Science Museum Share 12 Email Ian Sample, science correspondent guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 23 May 2012 19.24 BST Comments (8) Eric Schmidt Google chairman Eric Schmidt said it was very difficult to identify the source of cybercrime and stop it. Photograph: Murdo Macleod/Guardian Nations that carry out cybercrimes and wreak online havoc pose the greatest threat to the future of the internet, the chairman of Google has warned. In a speech delivered at London's Science Museum on Wednesday, Eric Schmidt said the internet would be vulnerable for at least 10 years, and that every node of the public web needed upgrading to protect against crime. Fixing the problem was a "huge task" as the internet was built "without criminals in mind" he said. "While threats come from individuals and even groups of people, the biggest problem will be activities stemming from nations that seek to do harm. It is very difficult to identify the source of cyber-criminality and stop it," he said. The Google chairman raised a series of fears in a speech that announced a new initiative to send teachers into UK schools to teach computer science, and called for more people to enter science and engineering to drive industry. Speaking at the museum, Schmidt said he worried about the permanence of information on the internet and its impact on individuals in future. "The fact that there is no delete button on the internet forces public policy choices we had never imagined," he said. "A false accusation in your youth used to fade away; now it can remain forever." Schmidt also used his speech to warn about the rise in governments that censor online material, up from four a decade ago to at least 40 today. Through filtering, governments could build their own "Balkanised web", where people saw different information online depending on who and where they were, without anyone knowing what had been censored. "Make no mistake, this is a fight for the future of the web, and there is no room for complacency," he said. Last year in the annual MacTaggart lecture, Schmidt was highly critical of Britain's failure to teach computer programming in schools. Continuing the theme at the Science Museum, he blamed a lack of exposure to computer science in secondary schools, where only 4,000 students studied the subject in 2011, making up less than half a percent of that year's A-level results. A January report from the Royal Society agreed there was a shortage of teachers equipped to teach the nuts and bolts of computer science, from computer architecture to the concept of an algorithm and writing software. Since then, the education secretary, Michael Gove, has scrapped the existing ICT curriculum, freeing schools to teach a broader mix of computer science and programming. Schmidt conceded that "rebooting computer science education" would not be straightforward, and announced plans to fund a training scheme for teachers to help improve Britain's failing computer science education system. Working with the charity Teach First, Schmidt said the first batch of 100 "first-rate" teachers would be trained this summer and have bursaries to buy teaching aids, such as cheap Raspberry Pi or Arduino computer starter kits. They will receive on-the-job mentoring and training for a further two years. The Google project aims to help around 20,000 pupils from the most disadvantaged communities. A vocal champion of engineering, in his speech on Wednesday Schmidt also emphasised the need to dispel the "oily rag stereotype" view of engineers. Research by Intel in the US, he said, found that two thirds of teenagers never considered a career in engineering. But simply learning about their roles in making video games and social networking, and in high-profile incidents such as the rescue of the Chilean miners, made half reconsider. "Put simply, technology breakthroughs can't happen without the scientists and engineers to make them. The challenge society faces is to equip enough people, with the right skills and mindset, and to get them to work on the most important problems. "This is where education comes in. Great scientists are a rare breed, so the more who study science, the greater chance of finding those for whom it becomes a vocation. Although there are some signs of progress, so long as more kids aspire to win X Factor than win a Nobel Prize, there's room to improve," Schmidt said. Last year, Google donated more than £1m to the Science Museum to fund a gallery on the history of communications, from telegraphs to tweets. Part of the money has funded an exhibition devoted to the life and legacy of Alan Turing, often described as the "father of the computer", which opens next month. Among the exhibits will be installations that anyone in the world can control over the internet, including one that allows people to make music through remote controlled robotic instruments. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed May 23 16:37:06 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 23:37:06 +0300 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Senate_Panel_Votes_to_Extend_Gov=92?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?t_Surveillance_Powers?= Message-ID: <4FBD4A72.4060309@gmail.com> [Context matters. . . can do, because Icann? ] https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/05/23-0 Published on Wednesday, May 23, 2012 by Democracy Now! Senate Panel Votes to Extend Gov’t Surveillance Powers A Senate panel has voted to extend a controversial provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that is set to expire at the end of the year. The Obama administration has sought to renew its expanded authority to monitor phone calls and emails inside the United States if one person involved is abroad and the targets foreigners believed to be outside the country. The vote by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence comes shortly after news the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether a group of activists, journalists and lawyers represented by the American Civil Liberties Union have the legal right to challenge the U.S. government’s surveillance practices, which they say could pick up their communications with clients and sources overseas. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Thu May 24 01:11:04 2012 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 12:11:04 +0700 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: <20120523074349.DE4223CD@quill.bollow.ch> <7DA34771-D58A-49CF-B166-7028BF86FCC4@acm.org> Message-ID: <4FBDC2E8.1060102@gmx.net> Thanks a lot. = = Frankly, if you think that my comments on the IETF amounted to denigrating the organisation (DTO), we have a serious communication problem (SCP). As a matter of fact, I conceded for the sake of discussion (SOD) that the IETF is free from capture by large industry players (LIP); and that the decision-making model (DMM) used by the IETF is producing good results within the specific remit of the organisation (GRWTSROTO). I did, however, question in a very socratic sense (VSS), being myself at the ignorant side of the relationship, whether and how the IETF model could be applied to public policy making (PPM); as well as which kind of objective metrics one could use to analyse all of the above (AOTA), rather than relying on the say-so of anyone. For the time being, I concluded there is hope, since some civil servants and some IETF participants do seem to have something in common, namely the (forced?) passion for acronyms - I am currently writing an NtF for a pre-JF with the CAB in which the LTT for the SC of next week will be discussed. I kid you not, these are all real acronyms in an eurocrat daily life and* I welcome you to try and guess what they mean. :)* -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. = = I think I do not speak only for myself - though I have been exposed and involved a lot to acronymia, I still have often problems to follow what is said. Please.... -- Norbert Klein Website: http://www.thinking21.org eMail: nhklein at gmx.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kovenronald at aol.com Thu May 24 03:22:02 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 03:22:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <4FBDC2E8.1060102@gmx.net> References: <20120523074349.DE4223CD@quill.bollow.ch> <7DA34771-D58A-49CF-B166-7028BF86FCC4@acm.org> <4FBDC2E8.1060102@gmx.net> Message-ID: <8CF07950CAF132A-134-3A298@webmail-m059.sysops.aol.com> I heartily second the motion (IHSM). Rony Koven -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Klein To: governance Sent: Thu, May 24, 2012 7:12 am Subject: Re: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) Thanks a lot. = = Frankly, if you think that my comments on the IETF amounted to denigrating the organisation (DTO), we have a serious communication problem (SCP). As a matter of fact, I conceded for the sake of discussion (SOD) that the IETF is free from capture by large industry players (LIP); and that the decision-making model (DMM) used by the IETF is producing good results within the specific remit of the organisation (GRWTSROTO). I did, however, question in a very socratic sense (VSS), being myself at the ignorant side of the relationship, whether and how the IETF model could be applied to public policy making (PPM); as well as which kind of objective metrics one could use to analyse all of the above (AOTA), rather than relying on the say-so of anyone. For the time being, I concluded there is hope, since some civil servants and some IETF participants do seem to have something in common, namely the (forced?) passion for acronyms - I am currently writing an NtF for a pre-JF with the CAB in which the LTT for the SC of next week will be discussed. I kid you not, these are all real acronyms in an eurocrat daily life and I welcome you to try and guess what they mean. :) -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. = = I think I do not speak only for myself - though I have been exposed and involved a lot to acronymia, I still have often problems to follow what is said. Please.... -- Norbert Klein Website: http://www.thinking21.org eMail: nhklein at gmx.net ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 24 03:35:15 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 09:35:15 +0200 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <4FBDC2E8.1060102@gmx.net> References: <20120523074349.DE4223CD@quill.bollow.ch> <7DA34771-D58A-49CF-B166-7028BF86FCC4@acm.org> <4FBDC2E8.1060102@gmx.net> Message-ID: Dear Norbert, no worries: I was simply trying to gently make fun at a certain tendency, which is certainly not unique to the Internet Governance civil society community, to over-use acronyms. I try hard not to fall into the trap otherwise. On the other hand, maybe if we found acronyms that can be expanded to different meaning depending on the recipient we could more easily find common ground among different stakeholders. One could argue that the first part is already done (seeing how "EC" or "Enhanced Cooperation" means very different things to different people) but for the second part there is still some work to be done. Cheers :) Andrea On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Norbert Klein wrote: > Thanks a lot. > > = = > Frankly, if you think that my comments on the IETF amounted to denigrating > the organisation (DTO), we have a serious communication problem (SCP). As a > matter of fact, I conceded for the sake of discussion (SOD) that the IETF is > free from capture by large industry players (LIP); and that the > decision-making model (DMM) used by the IETF is producing good results > within the specific remit of the organisation (GRWTSROTO). > > I did, however, question in a very socratic sense (VSS), being myself at the > ignorant side of the relationship, whether and how the IETF model could be > applied to public policy making (PPM); as well as which kind of objective > metrics one could use to analyse all of the above (AOTA), rather than > relying on the say-so of anyone. > > For the time being, I concluded there is hope, since some civil servants and > some IETF participants do seem to have something in common, namely the > (forced?) passion for acronyms - I am currently writing an NtF for a pre-JF > with the CAB in which the LTT for the SC of next week will be discussed. I > kid you not, these are all real acronyms in an eurocrat daily life and* I > welcome you to try and guess what they mean. :)* > > -- > I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it > in mind. > = = > I think I do not speak only for myself - though I have been exposed and involved a lot to acronymia, I still have often problems to follow what is said. Please.... > > > > > -- > Norbert Klein > > Website: http://www.thinking21.org > eMail: nhklein at gmx.net > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 24 03:43:40 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 09:43:40 +0200 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <142A6B2C-34F7-460B-A3A7-4574DBE9F106@ella.com> References: <20120523074349.DE4223CD@quill.bollow.ch> <7DA34771-D58A-49CF-B166-7028BF86FCC4@acm.org> <142A6B2C-34F7-460B-A3A7-4574DBE9F106@ella.com> Message-ID: Dear Avri, dear all, On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 23 May 2012, at 11:13, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > I found your example-ad-absurdum with acronyms to be LOL though not quite > ROTFL. > Well, asking a eurocrat to be entertaining is a bit like asking pigs to fly.. I do what I can. :) > I think that finding reasonable ways, perhaps metrics, of analyzing the > usefulness of a particular MPD model for a particular purpose is indeed a > good task. In looking at organization, and in terms of analyzing them, I > know that I naturally apply several criteria in deciding whether various > aspects of a model can be reasonably applied to a solution in another > problem space. This is, in fact a very similar process I use to decide > whether a protocol can be repurposed* or whether components of that > protocol can be 'borrowed'. > > So for the IETF, I think the exercise would involve breaking down the IETF > into some of its component parts, e.g. rough consensus, working groups, > standard development process, types of appeal mechanism, leadership > progression, capacity building mechanisms, methods of picking leaders and > their term limits, forms of communication, relationship of leadership to > the body politic etc... Some of these are more effective than others and > some of these are mechanisms are useful in other organizations. I don't > think any thinks that the IETF, or any other organization, is the one size > fits all pattern for all other organizations, it is just that in creating > other forms of MPD I think it offers some good clue. > > The exercise might also include a look at the mission, (In the IETF case > part of which in my own words) is to act as a steward to the internet by > designing and maintaining protocols that allow the Internet to continue to > grow according to the Internet's generative nature, and the degree to which > it meets that mission. Has the IETF succeeded in producing and maintaing > protocols that have allowed the internet to thrive and grow? Is there > perhaps another model we can compare its success to: how does it compare > to the ITU, W3C, IEEE, ETSI ... and others (in some cases perhaps > better/worse than others). We can apply this same type of analysis to any > organization from the EC to the local rugby or knitting society) > The list of critera you enumerate are certainly a good start and perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me could borrow further insights from political economy, institutional studies and/or business studies, which focus a lot on the nature of organisations, what makes them "succesful", etc. The works of Milton Mueller and Laura DeNardis is also a good reference in my view. I have already raised a number of questions on "rought consensus" in my reply to Norbert Bollow. Speaking of whom, I know Norbert has been leading a very interesting exercise on mapping the IG space in terms of organisations etc. I admit I still have to go through the interim results of this effort, but I wonder whether the IGC could not come up/propose some metrics/criteria at least to "categorise" ("evaluate" is a much more complex process) IG organisations. Perhaps this work could be based on the seminal mapping already performed by the APC. One drawback I find in your draft proposal, Avri, is that you seem to focus on standards-setting organisations. On the other hand, my interest - and I would argue, that of a number of colleagues in public service - is the extent to which the characteristics/methods of Internet-focused standards-setting organisations, such as W3C and IETF, can be extended to other areas of life and political activity. This seemed to me to be the proposition of at least Norbert Bollow. As for the degree for how objective these metrics can be, that would > probably involve another spirited discussion on the epistemological balance > between subjectivity and objectivity or human psychological ability to > distinguish between the two. I would also bring us into discussion of well > formed theories of evidence, both anecdotal and statistical. > > But I have some work I really should do. > I am in the position - not sure whether it's fortunate or not - that this kind of discussions are exactly (part of) my job at the European Commission. So, even if I speak on this list purely on a personal basis (unless I say otherwise by prefixing emails with the golden seal of the European Commission) I will certainly be more than interested in continuing this exchange. Cheers, -- 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 andrea at digitalpolicy.it Thu May 24 04:03:58 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 10:03:58 +0200 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <20120523174635.5721D3CD@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20120523074349.DE4223CD@quill.bollow.ch> <20120523093930.158AB3CD@quill.bollow.ch> <20120523174635.5721D3CD@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Dear Norbert, dear all, thanks for your patience in this discussion, which I find extremely useful. I hope we are not overly boring other participants to the list - if so, the moderators can let me know and I'll transfer the discussion off-line. On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > In my view, if those specific criteria (which are really a short list > of topics on which IETF has tried and IMO failed to create good > solutions) are adopted, as criteria for evaluating "whether the IETF > is succesful or not", the result of the evaluation must necessarily be > "IETF is not successful". Which would in my eyes be a ridiculous > result since IETF has in fact very successfully contributed to making > the Internet the success that it is today. I would suggest that any > proposal "to evaluate whether the IETF is succesful or not" is > fundamentally flawed because it's based on a false dichotomy. In the > same way, "whether it should be taken as the universal model for > decisions concerning the Internet, including besides its rather > technological remit" is IMO a false dichotomy. We can learn from what > what works in IETF without ideologically taking it as "the universal > model". > First of all, I'm happy we agree the IETF is not and cannot be a "universal model" for everything under the sun. Secondly, I disagree with your evaluation of the criteria being proposed, one of which is the "rate of adoption of IETF standards", if I may simplify. This is a rather objective criterion, which is very different from the criterion "rate of adoption of IPv6" (which I agree would be a clearly biased one). I note there is at least one person in the discussion, i.e. McTim, who doesn't seem to agree that "adoption of standards" should be a measure of success of a standards-setting organisation. Thirdly, I agree that "success" is not a dichotomy and, as someone very aware of this reality because of my work in a deeply political environment, I should have been more precise in my wording. Indeed, we can evaluate success across a range from "utter failure" to "outstanding success" (or we could use the normal range used in bureacracies when presenting their results, i.e. from "success" to "outstanding success" :). Such evaluation can also be measured against different objectives, many of which are mutually conflicting; and using different criteria. > With "absolute openness" I mean the kind of openness that IETF has, a > kind of openness that has been demonstrated to be practically achievable. > It is absolute in the sense that IETF is absolutely not creating any > hurdles of accreditation, registration, paywalls, etc., before someone > can participate. > This point is well conceded. I simply do not like the term "absolute" but we can safely skip over that. First of all, what is "my government"? I'm a EU citizen living > outside the EU, in Switzerland. Maybe "my government" is the > Swiss government because this is the government that has > jurisdiction here. > As an Italian citizen living in Belgium and partly subject to special rules due to my status as a EU officer, I sympathise with the question. But there are rules in place which define who your representatives are in a particular situation. These rules have nothing to do with Internet (governance). > In fact the Swiss government is the government that I have been > interacting with in trying (to some extent successfully) to > influence decision-making processes. My lack of Swiss citizenship > has never been an issue, not even when attending meetings in > government buildings were you need an explicit invitation and > you need to present your passport at the door in order to get in. > > On the Internet governance issues that I care about, the Swiss > government doesn't currently seem to have anyone with expert-level > knowledge of the technical, economic and socio-economic aspects. > They seem to have only experts on the legal and diplomatic aspects. > This is rather surprising to me, as (to name one example) the Swiss Education and Research Network does have plenty of technical experts and I know the Swiss government engages in constructive dialogue with them (among others). My personal experience with large bureaucracies is that more often than not the right persons/expertise is there, it's simply not that easy to identify them - even for insiders! Perhaps another good effect of any "mapping project" could also be to highlight where the expertise lies in each administration, and in this way facilitate exchanges/dialogue. The problem is that there is a company with strong market power > which will, on all topics where it might be to their disadvantage > if the Swiss government had sufficient understanding to make > informed decisions, muddy the waters by having their lobbyists > tell the Swiss government half-truths as well complete lies. There > is no effective means of redress and accountability available against > this strategy. > I do not know enough the Swiss situation to make any assessment. Half-truths and lies (as well as statistics :) are a fact of life. You can either conclude that their influence is so strong that any involvement in political life is useless, and therefore focus your participation in other settings where (in your opinion) you will find only Truth, Honesty and Goodwill - the risk being that this new setting is in fact discussing different stuff and therefore the decisions you care about are still taken elsewhere. Or you can accept that this is not a "la-la world" and become a "de facto" lobbyist yourself (you can even call yourself a "lobbyist in the public interest" if that makes you feel better). There are many examples at the EU level of "public service NGOs", such as BEUC (the Bureau of European Consumer Organisations) and EDRi (the European Digital Rights initiative) which manage to influence rather succesfully, in my view, EU decision-making. > I would envision the body that is modeled on the IETF to not make the > final decisions, but develop a set of models of potential regulations on > these topics, with documentation of advantages and drawbacks of each, > and leave it to the relevant parliaments to make the choice between > them. > Then I must wonder, noting that the European Commission does not have an official position on this: if the mandate Committe for Internet Related Policies was modified to take out the "oversight" of standards-setting bodies (an unfortunate term in my opinion) and the "crisis management" (which can mean everything and the contrary of everything) would it then be such a horrible solution to make these pesky governments a bit happier? > Choices that involve seeking the balance between significant legitimate > conflicting interests cannot be made by the rough consensus method. > We are in very strong agreement on this point. Which however raises the issue: can the multi-stakeholder model, which in my view (and I'm happy to stand corrected, perhaps with an agreed definition of what "multi-stakeholder" actually means) is based on the "rough consensus" method, ever be used to "seek the balance between significant legitimate conflicting interests"? (Which, unfortunately, happens to be the daily bread and butter of governments/public authorities). Best, -- -- 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu May 24 04:28:30 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 09:28:30 +0100 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: <20120523074349.DE4223CD@quill.bollow.ch> <20120523093930.158AB3CD@quill.bollow.ch> <20120523174635.5721D3CD@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <80v2$aIuEfvPFA7u@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 14:25:18 on Wed, 23 May 2012, Avri Doria writes >> I would envision the body that is modeled on the IETF to not make the >> final decisions, but develop a set of models of potential regulations on >> these topics, with documentation of advantages and drawbacks of each, >> and leave it to the relevant parliaments to make the choice between >> them. > >I like this way of looking at it. > >I wonder, would willing countries, or other localities, need to try implementation of the regulatory models before they were actually >recommended by the body? Or is this a part of the model (running code) that would not carry over? Even if implementations of the regulatory models were tried in one country (and deemed a success) there is no guarantee it would be a success in another country. If you think about regulatory models as software and countries as hardware, BGP software works on routers the world over because all those routers are fundamentally similar, but countries are very different from each other. -- 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 May 24 04:31:23 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 09:31:23 +0100 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: <20120523074349.DE4223CD@quill.bollow.ch> <20120523093930.158AB3CD@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message , at 14:27:40 on Wed, 23 May 2012, Andrea Glorioso writes > How can one determine the legal and political responsibility of a >certain decision if such decision is taken by "humming"? Democracy has some drawbacks, for example it looks like Greece (2% of the EU iirc) is about to vote to bring about the collapse of the Euro. Where's the fairness in that (for the other 98%). -- 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 Thu May 24 05:19:21 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 11:19:21 +0200 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: <20120523074349.DE4223CD@quill.bollow.ch> <20120523093930.158AB3CD@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Dear Roland, On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message gmail.com>, > at 14:27:40 on Wed, 23 May 2012, Andrea Glorioso > writes > > How can one determine the legal and political responsibility of a certain >> decision if such decision is taken by "humming"? >> > > Democracy has some drawbacks, for example it looks like Greece (2% of the > EU iirc) is about to vote to bring about the collapse of the Euro. Where's > the fairness in that (for the other 98%). > Assuming this is true (and, for quite obvious reasons, I don't want to take a position even on a personal capacity :) some would argue that this is a consequence of the fact that while in the EU we have an economic and monetary union, we still do not have a true "political union". Which is in part what all the proposals on "European economic governance" are about. Ciao, -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Thu May 24 13:58:25 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 14:58:25 -0300 Subject: RES: [governance] India's proposal for a 50 member UN committee for Internet Related Policies In-Reply-To: References: <4FB5227C.2080202@ITforChange.net> <4FB5A6CE.60107@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <01c301cd39d6$d3336dc0$799a4940$@uol.com.br> I do agree! Indeed it is not only a step back , going again to the same old discussion we already had years ago, but I don't see nothing new to justify to raise again this debate. De: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Em nome de Robert Guerra Enviada em: sexta-feira, 18 de maio de 2012 04:18 Para: Internet Governance Caucus Assunto: Re: [governance] India's proposal for a 50 member UN committee for Internet Related Policies 4 quick comments: - Agree with Avri's that Parminder's proposals seems to be inconsistent with the agreed to language of the Tunis Agenda (paras 67-72). The proposal is a dangerous step back, one that shifts discussion away from the IGF, and reduces the effective opportunity for non-governmental actors to be involved in Internet Governance. During the WSIS process all non-governmental actors fought really hard to be "allowed in the room" with govts. Your proposal, I fear would reverse that and shift the discussion and decision making to bodies where rules of procedure are far more restrictive and exclusionary. - Parminder, in your article you mention that you have the support of civil society. Just blasting your views everywhere has the media thinking all of civil society agrees with your views. There is , well, considerable disagreement with many of your points. Please recognize that and recognize that and stop insinuating that you have a broad level of support. - Having a differences of opinion and being able to debate and discuss and find areas where we there might be common ground is a discussion I look forward to.. thanks robbert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2012-05-18, at 8:01 AM, Avri Doria wrote: Hi, Without getting into the discussion over the merits of the marketing campaign for Parminder's proposal, I have to admit I just do not understand how turning over a process that according to the agreed langauge of the Tunis Agenda (paras 67-72) should be within IGF's scope to the CSTD or some other government dominated body increases democratization. In most every possible way I can think of, this appears to be a step backward. 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu May 24 17:42:29 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 07:42:29 +1000 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: When looking at IETF its probably also worth looking at some of its more eccentric processes and structures and determining whether these have ongoing value and/or scaleability. These would include 1. Lack of any formal membership structure (anyone can participate). This also leads to accountability issues ­ wheras governments are accountable to their citizens, and companies to their shareholders, it¹s not clear who IETF is accountable to seeing it has no formal membership structure. Tnis lack of accountability also leads to no formal review or performance evaluation processes ­ which in turn can lead to other problems. 2. The unusual Irish lottery Nomcom selection process (copied to IGF from IETF). This egalitarian process allows the Irish lottery to choose those who choose our representatives. In the IGF experience, it has thrown up a Jeffrey Williams to a Nomcom and more than one Nomcom where the majority of members selected by the lottery did not participate meaningfully. I don¹t¹ know whether IETF has had any similar issues but this is another aspect I would deal with with caution in any other organisation. I hope my country never adopts it for selecting high court judges.... 3. The RFC (Request for Comments) process. This to my knowledge is an IETF invention, and my preliminary evaluation is that it is a good one and perhaps scaleable to other organisations and structures. It provides a semi formal process for evaluation of ideas and determining which are worth pursuing. Everyone can throw up ideas for consideration. Probably a bit better than the suggestion box and probably useful in quite a few organisational settings. Worth looking at anyway. I am sure there are other operational aspects worth looking at and I am sure we can learn from some of them. I am equally sure that there are others which are past their use-by date. Ian Peter From: Andrea Glorioso Reply-To: , Andrea Glorioso Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 09:43:40 +0200 To: , Avri Doria Subject: Re: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) Dear Avri, dear all, On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 23 May 2012, at 11:13, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > I found your example-ad-absurdum with acronyms to be LOL though not quite > ROTFL. Well, asking a eurocrat to be entertaining is a bit like asking pigs to fly.. I do what I can. :)   > I think that finding reasonable ways, perhaps metrics, of analyzing the > usefulness of a particular MPD model for a particular purpose is indeed a good > task.  In looking at organization, and in terms of analyzing them, I know that > I naturally apply several criteria in deciding whether various aspects of a > model can be reasonably applied to a solution in another problem space.  This > is, in fact a very similar process I use to decide whether a protocol can be > repurposed* or whether components of that protocol can be 'borrowed'. > > So for the IETF, I think the exercise would involve breaking down the IETF > into some of its component parts, e.g. rough consensus, working groups, > standard development process, types of appeal mechanism, leadership > progression, capacity building mechanisms, methods of picking leaders and > their term limits, forms of communication, relationship of leadership to the > body politic  etc...  Some of these are more effective than others and some of > these are mechanisms are useful in other organizations.  I don't think any > thinks that the IETF, or any other organization, is the one size fits all > pattern for all other organizations, it is just that in creating other forms > of MPD I think it offers some good clue. > > The exercise might also include a look at the mission, (In the IETF case part > of which in my own words) is to act as  a steward to the internet by designing > and maintaining protocols that allow the Internet to continue to grow > according to the Internet's generative nature, and the degree to which it > meets that mission.  Has the IETF succeeded in producing and maintaing > protocols that have allowed the internet to thrive and grow?  Is there perhaps > another model we can compare its success to:  how does it compare to the ITU, > W3C, IEEE, ETSI ... and others (in some cases perhaps better/worse than > others).  We can apply this same type of analysis to any organization from the > EC to the local rugby or knitting society)   The list of critera you enumerate are certainly a good start and perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me could borrow further insights from political economy, institutional studies and/or business studies, which focus a lot on the nature of organisations, what makes them "succesful", etc. The works of Milton Mueller and Laura DeNardis is also a good reference in my view. I have already raised a number of questions on "rought consensus" in my reply to Norbert Bollow. Speaking of whom, I know Norbert has been leading a very interesting exercise on mapping the IG space in terms of organisations etc. I admit I still have to go through the interim results of this effort, but I wonder whether the IGC could not come up/propose some metrics/criteria at least to "categorise" ("evaluate" is a much more complex process) IG organisations. Perhaps this work could be based on the seminal mapping already performed by the APC. One drawback I find in your draft proposal, Avri, is that you seem to focus on standards-setting organisations. On the other hand, my interest - and I would argue, that of a number of colleagues in public service - is the extent to which the characteristics/methods of Internet-focused standards-setting organisations, such as W3C and IETF, can be extended to other areas of life and political activity. This seemed to me to be the proposition of at least Norbert Bollow. > As for the degree for how objective these metrics can be, that would probably > involve another spirited discussion on the epistemological balance between > subjectivity and objectivity or human psychological ability to distinguish > between the two. I would also bring us into discussion of well formed theories > of  evidence, both anecdotal and statistical. > > But I have some work I really should do. I am in the position - not sure whether it's fortunate or not - that this kind of discussions are exactly (part of) my job at the European Commission. So, even if I speak on this list purely on a personal basis (unless I say otherwise by prefixing emails with the golden seal of the European Commission) I will certainly be more than interested in continuing this exchange. Cheers, -- 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Thu May 24 18:30:50 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 18:30:50 -0400 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 24 May 2012, at 17:42, Ian Peter wrote: > When looking at IETF its probably also worth looking at some of its more eccentric processes and structures and determining whether these have ongoing value and/or scaleability. These would include > > • Lack of any formal membership structure (anyone can participate). This also leads to accountability issues – wheras governments are accountable to their citizens, and companies to their shareholders, it’s not clear who IETF is accountable to seeing it has no formal membership structure. Tnis lack of accountability also leads to no formal review or performance evaluation processes – which in turn can lead to other problems. People do not need to be members of something to participate. The leadership is accountable to the participants I have been a participant since the late 80's, sometime just via email and sometimes with the ability to attend the meetings. I have always felt that the requirement of stewardship for the Internet was the most serious thing the IETF did. And they are most definitely accountable to the world for the fact that the Internet continues to grow and thrive, despite all the barriers that need to be routed around. > • The unusual Irish lottery Nomcom selection process (copied to IGF from IETF). This egalitarian process allows the Irish lottery to choose those who choose our representatives. In the IGF experience, it has thrown up a Jeffrey Williams to a Nomcom and more than one Nomcom where the majority of members selected by the lottery did not participate meaningfully. I don’t’ know whether IETF has had any similar issues but this is another aspect I would deal with with caution in any other organisation. I hope my country never adopts it for selecting high court judges.... I hope the reference to the Irish Lottery was a joke. The random number generator, used in the IETF process, which the IGC has adopted, uses a set of numbers to seed the random number function. These can be anything. And there should be more than one. The useful thing about lotteries is you predict a month ahead of time that there will be a lottery number on a specific day, so it easy to announce in advance what the seeds will be, without any suspicion that you could possibly know them in advance. The process is defined in I do not know that Jeff Williams was ever qualified for the IETF nomcom since you have to actually attend IETF meetings to be qualified for their Nomcom, and I do not know that this happens. As for the IGC, which is indeed modeled on the IETF process, we require that people be members. I am not going to accuse any of our members, especially those who pay enough attention to volunteer when asked, of not participating in a meaningful way. > • The RFC (Request for Comments) process. This to my knowledge is an IETF invention, and my preliminary evaluation is that it is a good one and perhaps scaleable to other organisations and structures. It provides a semi formal process for evaluation of ideas and determining which are worth pursuing. Everyone can throw up ideas for consideration. Probably a bit better than the suggestion box and probably useful in quite a few organisational settings. Worth looking at anyway. RFCs are Steve Crocker's invention. I think the part that really gives anyone the ability to make their point is the Internet Draft system, anyone can contribute any idea they wish. The document is live for 6 months, and if it is not renewed, it thens goes into one of various archives. The RFC system is indeed open, but it takes quite a bit of peer and community review to get one of those published. Note: the Internet Draft and RFC system are constantly evolving. > > I am sure there are other operational aspects worth looking at and I am sure we can learn from some of them. I am equally sure that there are others which are past their use-by date. I expect that is the case. And fortunately they are constantly reviewing and revising their procedures. An organization that is not always reviewing and refining is bound to get old and stale after a while. BTW one of the things they have that I think every organization could use is the most amazing tool team I have ever seen for creating various online tools that allow many diverse participants in diverse times zones and locations to work together in a rather coordinated fashion. I also think well of the weekend program of educational lectures that not only teaches newcomers about the IETF processes, but which also teaches people about the nitty gritty of various subject areas. That is another thing I think more organizations should do. 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 Guru at ITforChange.net Thu May 24 21:26:02 2012 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 06:56:02 +0530 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FBEDFAA.9070206@ITforChange.net> On Friday 25 May 2012 04:00 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 24 May 2012, at 17:42, Ian Peter wrote: > >> When looking at IETF its probably also worth looking at some of its more eccentric processes and structures and determining whether these have ongoing value and/or scaleability. These would include >> >> • Lack of any formal membership structure (anyone can participate). This also leads to accountability issues – wheras governments are accountable to their citizens, and companies to their shareholders, it’s not clear who IETF is accountable to seeing it has no formal membership structure. Tnis lack of accountability also leads to no formal review or performance evaluation processes – which in turn can lead to other problems. > People do not need to be members of something to participate. > The leadership is accountable to the participants > > I have been a participant since the late 80's, sometime just via email and sometimes with the ability to attend the meetings. I have always felt that the requirement of stewardship for the Internet was the most serious thing the IETF did. And they are most definitely accountable to the world for the fact that the Internet continues to grow and thrive, despite all the barriers that need to be routed around. This is a very inadequate, and may i say, a poor measure of accountability. The maternal mortality rate in India has been declining over last six decades, does this mean I can feel happy about the performance of the Indian public health system?? (India has one of the highest mmr in the world even today and several deaths are avoidable/inexcusable). Accountability is a critical necessity for any system which impacts the public ... and as the Interent has deeper, wider impact on our lives in numerous ways, we need governance structures that are transparent, accountable and support wide participation (not just who can afford to be there) ... and if we agree democracy is the best way to go about this, ask ourselves how we can make the current IG more democratic. > As for the IGC, which is indeed modeled on the IETF process, we require that people be members. I am not going to accuse any of our members, especially those who pay enough attention to volunteer when asked, of not participating in a meaningful way. > Avri, The issue is not of 'accusing members'.... the issue is - if members who voluntarily pick up a responsibility do not then actually put in the required effort (and having been in Nomcoms, I agree with Ian that there are serious participation issues), then _who pays the price_??? does IGC not get the best selection of nominees after required deliberations because of this. And what is the accountability process - of the person to nomcom, of nomcom to igc, and of igc to IG....? Processes with such poor accountability make me very uncomfortable... The larger question to ponder therefore is - Who pays the price for the current IG regimes and lack of its accountability to the "global society"? Conversely, who does it benefit disproportionately? Andrea also more than once raised this issue of accountability for decisions taken... I look forward to your response to him and to Mike Gurstein's specific questions as well... thanks and regards, Guru -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 24 22:32:30 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 19:32:30 -0700 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <4FBEDFAA.9070206@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: And I`m still waiting for Bill to answer my questions... I couldn't find any references to ... Pakistan or Iran as specific supporters of "an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral body.'" with or without the terms "appropriate" or "participative". Perhaps ... you could provide the specifics which you appear to be quoting. Also, am I correct in understanding you to be asserting that indicating a support for "oversight" by "an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral body'" is synonomous with taking a position for "inter-governmental control over CIR". M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Guru ???? Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 6:26 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) On Friday 25 May 2012 04:00 AM, Avri Doria wrote: On 24 May 2012, at 17:42, Ian Peter wrote: When looking at IETF its probably also worth looking at some of its more eccentric processes and structures and determining whether these have ongoing value and/or scaleability. These would include . Lack of any formal membership structure (anyone can participate). This also leads to accountability issues - wheras governments are accountable to their citizens, and companies to their shareholders, it's not clear who IETF is accountable to seeing it has no formal membership structure. Tnis lack of accountability also leads to no formal review or performance evaluation processes - which in turn can lead to other problems. People do not need to be members of something to participate. The leadership is accountable to the participants I have been a participant since the late 80's, sometime just via email and sometimes with the ability to attend the meetings. I have always felt that the requirement of stewardship for the Internet was the most serious thing the IETF did. And they are most definitely accountable to the world for the fact that the Internet continues to grow and thrive, despite all the barriers that need to be routed around. This is a very inadequate, and may i say, a poor measure of accountability. The maternal mortality rate in India has been declining over last six decades, does this mean I can feel happy about the performance of the Indian public health system?? (India has one of the highest mmr in the world even today and several deaths are avoidable/inexcusable). Accountability is a critical necessity for any system which impacts the public ... and as the Interent has deeper, wider impact on our lives in numerous ways, we need governance structures that are transparent, accountable and support wide participation (not just who can afford to be there) ... and if we agree democracy is the best way to go about this, ask ourselves how we can make the current IG more democratic. As for the IGC, which is indeed modeled on the IETF process, we require that people be members. I am not going to accuse any of our members, especially those who pay enough attention to volunteer when asked, of not participating in a meaningful way. Avri, The issue is not of 'accusing members'.... the issue is - if members who voluntarily pick up a responsibility do not then actually put in the required effort (and having been in Nomcoms, I agree with Ian that there are serious participation issues), then who pays the price??? does IGC not get the best selection of nominees after required deliberations because of this. And what is the accountability process - of the person to nomcom, of nomcom to igc, and of igc to IG....? Processes with such poor accountability make me very uncomfortable... The larger question to ponder therefore is - Who pays the price for the current IG regimes and lack of its accountability to the "global society"? Conversely, who does it benefit disproportionately? Andrea also more than once raised this issue of accountability for decisions taken... I look forward to your response to him and to Mike Gurstein's specific questions as well... thanks and regards, Guru -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Thu May 24 23:25:12 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 23:25:12 -0400 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <4FBEDFAA.9070206@ITforChange.net> References: <4FBEDFAA.9070206@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <1854F0EC-4352-40E4-A689-E98B9996BC5D@ella.com> Hi, The issue of accountability is a complicated one and I do not expect to get too far on one message. First accountability has more definitions that I know how to handle. In fact, in general more than anyone seems to handle real well. When you say accountability, are you looking for liability? Are you looking for whom to blame? Whom to fire? Whom to imprison? Whom to defeat in the next election? Whom not to trust anymore? Are you looking for people to take responsibility for their actions? For organizations to take responsibility for their actions? What does accountability mean to you and how do you want to enforce it? While accountability is always important in governance, it is a word people use without really defining it. Or having much to a way to enforce it. A few years ago the favorite stumper questions was "does it scale", these days its "who is accountable" It is a question that is stumping the world as far as I can tell. Who is accountable for all of the world's starvations, the death from was or the spread of diseases that should have been curtailed by now. And how do we hold them accountable? Anyone answer these critical questions for me in an email? In government, we think that accountability means voting out of office and maybe ending up in jail for corruption if we are lucky. Yet that happen rarely for the thing politicians do wrong and usually only happens when they do something stupid or their opponents have lots and lots of money for propaganda. And when it comes to the bureaucrats that run our governments and the international governance organizations it is only in rare cases of malfeasance, or perhaps lying on their resumes that they become accountable to anyone other than the boss they have to please. No, you should not be happy about the slow rate of decline of the Indian maternal mortality. I don't remember even saying you should be happy with the failure of a system. I would be curious as to how you hold them accountable. Please tell me what works for this? Tell how you would want it work. how do you want to hold people accountable? Fire them? Imprison them? I suppose you can protest and be activist and things may improve., a lot of people cetainly do stand and shout and try to make people take responsibility. And sometime it works. In terms of Standard Development Organizations, if their standards no longer contributed to a growing, stable Internet, people would not use those standards. Unfortunately when the government tells you what standards you must use, you have not choice of walking away and finding another set of standards. How can you argue for government mandated standards, when you know they don't work and that there is no way, other than being sad, that you can react to them. Sometime with IETF standards, I think that we are seeing accountability in action these days with IPv6. They did not follow their own practices and produced something that users don"t seem to have a real use for and are having to pull teeth to get it to really happen this time. This is accountability, or perhaps it is just karma. If accountability means taking responsibility for what has been done, I think that the IETF practice of taking three steps before deeming something a standard is part of their accountability story. First they code and prove that something works before making it a proposed standard, then they test in the real world on the real Internet and fix it and call it a draft standard, and only when it becomes fully functional and mainstream in the world does it become a full standard. There are only 66 or so full standards. They stand by their work, publish fixes, take responsibility for problems that occur in the network with their standards, improve, republish and monitor. They take responsibly in a very public way, certainly large part of accountability. If their stuff was not worth using, now one would use it and we would have a world full of 7 layer OSI protocol based equipment. Tell me, other than oversight by government bureaucrats who really are responsible to no one except perhaps their bureaucracy, what else do you want from them in terms of accountability? Please be specific. As for the IGC nomcom person you consider incompetent a slacker or downright irresponsible, don't ever appoint them as coordinator of the IGC or for any other office anywhere. A lot of individual accountability, when it is not criminal or civilly liable, is found in our reputations. People who do not work hard and do not do their best for the organizations that appoint or elected them, get bad reputations. In corrupt system, like many governments this won't matter for in these systems all that matters is that one butter the right person's bread. In stakeholder organizations like the IGC, or multistakeholder organizations like the IETF, reputation is a lot of what matters. avri On 24 May 2012, at 21:26, Guru गुरु wrote: > > On Friday 25 May 2012 04:00 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> On 24 May 2012, at 17:42, Ian Peter wrote: >> >>> When looking at IETF its probably also worth looking at some of its more eccentric processes and structures and determining whether these have ongoing value and/or scaleability. These would include >>> >>> • Lack of any formal membership structure (anyone can participate). This also leads to accountability issues – wheras governments are accountable to their citizens, and companies to their shareholders, it’s not clear who IETF is accountable to seeing it has no formal membership structure. Tnis lack of accountability also leads to no formal review or performance evaluation processes – which in turn can lead to other problems. >> People do not need to be members of something to participate. >> The leadership is accountable to the participants >> >> I have been a participant since the late 80's, sometime just via email and sometimes with the ability to attend the meetings. I have always felt that the requirement of stewardship for the Internet was the most serious thing the IETF did. And they are most definitely accountable to the world for the fact that the Internet continues to grow and thrive, despite all the barriers that need to be routed around. > This is a very inadequate, and may i say, a poor measure of accountability. > > The maternal mortality rate in India has been declining over last six decades, does this mean I can feel happy about the performance of the Indian public health system?? (India has one of the highest mmr in the world even today and several deaths are avoidable/inexcusable). > > Accountability is a critical necessity for any system which impacts the public ... and as the Interent has deeper, wider impact on our lives in numerous ways, we need governance structures that are transparent, accountable and support wide participation (not just who can afford to be there) ... and if we agree democracy is the best way to go about this, ask ourselves how we can make the current IG more democratic. > >> As for the IGC, which is indeed modeled on the IETF process, we require that people be members. I am not going to accuse any of our members, especially those who pay enough attention to volunteer when asked, of not participating in a meaningful way. >> > Avri, > > The issue is not of 'accusing members'.... the issue is - if members who voluntarily pick up a responsibility do not then actually put in the required effort (and having been in Nomcoms, I agree with Ian that there are serious participation issues), then who pays the price??? does IGC not get the best selection of nominees after required deliberations because of this. And what is the accountability process - of the person to nomcom, of nomcom to igc, and of igc to IG....? Processes with such poor accountability make me very uncomfortable... > > The larger question to ponder therefore is - Who pays the price for the current IG regimes and lack of its accountability to the "global society"? Conversely, who does it benefit disproportionately? > > Andrea also more than once raised this issue of accountability for decisions taken... I look forward to your response to him and to Mike Gurstein's specific questions as well... > > thanks and regards, > Guru > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 24 23:51:22 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 20:51:22 -0700 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <1854F0EC-4352-40E4-A689-E98B9996BC5D@ella.com> Message-ID: <070FAF46634D44A0BCA1D638815B42EF@UserVAIO> Avri, I`m not sure why this below wouldn`t be a reasonable place to start in defining ``accountabiliy`` ... perhaps not as colourful or as tendentious as yours but not unreasonable I think... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accountability And In my earlier note which you don`t seem to want to address I asked you to conduct a thought experiment for us where you would take an issue of interest from an EC perspective -- say Net Neutrality -- and work through how you would actually implement an IETF approach in practice for a specific policy issue in a real world environment. Having worked in and with various governments at various levels (including a major stint at UNHQ working on one of the innumerable UN Reform exercises) I`m very curious to see how you would suggest actually doing as you are suggesting be done... If accountability means taking responsibility for what has been done, I think that the IETF practice of taking three steps before deeming something a standard is part of their accountability story. First they code and prove that something works before making it a proposed standard, then they test in the real world on the real Internet and fix it and call it a draft standard, and only when it becomes fully functional and mainstream in the world does it become a full standard. There are only 66 or so full standards. They stand by their work, publish fixes, take responsibility for problems that occur in the network with their standards, improve, republish and monitor. They take responsibly in a very public way, certainly large part of accountability. If their stuff was not worth using, now one would use it and we would have a world full of 7 layer OSI protocol based equipment. Tks, M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 8:25 PM To: IGC Subject: Re: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) Hi, The issue of accountability is a complicated one and I do not expect to get too far on one message. First accountability has more definitions that I know how to handle. In fact, in general more than anyone seems to handle real well. When you say accountability, are you looking for liability? Are you looking for whom to blame? Whom to fire? Whom to imprison? Whom to defeat in the next election? Whom not to trust anymore? Are you looking for people to take responsibility for their actions? For organizations to take responsibility for their actions? What does accountability mean to you and how do you want to enforce it? While accountability is always important in governance, it is a word people use without really defining it. Or having much to a way to enforce it. A few years ago the favorite stumper questions was "does it scale", these days its "who is accountable" It is a question that is stumping the world as far as I can tell. Who is accountable for all of the world's starvations, the death from was or the spread of diseases that should have been curtailed by now. And how do we hold them accountable? Anyone answer these critical questions for me in an email? In government, we think that accountability means voting out of office and maybe ending up in jail for corruption if we are lucky. Yet that happen rarely for the thing politicians do wrong and usually only happens when they do something stupid or their opponents have lots and lots of money for propaganda. And when it comes to the bureaucrats that run our governments and the international governance organizations it is only in rare cases of malfeasance, or perhaps lying on their resumes that they become accountable to anyone other than the boss they have to please. No, you should not be happy about the slow rate of decline of the Indian maternal mortality. I don't remember even saying you should be happy with the failure of a system. I would be curious as to how you hold them accountable. Please tell me what works for this? Tell how you would want it work. how do you want to hold people accountable? Fire them? Imprison them? I suppose you can protest and be activist and things may improve., a lot of people cetainly do stand and shout and try to make people take responsibility. And sometime it works. In terms of Standard Development Organizations, if their standards no longer contributed to a growing, stable Internet, people would not use those standards. Unfortunately when the government tells you what standards you must use, you have not choice of walking away and finding another set of standards. How can you argue for government mandated standards, when you know they don't work and that there is no way, other than being sad, that you can react to them. Sometime with IETF standards, I think that we are seeing accountability in action these days with IPv6. They did not follow their own practices and produced something that users don"t seem to have a real use for and are having to pull teeth to get it to really happen this time. This is accountability, or perhaps it is just karma. If accountability means taking responsibility for what has been done, I think that the IETF practice of taking three steps before deeming something a standard is part of their accountability story. First they code and prove that something works before making it a proposed standard, then they test in the real world on the real Internet and fix it and call it a draft standard, and only when it becomes fully functional and mainstream in the world does it become a full standard. There are only 66 or so full standards. They stand by their work, publish fixes, take responsibility for problems that occur in the network with their standards, improve, republish and monitor. They take responsibly in a very public way, certainly large part of accountability. If their stuff was not worth using, now one would use it and we would have a world full of 7 layer OSI protocol based equipment. Tell me, other than oversight by government bureaucrats who really are responsible to no one except perhaps their bureaucracy, what else do you want from them in terms of accountability? Please be specific. As for the IGC nomcom person you consider incompetent a slacker or downright irresponsible, don't ever appoint them as coordinator of the IGC or for any other office anywhere. A lot of individual accountability, when it is not criminal or civilly liable, is found in our reputations. People who do not work hard and do not do their best for the organizations that appoint or elected them, get bad reputations. In corrupt system, like many governments this won't matter for in these systems all that matters is that one butter the right person's bread. In stakeholder organizations like the IGC, or multistakeholder organizations like the IETF, reputation is a lot of what matters. avri On 24 May 2012, at 21:26, Guru गुरु wrote: > > On Friday 25 May 2012 04:00 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> On 24 May 2012, at 17:42, Ian Peter wrote: >> >>> When looking at IETF its probably also worth looking at some of its >>> more eccentric processes and structures and determining whether >>> these have ongoing value and/or scaleability. These would include >>> >>> • Lack of any formal membership structure (anyone can participate). >>> This also leads to accountability issues – wheras governments are accountable to their citizens, and companies to their shareholders, it’s not clear who IETF is accountable to seeing it has no formal membership structure. Tnis lack of accountability also leads to no formal review or performance evaluation processes – which in turn can lead to other problems. >> People do not need to be members of something to participate. The >> leadership is accountable to the participants >> >> I have been a participant since the late 80's, sometime just via >> email and sometimes with the ability to attend the meetings. I have always felt that the requirement of stewardship for the Internet was the most serious thing the IETF did. And they are most definitely accountable to the world for the fact that the Internet continues to grow and thrive, despite all the barriers that need to be routed around. > This is a very inadequate, and may i say, a poor measure of > accountability. > > The maternal mortality rate in India has been declining over last six > decades, does this mean I can feel happy about the performance of the Indian public health system?? (India has one of the highest mmr in the world even today and several deaths are avoidable/inexcusable). > > Accountability is a critical necessity for any system which impacts > the public ... and as the Interent has deeper, wider impact on our > lives in numerous ways, we need governance structures that are > transparent, accountable and support wide participation (not just who > can afford to be there) ... and if we agree democracy is the best way > to go about this, ask ourselves how we can make the current IG more > democratic. > >> As for the IGC, which is indeed modeled on the IETF process, we >> require that people be members. I am not going to accuse any of our >> members, especially those who pay enough attention to volunteer when >> asked, of not participating in a meaningful way. >> > Avri, > > The issue is not of 'accusing members'.... the issue is - if members > who voluntarily pick up a responsibility do not then actually put in > the required effort (and having been in Nomcoms, I agree with Ian that > there are serious participation issues), then who pays the price??? > does IGC not get the best selection of nominees after required > deliberations because of this. And what is the accountability process > - of the person to nomcom, of nomcom to igc, and of igc to IG....? > Processes with such poor accountability make me very uncomfortable... > > The larger question to ponder therefore is - Who pays the price for > the current IG regimes and lack of its accountability to the "global > society"? Conversely, who does it benefit disproportionately? > > Andrea also more than once raised this issue of accountability for > decisions taken... I look forward to your response to him and to Mike Gurstein's specific questions as well... > > thanks and regards, > Guru ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 25 00:32:55 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 04:32:55 +0000 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E8003@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> ________________________________ I will have more to say...another day since it's late for me. But re IETF, this is very important for folks to understand...as Avria said: If accountability means taking responsibility for what has been done, I think that the IETF practice of taking three steps before deeming something a standard is part of their accountability story. First they code and prove that something works before making it a proposed standard, then they test in the real world on the real Internet and fix it and call it a draft standard, and only when it becomes fully functional and mainstream in the world does it become a full standard. There are only 66 or so full standards. They stand by their work, publish fixes, take responsibility for problems that occur in the network with their standards, improve, republish and monitor. They take responsibly in a very public way, certainly large part of accountability. If their stuff was not worth using, now one would use it and we would have a world full of 7 layer OSI protocol based equipment. The IETF has kept the fragile net of nets up for decades. Not a perfect org, but consider the alternative. A model such as IETF's and the IGC in which individual volunteers voluntarily assume responsibility has its share of problems...but for net specs, it's worked well. Not perfect but ok for IGC too. Extending that further versus alternate models into Internet governance/enhance cooperation...I will comment more on in next post, tomorrow. From: sama.digitalpolicy at gmail.com [sama.digitalpolicy at gmail.com] on behalf of Andrea Glorioso [andrea at digitalpolicy.it] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 9:54 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 3:28 PM, McTim > wrote: On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Andrea Glorioso > wrote: > It seems to me Ian provided at least two metrics (solution of basic > architectural issues such as security and identity, Are you sure these are architecture issues? I am sure of very few things, but security and identity do seem to me to be strictly linked to the architecture of an inter-networking system. I imagine some people may argue that these are matters for end-points, which (for some) are not part of the architecture. But I'd love to hear your views on the matter. > and adoption of IPv6) Why would adoption be a metric of success of a standards body? I would think the metric would be the standard itself! What's the use of a standards-making body if nobody uses those standards? And, to make the parallel between the IETF and public policy making bodies that some people have proposed (not sure you are actually proposing it) would a public authority be judged on the beauty, elegance, etc of the legislation it produces or on the fact that such legislation is actually used/respected and it achieves the objectives it is supposed to achieve? 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 avri at ella.com Fri May 25 00:46:21 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 00:46:21 -0400 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <070FAF46634D44A0BCA1D638815B42EF@UserVAIO> References: <070FAF46634D44A0BCA1D638815B42EF@UserVAIO> Message-ID: <6B567DD8-AA95-448D-B57E-23F1FA60F13A@ella.com> Dear Michael, Well, I normally don't take homework assignments form people on the IGC list. This thought experiment of your sounds like a lovely exercise, but one that I have not had time to tackle. It would also be a work of fiction. The way a multistakeholder participatory democratic process works is that many people with may different points of view (e.g a working group) work together to understand the problem, discover and suggest possible solutions (perhaps they write a multitude of documents offering possible solutions), test those idea in a variety of ways (including thought experiments an limited on the ground live test if you insist), discuss those issues with their affinity groups (could be fellow stakeholders, the league of gay voters, or the corporate team), and then return to work together through a set of recurring processes to come out with a solution that has rough consensus that can be commented on, reworked and then tested in some subset problem. In fact, having written that it occurs to me that NTIA is actually working on a Multistakeholder Process To Develop Consumer Data Privacy Codes of Conduct. Perhaps reviewing their work would be a good enough thought experiment for you. It is really quite a piece of of work and an interesting process proposal - which although I am not sure I buy into 100% (surprise surprise), I am impressed by. Also I would not root an international process in an IGO, but rather in the IGF. But hopefully you get the gist. But asking a single person to spin a yarn about how this might work out in the end, is just asking them to build a straw house you can huff and puff and blow down. A wonderful rhetorical device but hardly helpful in the current circumstance. As for the wikipedia article you point to, it seems to agree in a large way with what i had to say: "is a concept in ethics and governance with several meanings.", "As a term related to governance, accountability has been difficult to define" Thank you and wikipedia for the backup, i guess my periodic contribution to the Wikimedia Foundation paid off once again. It also says: "Accountability cannot exist without proper accounting practices; in other words, an absence of accounting means an absence of accountability." In this case you are talking about financial corruption. Sure people everywhere who handle other people's money are accountable, including in IETF. Is that what we are talking about? It ends with "Frankl stated: "Freedom, however, is not the last word. Freedom is only part of the story and half of the truth. Freedom is but the negative aspect of the whole phenomenon whose positive aspect is responsibleness. In fact, freedom is in danger of degenerating into mere arbitrariness unless it is lived in terms of responsibleness." And that, much more clearly said is my point accountability in in the responsibility we take for what we do. And the watchdog is the only possible watchdog, the users of the Internet. If it stops working those who work on the technology and the IETF will hear about it and have to take responsibility for fixing whatever it is that broke. avri On 24 May 2012, at 23:51, michael gurstein wrote: > Avri, > > I`m not sure why this below wouldn`t be a reasonable place to start in defining ``accountabiliy`` ... perhaps not as colourful or as tendentious as yours but not unreasonable I think... > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accountability > > > And > > In my earlier note which you don`t seem to want to address I asked you to conduct a thought experiment for us where you would take an issue of interest from an EC perspective -- say Net Neutrality -- and work through how you would actually implement an IETF approach in practice for a specific policy issue in a real world environment. Having worked in and with various governments at various levels (including a major stint at UNHQ working on one of the innumerable UN Reform exercises) I`m very curious to see how you would suggest actually doing as you are suggesting be done... > > If accountability means taking responsibility for what has been done, I think that the IETF practice of taking three steps before deeming something a standard is part of their accountability story. First they code and prove that something works before making it a proposed standard, then they test in the real world on the real Internet and fix it and call it a draft standard, and only when it becomes fully functional and mainstream in the world does it become a full standard. There are only 66 or so full standards. They stand by their work, publish fixes, take responsibility for problems that occur in the network with their standards, improve, republish and monitor. They take responsibly in a very public way, certainly large part of accountability. If their stuff was not worth using, now one would use it and we would have a world full of 7 layer OSI protocol based equipment. > > Tks, > > M > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 8:25 PM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) > > > Hi, > > The issue of accountability is a complicated one and I do not expect to get too far on one message. > > First accountability has more definitions that I know how to handle. In fact, in general more than anyone seems to handle real well. > > When you say accountability, are you looking for liability? Are you looking for whom to blame? Whom to fire? Whom to imprison? Whom to defeat in the next election? Whom not to trust anymore? > > Are you looking for people to take responsibility for their actions? For organizations to take responsibility for their actions? > > What does accountability mean to you and how do you want to enforce it? > > While accountability is always important in governance, it is a word people use without really defining it. Or having much to a way to enforce it. A few years ago the favorite stumper questions was "does it scale", these days its "who is accountable" It is a question that is stumping the world as far as I can tell. > > Who is accountable for all of the world's starvations, the death from was or the spread of diseases that should have been curtailed by now. And how do we hold them accountable? Anyone answer these critical questions for me in an email? > > In government, we think that accountability means voting out of office and maybe ending up in jail for corruption if we are lucky. Yet that happen rarely for the thing politicians do wrong and usually only happens when they do something stupid or their opponents have lots and lots of money for propaganda. And when it comes to the bureaucrats that run our governments and the international governance organizations it is only in rare cases of malfeasance, or perhaps lying on their resumes that they become accountable to anyone other than the boss they have to please. > > No, you should not be happy about the slow rate of decline of the Indian maternal mortality. I don't remember even saying you should be happy with the failure of a system. I would be curious as to how you hold them accountable. Please tell me what works for this? Tell how you would want it work. how do you want to hold people accountable? Fire them? Imprison them? I suppose you can protest and be activist and things may improve., a lot of people cetainly do stand and shout and try to make people take responsibility. And sometime it works. > > In terms of Standard Development Organizations, if their standards no longer contributed to a growing, stable Internet, people would not use those standards. Unfortunately when the government tells you what standards you must use, you have not choice of walking away and finding another set of standards. How can you argue for government mandated standards, when you know they don't work and that there is no way, other than being sad, that you can react to them. > > Sometime with IETF standards, I think that we are seeing accountability in action these days with IPv6. They did not follow their own practices and produced something that users don"t seem to have a real use for and are having to pull teeth to get it to really happen this time. This is accountability, or perhaps it is just karma. > > If accountability means taking responsibility for what has been done, I think that the IETF practice of taking three steps before deeming something a standard is part of their accountability story. First they code and prove that something works before making it a proposed standard, then they test in the real world on the real Internet and fix it and call it a draft standard, and only when it becomes fully functional and mainstream in the world does it become a full standard. There are only 66 or so full standards. They stand by their work, publish fixes, take responsibility for problems that occur in the network with their standards, improve, republish and monitor. They take responsibly in a very public way, certainly large part of accountability. If their stuff was not worth using, now one would use it and we would have a world full of 7 layer OSI protocol based equipment. > > Tell me, other than oversight by government bureaucrats who really are responsible to no one except perhaps their bureaucracy, what else do you want from them in terms of accountability? Please be specific. > > As for the IGC nomcom person you consider incompetent a slacker or downright irresponsible, don't ever appoint them as coordinator of the IGC or for any other office anywhere. A lot of individual accountability, when it is not criminal or civilly liable, is found in our reputations. People who do not work hard and do not do their best for the organizations that appoint or elected them, get bad reputations. In corrupt system, like many governments this won't matter for in these systems all that matters is that one butter the right person's bread. In stakeholder organizations like the IGC, or multistakeholder organizations like the IETF, reputation is a lot of what matters. > > avri > > On 24 May 2012, at 21:26, Guru गुरु wrote: > > > > > On Friday 25 May 2012 04:00 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> > >> On 24 May 2012, at 17:42, Ian Peter wrote: > >> > >>> When looking at IETF its probably also worth looking at some of its > >>> more eccentric processes and structures and determining whether > >>> these have ongoing value and/or scaleability. These would include > >>> > >>> • Lack of any formal membership structure (anyone can participate). > >>> This also leads to accountability issues – wheras governments are accountable to their citizens, and companies to their shareholders, it’s not clear who IETF is accountable to seeing it has no formal membership structure. Tnis lack of accountability also leads to no formal review or performance evaluation processes – which in turn can lead to other problems. > >> People do not need to be members of something to participate. The > >> leadership is accountable to the participants > >> > >> I have been a participant since the late 80's, sometime just via > >> email and sometimes with the ability to attend the meetings. I have always felt that the requirement of stewardship for the Internet was the most serious thing the IETF did. And they are most definitely accountable to the world for the fact that the Internet continues to grow and thrive, despite all the barriers that need to be routed around. > > This is a very inadequate, and may i say, a poor measure of > > accountability. > > > > The maternal mortality rate in India has been declining over last six > > decades, does this mean I can feel happy about the performance of the Indian public health system?? (India has one of the highest mmr in the world even today and several deaths are avoidable/inexcusable). > > > > Accountability is a critical necessity for any system which impacts > > the public ... and as the Interent has deeper, wider impact on our > > lives in numerous ways, we need governance structures that are > > transparent, accountable and support wide participation (not just who > > can afford to be there) ... and if we agree democracy is the best way > > to go about this, ask ourselves how we can make the current IG more > > democratic. > > > >> As for the IGC, which is indeed modeled on the IETF process, we > >> require that people be members. I am not going to accuse any of our > >> members, especially those who pay enough attention to volunteer when > >> asked, of not participating in a meaningful way. > >> > > Avri, > > > > The issue is not of 'accusing members'.... the issue is - if members > > who voluntarily pick up a responsibility do not then actually put in > > the required effort (and having been in Nomcoms, I agree with Ian that > > there are serious participation issues), then who pays the price??? > > does IGC not get the best selection of nominees after required > > deliberations because of this. And what is the accountability process > > - of the person to nomcom, of nomcom to igc, and of igc to IG....? > > Processes with such poor accountability make me very uncomfortable... > > > > The larger question to ponder therefore is - Who pays the price for > > the current IG regimes and lack of its accountability to the "global > > society"? Conversely, who does it benefit disproportionately? > > > > Andrea also more than once raised this issue of accountability for > > decisions taken... I look forward to your response to him and to Mike Gurstein's specific questions as well... > > > > thanks and regards, > > Guru ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 25 01:35:23 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 22:35:23 -0700 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <6B567DD8-AA95-448D-B57E-23F1FA60F13A@ella.com> Message-ID: Thanks for the below Avri, and the reason I was so persistent in this was because while you and others have been equally persistent in promoting the IETF as a model for `policy making`, from my experience with policy making processes in governments and elsewhere, the specifics of the IETF process, at least as you (and the other folks) have described them have seemed to me to be quite unworkable in practice (a discussion at a theoretical level is another story... As for the NTIA example you point to below, I would very much like a reference (I`ll check it out on the web in any case), but I`m sure we will both agree that what you have described as the IETF process (as I quote below) goes rather beyond a simple `multistakeholder process` which of course could take many different forms and is not unknown currently in many jurisdictions. However, I am aware of no jurisdiction which comes anywhere close to implementing the ``IETF practice of taking three steps before deeming something a standard is part of their accountability story. First they code and prove that something works before making it a proposed standard, then they test in the real world on the real Internet and fix it and call it a draft standard, and only when it becomes fully functional and mainstream in the world does it become a full standard.`` ignoring as this approach seems to do, the very extensive negotiation, politiking, lobbying, constituency consulting that goes on in the first phase then suggesting that something could be put into practice as a policy in the real world and if it didn`t work it could be summarily withdrawn (really--and what about the folks who suffered as a result of the half formed policy, and had their lawyers at the ready or who benefited outrageously and inappropriately by an ill-conceived policy--would the government be able to say whoops sorry we made a mistake we want our (or rather the taxpayers) money back; or those who adapted their practices, policies, programmes based on the policy only to find the government or whoever saying whoops sorry that one didn`t work let`s try another one; and so on and so on. Governments have enough problems formulating and implementing policy so as to accomplish what they are attempting to accomplish without subjecting the public to half baked ideas as a matter of principle. Quite honestly I can`t imagine how what you are suggesting would work in the real (non-technical) world, which is the reason I was so interested in how you envisaged this being actually practically implemented in an existing world of governmental or more specifically inter-governmental (or inter-governmental/multistakeholder) policy making. Best, Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 9:46 PM To: IGC Subject: Re: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) Dear Michael, Well, I normally don't take homework assignments form people on the IGC list. This thought experiment of your sounds like a lovely exercise, but one that I have not had time to tackle. It would also be a work of fiction. The way a multistakeholder participatory democratic process works is that many people with may different points of view (e.g a working group) work together to understand the problem, discover and suggest possible solutions (perhaps they write a multitude of documents offering possible solutions), test those idea in a variety of ways (including thought experiments an limited on the ground live test if you insist), discuss those issues with their affinity groups (could be fellow stakeholders, the league of gay voters, or the corporate team), and then return to work together through a set of recurring processes to come out with a solution that has rough consensus that can be commented on, reworked and then tested in some subset problem. In fact, having written that it occurs to me that NTIA is actually working on a Multistakeholder Process To Develop Consumer Data Privacy Codes of Conduct. Perhaps reviewing their work would be a good enough thought experiment for you. It is really quite a piece of of work and an interesting process proposal - which although I am not sure I buy into 100% (surprise surprise), I am impressed by. Also I would not root an international process in an IGO, but rather in the IGF. But hopefully you get the gist. But asking a single person to spin a yarn about how this might work out in the end, is just asking them to build a straw house you can huff and puff and blow down. A wonderful rhetorical device but hardly helpful in the current circumstance. As for the wikipedia article you point to, it seems to agree in a large way with what i had to say: "is a concept in ethics and governance with several meanings.", "As a term related to governance, accountability has been difficult to define" Thank you and wikipedia for the backup, i guess my periodic contribution to the Wikimedia Foundation paid off once again. It also says: "Accountability cannot exist without proper accounting practices; in other words, an absence of accounting means an absence of accountability." In this case you are talking about financial corruption. Sure people everywhere who handle other people's money are accountable, including in IETF. Is that what we are talking about? It ends with "Frankl stated: "Freedom, however, is not the last word. Freedom is only part of the story and half of the truth. Freedom is but the negative aspect of the whole phenomenon whose positive aspect is responsibleness. In fact, freedom is in danger of degenerating into mere arbitrariness unless it is lived in terms of responsibleness." And that, much more clearly said is my point accountability in in the responsibility we take for what we do. And the watchdog is the only possible watchdog, the users of the Internet. If it stops working those who work on the technology and the IETF will hear about it and have to take responsibility for fixing whatever it is that broke. avri On 24 May 2012, at 23:51, michael gurstein wrote: > Avri, > > I`m not sure why this below wouldn`t be a reasonable place to start in > defining ``accountabiliy`` ... perhaps not as colourful or as > tendentious as yours but not unreasonable I think... > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accountability > > > And > > In my earlier note which you don`t seem to want to address I asked you > to conduct a thought experiment for us where you would take an issue > of interest from an EC perspective -- say Net Neutrality -- and work > through how you would actually implement an IETF approach in practice > for a specific policy issue in a real world environment. Having > worked in and with various governments at various levels (including a > major stint at UNHQ working on one of the innumerable UN Reform > exercises) I`m very curious to see how you would suggest actually > doing as you are suggesting be done... > > If accountability means taking responsibility for what has been done, > I think that the IETF practice of taking three steps before deeming > something a standard is part of their accountability story. First > they code and prove that something works before making it a proposed > standard, then they test in the real world on the real Internet and > fix it and call it a draft standard, and only when it becomes fully > functional and mainstream in the world does it become a full standard. > There are only 66 or so full standards. They stand by their work, > publish fixes, take responsibility for problems that occur in the > network with their standards, improve, republish and monitor. They > take responsibly in a very public way, certainly large part of > accountability. If their stuff was not worth using, now one would use > it and we would have a world full of 7 layer OSI protocol based > equipment. > > Tks, > > M > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 8:25 PM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) > > > Hi, > > The issue of accountability is a complicated one and I do not expect > to get too far on one message. > > First accountability has more definitions that I know how to handle. > In fact, in general more than anyone seems to handle real well. > > When you say accountability, are you looking for liability? Are you > looking for whom to blame? Whom to fire? Whom to imprison? Whom to > defeat in the next election? Whom not to trust anymore? > > Are you looking for people to take responsibility for their actions? > For organizations to take responsibility for their actions? > > What does accountability mean to you and how do you want to enforce > it? > > While accountability is always important in governance, it is a word > people use without really defining it. Or having much to a way to > enforce it. A few years ago the favorite stumper questions was "does > it scale", these days its "who is accountable" It is a question that > is stumping the world as far as I can tell. > > Who is accountable for all of the world's starvations, the death from > was or the spread of diseases that should have been curtailed by now. > And how do we hold them accountable? Anyone answer these critical > questions for me in an email? > > In government, we think that accountability means voting out of office > and maybe ending up in jail for corruption if we are lucky. Yet that > happen rarely for the thing politicians do wrong and usually only > happens when they do something stupid or their opponents have lots and > lots of money for propaganda. And when it comes to the bureaucrats > that run our governments and the international governance > organizations it is only in rare cases of malfeasance, or perhaps > lying on their resumes that they become accountable to anyone other > than the boss they have to please. > > No, you should not be happy about the slow rate of decline of the > Indian maternal mortality. I don't remember even saying you should be > happy with the failure of a system. I would be curious as to how you > hold them accountable. Please tell me what works for this? Tell how > you would want it work. how do you want to hold people accountable? > Fire them? Imprison them? I suppose you can protest and be activist > and things may improve., a lot of people cetainly do stand and shout > and try to make people take responsibility. And sometime it works. > > In terms of Standard Development Organizations, if their standards no > longer contributed to a growing, stable Internet, people would not use > those standards. Unfortunately when the government tells you what > standards you must use, you have not choice of walking away and > finding another set of standards. How can you argue for government > mandated standards, when you know they don't work and that there is no > way, other than being sad, that you can react to them. > > Sometime with IETF standards, I think that we are seeing > accountability in action these days with IPv6. They did not follow > their own practices and produced something that users don"t seem to > have a real use for and are having to pull teeth to get it to really > happen this time. This is accountability, or perhaps it is just > karma. > > If accountability means taking responsibility for what has been done, > I think that the IETF practice of taking three steps before deeming > something a standard is part of their accountability story. First > they code and prove that something works before making it a proposed > standard, then they test in the real world on the real Internet and > fix it and call it a draft standard, and only when it becomes fully > functional and mainstream in the world does it become a full standard. > There are only 66 or so full standards. They stand by their work, > publish fixes, take responsibility for problems that occur in the > network with their standards, improve, republish and monitor. They > take responsibly in a very public way, certainly large part of > accountability. If their stuff was not worth using, now one would use > it and we would have a world full of 7 layer OSI protocol based > equipment. > > Tell me, other than oversight by government bureaucrats who really are > responsible to no one except perhaps their bureaucracy, what else do > you want from them in terms of accountability? Please be specific. > > As for the IGC nomcom person you consider incompetent a slacker or > downright irresponsible, don't ever appoint them as coordinator of the > IGC or for any other office anywhere. A lot of individual > accountability, when it is not criminal or civilly liable, is found in > our reputations. People who do not work hard and do not do their best > for the organizations that appoint or elected them, get bad > reputations. In corrupt system, like many governments this won't > matter for in these systems all that matters is that one butter the > right person's bread. In stakeholder organizations like the IGC, or > multistakeholder organizations like the IETF, reputation is a lot of > what matters. > > avri > > On 24 May 2012, at 21:26, Guru गुरु wrote: > > > > > On Friday 25 May 2012 04:00 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> > >> On 24 May 2012, at 17:42, Ian Peter wrote: > >> > >>> When looking at IETF its probably also worth looking at some of > >>> its more eccentric processes and structures and determining > >>> whether these have ongoing value and/or scaleability. These would > >>> include > >>> > >>> • Lack of any formal membership structure (anyone can > >>> participate). This also leads to accountability issues – wheras > >>> governments are accountable to their citizens, and companies to their shareholders, it’s not clear who IETF is accountable to seeing it has no formal membership structure. Tnis lack of accountability also leads to no formal review or performance evaluation processes – which in turn can lead to other problems. > >> People do not need to be members of something to participate. The > >> leadership is accountable to the participants > >> > >> I have been a participant since the late 80's, sometime just via > >> email and sometimes with the ability to attend the meetings. I > >> have always felt that the requirement of stewardship for the Internet was the most serious thing the IETF did. And they are most definitely accountable to the world for the fact that the Internet continues to grow and thrive, despite all the barriers that need to be routed around. > > This is a very inadequate, and may i say, a poor measure of > > accountability. > > > > The maternal mortality rate in India has been declining over last > > six decades, does this mean I can feel happy about the performance > > of the Indian public health system?? (India has one of the highest > > mmr in the world even today and several deaths are > > avoidable/inexcusable). > > > > Accountability is a critical necessity for any system which impacts > > the public ... and as the Interent has deeper, wider impact on our > > lives in numerous ways, we need governance structures that are > > transparent, accountable and support wide participation (not just > > who can afford to be there) ... and if we agree democracy is the > > best way to go about this, ask ourselves how we can make the current > > IG more democratic. > > > >> As for the IGC, which is indeed modeled on the IETF process, we > >> require that people be members. I am not going to accuse any of > >> our members, especially those who pay enough attention to volunteer > >> when asked, of not participating in a meaningful way. > >> > > Avri, > > > > The issue is not of 'accusing members'.... the issue is - if members > > who voluntarily pick up a responsibility do not then actually put in > > the required effort (and having been in Nomcoms, I agree with Ian > > that there are serious participation issues), then who pays the > > price??? does IGC not get the best selection of nominees after > > required deliberations because of this. And what is the > > accountability process > > - of the person to nomcom, of nomcom to igc, and of igc to IG....? > > Processes with such poor accountability make me very uncomfortable... > > > > The larger question to ponder therefore is - Who pays the price for > > the current IG regimes and lack of its accountability to the "global > > society"? Conversely, who does it benefit disproportionately? > > > > Andrea also more than once raised this issue of accountability for > > decisions taken... I look forward to your response to him and to > > Mike Gurstein's specific questions as well... > > > > thanks and regards, > > Guru ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at consensus.pro Fri May 25 01:36:11 2012 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 05:36:11 +0000 Subject: [governance] Vint Cerf OpEd in the New York Times: "Keep the Internet Open" Message-ID: <00000137827eb66a-4408b473-95bc-41d6-ba83-17e4c3ff8059-000000@email.amazonses.com> Dear friends and colleagues, I thought you would appreciate knowing that an OpEd by Vint Cerf as above titled was printed today in the New York Times (and I believe the IHT). http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/opinion/keep-the-internet-open.html?_r=1 -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Geneva Representative Computer & Communications Industry Association Tel: +41 (22) 362 02 38 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 Sent from my iPad, please excuse typos -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 25 01:43:10 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 13:43:10 +0800 Subject: [governance] Vint Cerf OpEd in the New York Times: "Keep the Internet Open" In-Reply-To: <00000137827eb66a-4408b473-95bc-41d6-ba83-17e4c3ff8059-000000@email.amazonses.com> References: <00000137827eb66a-4408b473-95bc-41d6-ba83-17e4c3ff8059-000000@email.amazonses.com> Message-ID: <4FBF1BEE.5040804@ciroap.org> On 25/05/12 13:36, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Dear friends and colleagues, > > I thought you would appreciate knowing that an OpEd by Vint Cerf as > above titled was printed today in the New York Times (and I believe > the IHT). > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/opinion/keep-the-internet-open.html?_r=1 Odd that Vint doesn't even offer a response to the concerns, that he acknowledges, of "the outsized role they perceive that the United States plays in the direction and development of Internet policy [and that] the status quo favors the interests of large, global Internet companies." Does he think that these concerns don't even merit comment? -- *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 May 25 01:45:06 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 13:45:06 +0800 Subject: [governance] Vint Cerf OpEd in the New York Times: "Keep the Internet Open" In-Reply-To: <00000137827eb66a-4408b473-95bc-41d6-ba83-17e4c3ff8059-000000@email.amazonses.com> References: <00000137827eb66a-4408b473-95bc-41d6-ba83-17e4c3ff8059-000000@email.amazonses.com> Message-ID: <4FBF1C62.4010902@ciroap.org> Sorry, I forgot to turn off digital signature again. This seems to be a Thunderbird-only problem. On 25/05/12 13:36, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Dear friends and colleagues, > > I thought you would appreciate knowing that an OpEd by Vint Cerf as > above titled was printed today in the New York Times (and I believe > the IHT). > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/opinion/keep-the-internet-open.html?_r=1 Odd that Vint doesn't even offer a response to the concerns, that he acknowledges, of "the outsized role they perceive that the United States plays in the direction and development of Internet policy [and that] the status quo favors the interests of large, global Internet companies." Does he think that these concerns don't even merit comment? -- *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 Guru at ITforChange.net Fri May 25 03:39:53 2012 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 13:09:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google in the New York Times: In-Reply-To: <00000137827eb66a-4408b473-95bc-41d6-ba83-17e4c3ff8059-000000@email.amazonses.com> References: <00000137827eb66a-4408b473-95bc-41d6-ba83-17e4c3ff8059-000000@email.amazonses.com> Message-ID: <4FBF3749.5060107@ITforChange.net> Mr. Vint Cerf and friends and colleagues should also read another recent (May 22, 2012) NYT article http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/technology/google-privacy-inquiries-get-little-cooperation.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all *** some excerpts (Germany) ....After months of negotiation, Johannes Caspar, a German data protection official, forced Google to show him exactly what its Street View cars had been collecting from potentially millions of his fellow citizens. Snippets of e-mails, photographs, passwords, chat messages, postings on Web sites and social networks — all sorts of private Internet communications — were casually scooped up as the specially equipped cars photographed the world’s streets. ... “It was one of the biggest violations of data protection laws that we had ever seen,” Mr. Caspar recently recalled about that long-sought viewing in late 2010. “We were very angry.” (in USA) Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut’s attorney general at the time, announced in late June 2010 that he and attorneys general from more than 30 other states had begun an investigation. Like the Europeans, they asked for the data. For months.... “Google resisted providing more information, even in the face of its acknowledgment that the collection was a mistake,” Mr. Blumenthal recalled in a recent interview. *Google argued that its data scooping was legal in the United States.* *But it told regulators it could not show them the data it collected,* because to do so might be breaking privacy and wiretapping laws. ... Citizens in several states filed suits against Google, saying the company had violated federal wiretapping laws through Street View. These suits were consolidated into a class action in San Francisco.... *Google moved for dismissal, arguing that because it had picked up information only from unencrypted networks, it had not broken the law. *In a significant loss, a federal judge said what the company was doing might be more akin to tapping a phone and allowed the suit to proceed. **** The 'father of the Internet' should wonder how his current role as an 'evangelist', relates to this kind of work of his employer ... In the article forwarded by Nick, he says " .... Such proposals raise the prospect of policies that enable government controls but greatly diminish the*“permissionless innovation” *that underlies extraordinary Internet-based economic growth to say nothing of *trampling human rights.* " Here it is the*permissionless innovation* that is *trampling human rights....* The civil society statement to UNCSTD (http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_statement_on_democratic_internet) is clear about both dangers - the danger of*statist control leading to repression,* (what Vint Cerf is discussing), as well as the*danger at the global level from the actions of USG and US based corporates,* which this NYT article speaks of... Both need to be resisted by civil society .... the status quo leaves us vulnerable to abuses on both counts, and new innovative *and democratic* structures and processes are much required... which also the statement to UNCSTD discusses... regards, Guru On Friday 25 May 2012 11:06 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Dear friends and colleagues, > > I thought you would appreciate knowing that an OpEd by Vint Cerf as > above titled was printed today in the New York Times (and I believe > the IHT). > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/opinion/keep-the-internet-open.html?_r=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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri May 25 05:16:06 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 10:16:06 +0100 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: <20120523074349.DE4223CD@quill.bollow.ch> <20120523093930.158AB3CD@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message , at 11:19:21 on Thu, 24 May 2012, Andrea Glorioso writes >> How can one determine the legal and political responsibility of a certain >>> decision if such decision is taken by "humming"? >> >> Democracy has some drawbacks, for example it looks like Greece (2% of the >> EU iirc) is about to vote to bring about the collapse of the Euro. Where's >> the fairness in that (for the other 98%). > >Assuming this is true (and, for quite obvious reasons, I don't want to take >a position even on a personal capacity :) some would argue that this is a >consequence of the fact that while in the EU we have an economic and >monetary union, we still do not have a true "political union". Which is in >part what all the proposals on "European economic governance" are about. Does that mean we can't take properly democratic global IG decisions until there's "global governance" of some kind? -- 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 Fri May 25 05:42:57 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 11:42:57 +0200 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: <20120523074349.DE4223CD@quill.bollow.ch> <20120523093930.158AB3CD@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Dear Roland, On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message KWFaZ-wOqBgTCA at mail.gmail.com > >**, at 11:19:21 on Thu, 24 May 2012, Andrea Glorioso < > andrea at digitalpolicy.it> writes > > Assuming this is true (and, for quite obvious reasons, I don't want to >> take >> a position even on a personal capacity :) some would argue that this is a >> consequence of the fact that while in the EU we have an economic and >> monetary union, we still do not have a true "political union". Which is in >> part what all the proposals on "European economic governance" are about. >> > > Does that mean we can't take properly democratic global IG decisions until > there's "global governance" of some kind? > This is a very general question, therefore it is difficult for me to provide an answer. But again generally speaking, I do believe we already have some form of "global governance" system in place which spans across many different policy areas; many of which are either impacted, or impact, or both, the Internet (and its governance). Hence my suggestion that a mapping of this "global governance" system and the extent to which government/public authorities already have a role could be a useful step, not the least because it would allow to focus on those areas where the capability of government/public authorities to exercise their rights and obligations towards their citizens in a global cross-border environment is somewhat limited (privacy/personal data protection comes to mind). Furthermore, such a mapping could also help to identify which fora/processes could benefit from a broader involvement of more stakeholders. Best, -- 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 Guru at ITforChange.net Fri May 25 05:48:16 2012 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 15:18:16 +0530 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: <20120523074349.DE4223CD@quill.bollow.ch> <20120523093930.158AB3CD@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4FBF5560.6060306@ITforChange.net> On Friday 25 May 2012 02:46 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message > , > at 11:19:21 on Thu, 24 May 2012, Andrea Glorioso > writes >>> How can one determine the legal and political responsibility of a >>> certain >>>> decision if such decision is taken by "humming"? >>> >>> Democracy has some drawbacks, for example it looks like Greece (2% >>> of the >>> EU iirc) is about to vote to bring about the collapse of the Euro. >>> Where's >>> the fairness in that (for the other 98%). >> >> Assuming this is true (and, for quite obvious reasons, I don't want >> to take >> a position even on a personal capacity :) some would argue that this >> is a >> consequence of the fact that while in the EU we have an economic and >> monetary union, we still do not have a true "political union". Which >> is in >> part what all the proposals on "European economic governance" are about. > > Does that mean we can't take properly democratic global IG decisions > until there's "global governance" of some kind? Yes. seems a truism to me. How can we have "properly democratic global IG" without "global governance" Though of 'what kind' is the key challenge before us.... regards, Guru -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri May 25 06:15:03 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 19:15:03 +0900 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <4FBF5560.6060306@ITforChange.net> References: <20120523074349.DE4223CD@quill.bollow.ch> <20120523093930.158AB3CD@quill.bollow.ch> <4FBF5560.6060306@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: Guru, hi. What do you mean by "properly democratic global IG" How defined? Plan for implementation? ICANN's At Large elections perhaps an interesting small example of the challenges. Best, Adam On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Guru गुरु wrote: > > On Friday 25 May 2012 02:46 PM, Roland Perry wrote: >> >> In message >> , at >> 11:19:21 on Thu, 24 May 2012, Andrea Glorioso >> writes >>>> >>>>  How can one determine the legal and political responsibility of a >>>> certain >>>>> >>>>> decision if such decision is taken by "humming"? >>>> >>>> >>>> Democracy has some drawbacks, for example it looks like Greece (2% of >>>> the >>>> EU iirc) is about to vote to bring about the collapse of the Euro. >>>> Where's >>>> the fairness in that (for the other 98%). >>> >>> >>> Assuming this is true (and, for quite obvious reasons, I don't want to >>> take >>> a position even on a personal capacity :) some would argue that this is a >>> consequence of the fact that while in the EU we have an economic and >>> monetary union, we still do not have a true "political union". Which is >>> in >>> part what all the proposals on "European economic governance" are about. >> >> >> Does that mean we can't take properly democratic global IG decisions until >> there's "global governance" of some kind? > > > Yes. seems a truism to me. > > How can we have "properly democratic global IG" without "global governance" > Though of 'what kind' is the key challenge before us.... > > regards, > Guru > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 25 06:47:14 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 12:47:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: (message from Andrea Glorioso on Thu, 24 May 2012 10:03:58 +0200) References: <20120523074349.DE4223CD@quill.bollow.ch> <20120523093930.158AB3CD@quill.bollow.ch> <20120523174635.5721D3CD@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20120525104714.187F73CD@quill.bollow.ch> Andrea Glorioso wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > In my view, if those specific criteria (which are really a short list > > of topics on which IETF has tried and IMO failed to create good > > solutions) are adopted, as criteria for evaluating "whether the IETF > > is succesful or not", the result of the evaluation must necessarily be > > "IETF is not successful". Which would in my eyes be a ridiculous > > result since IETF has in fact very successfully contributed to making > > the Internet the success that it is today. I would suggest that any > > proposal "to evaluate whether the IETF is succesful or not" is > > fundamentally flawed because it's based on a false dichotomy. In the > > same way, "whether it should be taken as the universal model for > > decisions concerning the Internet, including besides its rather > > technological remit" is IMO a false dichotomy. We can learn from what > > what works in IETF without ideologically taking it as "the universal > > model". > > > > First of all, I'm happy we agree the IETF is not and cannot be a "universal > model" for everything under the sun. > > Secondly, I disagree with your evaluation of the criteria being proposed, > one of which is the "rate of adoption of IETF standards", if I may > simplify. This is a rather objective criterion, which is very different > from the criterion "rate of adoption of IPv6" (which I agree would be a > clearly biased one). I note there is at least one person in the discussion, > i.e. McTim, who doesn't seem to agree that "adoption of standards" should > be a measure of success of a standards-setting organisation. Ok, I certainly agree that the "rate of adoption of IETF standards" is certainly highly relevant to any in-depth effort aimed at evaluating IETF's success as a standards-setting organization. Of course, one could also ask about IETF's success as a social movement, and in the context of that question, it could be argued that "adoption of standards" is not relevant as a primary measure of success. But in the context of my assertion that IETF's way of doing things should be taken into consideration when designing new Internet Governance processes and instituions, including in particular in the context of the "Enhanced Cooperation" debate, it is not relevant whatever success IETF may have, as a social movement, beyond the contribution to Internet Governance. How then should IETF's success as an organization or movement that contributes to Internet Governance be measured? I would propose that what we are interested in the *value* of IETF's contribution in some sense that is not a monetary sense. I hope that you have enough patience with me that I may try to give a rough explanation of the notion of value that I have in mind here. Let's call the "b-value", for "benefit value", as opposed to the "m-value" which is "monetary or market value". With "b-value" I mean the value of something in the sense of its benefit in regard to meeting the needs of humanity. A banana for example has a positive b-value if it is in my kitchen (when I am hungry I can eat it, so it can make a contribution to meeting the needs of a small part of humanity) but it has a much larger b-value in the hands of someone who is in danger of dying from starvation. This assertion is true even if the person who is in danger of starvation is in a country where the m-value of a banana is much lower than there in Switzerland where bananas don't grow natively, and expensive and scarce resouces have to be used on bringing the bananas here if we want some. Clean drinking water, in the quantity that a person needs, and air that is suitable for breathing, again in the quantity that a person needs, each have roughly the same b-value as a quantity and selection of food that are again suitable for meetings the needs of one person. Nevertheless the price that we pay for drinking water should be lower than the price that we have to pay for healthy food, and as long as we're on the surface of the earth (i.e. not diving in the deep seas or traveling into space) we're appropriately used to not having to pay individually for air to breathe at all (even though of course measures against air polution have a cost). Now let's try to apply this to the Internet. Despite all its imperfections (IPv4 address exhaustion, spam, etc.) the Internet as it has come into existence has an immensely great b-value. I wouldn't assert that the b-value of the Internet is as great as it could potentially have been if it had been designed optimally, or that it is greater than the b-value of everything else (for example the b-value of the air that we are breathing, and the b-value of the institutions of civic and political rights are IMO clearly greater) but the b-value of the Internet is still immensely great. Now I would argue that IETF has contributed significantly to the process through which this value has been created. Now I would guesstimate that IETF's contribution to this creation of b-value was at least 1%, perhaps as much as 5% or even more. Therefore, IMO the success of IETF has been huge, quite independently of whether the rate of adoption of IETF standards is greater or lower than benchmarks like corresponding figures for e.g. W3C, ISO, IEC, ITU, CEN, ETSI. Of course, if a standardization organization were to create only standards that don't get adopted at all, and that also don't get used as sources of inspiration for further work by others, the b-value and therefore the success would be zero. But "rate of adoption of standards" isn't the only measure that matters, or even the one that matters most, as long as the important standards get adopted eventually. > First of all, what is "my government"? I'm a EU citizen living > > outside the EU, in Switzerland. Maybe "my government" is the > > Swiss government because this is the government that has > > jurisdiction here. > > > > As an Italian citizen living in Belgium and partly subject to special rules > due to my status as a EU officer, I sympathise with the question. But there > are rules in place which define who your representatives are in a > particular situation. These rules have nothing to do with Internet > (governance). Andrea, I'm not sure that I understand you correctly here, but from my perspective I would say that these rules are highly relevant to my desire that the rules that govern my varous actual and potential uses of the Internet should be reasonable, and to my desire to influence Internet governance with that objective. > > On the Internet governance issues that I care about, the Swiss > > government doesn't currently seem to have anyone with expert-level > > knowledge of the technical, economic and socio-economic aspects. > > They seem to have only experts on the legal and diplomatic aspects. > > This is rather surprising to me, as (to name one example) the Swiss > Education and Research Network does have plenty of technical experts and I > know the Swiss government engages in constructive dialogue with them (among > others). Sure. And in some of the areas that I particularly care about, I also serve as a technical expert for some Swiss government institutions - the problem is not lack of existence of technical experts or lack of willingness of the Swiss government to engage in constructive dialogue with them. The problem arises when some of the people who are experts or pretend to be experts are paid directly or indirectly (for example through research financing) by a powerful company with a strong financial interest in muddying the waters in order to prevent the government from having a clear understanding of some matters. In those situations the government would need to have, within the staff of the ministry, the necessary technical understanding and willingness to distinguish between arguments that make sense and arguments that don't. > My personal experience with large bureaucracies is that more often than not > the right persons/expertise is there, it's simply not that easy to identify > them - even for insiders! You're probably right that to a large extent, that is the problem. But from the perspective of an outsider, there is no practical difference whether either the government simply does not have anyone on-staff with the right skills or if such a person is employed by the government but practically impossible to identify. But anyway, regardless of whether the problem is that the government doesn't have people on staff with the necessary technical understanding and willingness to distinguish between arguments that make sense and arguments that don't, or whether the problem is that I'm just unable to locate those people when I would need them, it is a problem that wouldn't be occurring in the context of an IETF-like environment. > Perhaps another good effect of any "mapping project" could also be to > highlight where the expertise lies in each administration, and in this way > facilitate exchanges/dialogue. If this statement is in reference to the http://idgovmap.org Internet Governance Mapping initiative, then I think I'll probably need to disappoint you - in order to keep the scope of that manageable, I don't think that it will be possible to go down to that level of detail. > I do not know enough the Swiss situation to make any assessment. > Half-truths and lies (as well as statistics :) are a fact of life. You can > either conclude that their influence is so strong that any involvement in > political life is useless, and therefore focus your participation in other > settings where (in your opinion) you will find only Truth, Honesty and > Goodwill - the risk being that this new setting is in fact discussing > different stuff and therefore the decisions you care about are still taken > elsewhere. > > Or you can accept that this is not a "la-la world" and become a "de facto" > lobbyist yourself (you can even call yourself a "lobbyist in the public > interest" if that makes you feel better). There are many examples at the EU > level of "public service NGOs", such as BEUC (the Bureau of European > Consumer Organisations) and EDRi (the European Digital Rights initiative) > which manage to influence rather succesfully, in my view, EU > decision-making. Sure... and I have spent a significant amount of time on this kind of thing, with also some personal successes. But I believe that it would be possible to significantly reduce the need for this kind of activity, and increase the effectiveness of the "lobbying in the public interest" (or "public interest advocacy" as I call it in my recent paper) that will still need to be done, by creating the institutions and processes of "Enhanced Cooperation" in a way that is inspired in an appropriate way by what works in IETF. > > I would envision the body that is modeled on the IETF to not make the > > final decisions, but develop a set of models of potential regulations on > > these topics, with documentation of advantages and drawbacks of each, > > and leave it to the relevant parliaments to make the choice between > > them. > > Then I must wonder, noting that the European Commission does not have an > official position on this: if the mandate Committe for Internet Related > Policies was modified to take out the "oversight" of standards-setting > bodies (an unfortunate term in my opinion) and the "crisis management" > (which can mean everything and the contrary of everything) would it then be > such a horrible solution to make these pesky governments a bit happier? Sorry I simply don't understand this question. I'm not familiar with a "Committee for Internet Related Policies" or what its mandate might be. Is this something that all stakeholders from anywhere in the world would be welcome to be involved in? Are participating experts who are not already on a governmental payroll paid for the work they do? If the answers to these two questions are "yes" for what you propose, then I probably wouldn't view it as a "horrible solution". > > Choices that involve seeking the balance between significant legitimate > > conflicting interests cannot be made by the rough consensus method. > > We are in very strong agreement on this point. Which however raises the > issue: can the multi-stakeholder model, which in my view (and I'm happy to > stand corrected, perhaps with an agreed definition of what > "multi-stakeholder" actually means) is based on the "rough consensus" > method, ever be used to "seek the balance between significant legitimate > conflicting interests"? (Which, unfortunately, happens to be the daily > bread and butter of governments/public authorities). My view is that the objective of multi-stakeholder processes should be seen mainly in the area of building mutual understanding of the issues and the advantages and disadvantages of various proposals for addressing the problems. I do not see any possibility of multi-stakeholder processes actually taking over the roles of governments and public authorities in seeking that balance. But the existing multi-stakeholder processes need to be reformed and supplemented to make them more effective (i.e. successful) in regard to supporting the roles of governments and public authorities. That is in my opinion what "Enhanced Cooperation" should be understood to be all about. 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri May 25 07:37:40 2012 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 13:37:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] Warning : Twitter Hack Message-ID: Dear all, as some of you may already know, there is a big hack circulating using Twitter to get passwords. and I was not vigilant enough. You receive a personal message saying something like : "someone is saying bad things about you" with a bit.ly URL from somebody you DO know, who has been compromised. DO NOT OPEN THE LINK AND DO NOT ENTER YOUR PASSWORD ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE. Otherwise, your account will be used to forward similar things to your contacts. See: http://forums.realmacsoftware.com/discussion/56688/warning-twitter-hacker Apologies to those of you who may have received messages from me as a result urging them to lose weight .... Thought it might be useful to share. Best BErtrand -- ____________________ 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri May 25 08:15:20 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 21:15:20 +0900 Subject: [governance] Vint Cerf OpEd in the New York Times: "Keep the Internet Open" In-Reply-To: <00000137827eb66a-4408b473-95bc-41d6-ba83-17e4c3ff8059-000000@email.amazon ses.com> References: <00000137827eb66a-4408b473-95bc-41d6-ba83-17e4c3ff8059-000000@email.amazon ses.com> Message-ID: Hamadoun Toure, May 1 speaking about WCIT: "There are many important issues that may be addressed at WCIT, but I would like to focus on one broader issue in particular: how do we ensure sufficient investment in broadband network infrastructure?" and "And, the current ITRs are not properly equipped to deal with this challenge either, which raises the question of how all this new infrastructure will be paid for?" and "Everyone wants mobile broadband and the benefits it will bring. But few seem willing to pay for it -- including both the over-the-top players, who are generating vast new demand through their applications, and consumers, who have become accustomed to unlimited packages." Hello Google, enter Vint :-) Adam >Dear friends and colleagues, > >I thought you would appreciate knowing that an OpEd by Vint Cerf as >above titled was printed today in the New York Times (and I believe >the IHT). > >http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/opinion/keep-the-internet-open.html?_r=1 > >-- >Regards, > >Nick Ashton-Hart >Geneva Representative >Computer & Communications Industry Association >Tel: +41 (22) 362 02 38 >Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 >Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 > >Sent from my iPad, please excuse typos > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri May 25 08:20:54 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 08:20:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] Warning : Twitter Hack In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dear all, > > as some of you may already know, there is a big hack circulating using > Twitter to get passwords. and I was not vigilant enough. > > You receive a personal message saying something like : "someone is saying > bad things about you" with a bit.ly URL from somebody you DO know, who has > been compromised. Like this: Hello someone is making really bad rumors about you... bit.ly/JAOciW Direct message sent by B. de La Chapelle (@bdelachapelle) to you (@_McTim) on May 24, 9:38 PM. bdelachapelle B. de La Chapelle Not to worry, have already had one from another ICANN Director, so you are in good company! P.S. @Andrea....Is this the kind of thing the IETF is supposed to fix? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri May 25 07:32:41 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 12:32:41 +0100 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: <20120523074349.DE4223CD@quill.bollow.ch> <20120523093930.158AB3CD@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message , at 11:42:57 on Fri, 25 May 2012, Andrea Glorioso writes >But again generally speaking, I do believe we already have some form of >"global governance" system in place which spans across many different >policy areas; many of which are either impacted, or impact, or both, >the Internet (and its governance). ITU and ITRs perhaps? >Hence my suggestion that a mapping of this "global governance" system >and the extent to which government/public authorities already have a >role could be a useful step, not the least because it would allow to >focus on those areas where the capability of government/public >authorities to exercise their rights and obligations towards their >citizens in a global cross-border environment is somewhat limited >(privacy/personal data protection comes to mind). Furthermore, such a >mapping could also help to identify which fora/processes could benefit >from a broader involvement of more stakeholders. I think there are already too many maps like that. We should be moving onto the next stage by now. (And it doesn't matter if the map that's examined is less than perfect, such things will emerge and be corrected in the next stage). -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri May 25 04:49:40 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 11:49:40 +0300 Subject: [governance] Google Privacy Inquiries Get Little Cooperation Message-ID: <4FBF47A4.2030406@gmail.com> Google Privacy Inquiries Get Little Cooperation Gero Breloer/DPA A Google Street View car taking photographs in Berlin. German regulators sought information on data Google collected. By DAVID STREITFELD and KEVIN J. O’BRIEN Published: May 22, 2012 Richard Blumenthal issued a civil investigative demand. After months of negotiation, Johannes Caspar, a German data protection official, forced Google to show him exactly what its Street View cars had been collecting from potentially millions of his fellow citizens. Snippets of e-mails, photographs, passwords, chat messages, postings on Web sites and social networks — all sorts of private Internet communications — were casually scooped up as the specially equipped cars photographed the world’s streets. “It was one of the biggest violations of data protection laws that we had ever seen,” Mr. Caspar recently recalled about that long-sought viewing in late 2010. “We were very angry.” Google might be one of the coolest and smartest companies of this or any era, but it also upsets a lot of people — competitors who argue it wields its tremendous weight unfairly, officials like Mr. Caspar who says it ignores local laws, privacy advocates who think it takes too much from its users. Just this week, European antitrust regulators gave the company an ultimatum to change its search business or face legal consequences. American regulators may not be far behind. The high-stakes antitrust assault, which will play out this summer behind closed doors in Brussels, might be the beginning of a tough time for Google. A similar United States case in the 1990s heralded the comeuppance of Microsoft, the most fearsome tech company of its day. But never count Google out. It is superb at getting out of trouble. Just ask Mr. Caspar or any of his counterparts around the world who tried to hold Google accountable for what one of them, the Australian communication minister Stephen Conroy, called “probably the single greatest breach in the history of privacy.” The secret Street View data collection led to inquiries in at least a dozen countries, including four in the United States alone. But Google has yet to give a complete explanation of why the data was collected and who at the company knew about it. No regulator in the United States has ever seen the information that Google’s cars gathered from American citizens. The tale of how Google escaped a full accounting for Street View illustrates not only how technology companies have outstripped the regulators, but also their complicated relationship with their adoring customers. Companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple supply new ways of communication, learning and entertainment, high-tech wizardry for the masses. They have custody of the raw material of hundreds of millions of lives — the intimate e-mails, the revealing photographs, searches for help or love or escape. People willingly, at times eagerly, surrender this information. But there is a price: the loss of control, or even knowledge, of where that personal information is going and how it is being reshaped into an online identity that may resemble the real you or may not. Privacy laws and wiretapping statutes are of little guidance, because they have not kept pace with the lightning speed of technological progress. Michael Copps, who last year ended a 10-year term as a commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, said regulators were overwhelmed. “The industry has gotten more powerful, the technology has gotten more pervasive and it’s getting to the point where we can’t do too much about it,” he said. Although Google thrives on information, it is closemouthed about itself, as the Street View episode shows. When German regulators forced the company to admit that the cars were sweeping up unencrypted Internet data from wireless networks, the company blamed a programming mistake where an engineer’s experimental software was accidentally included in Street View. It stressed that the data was never intended for any Google products. The F.C.C. did not see it Google’s way, saying last month the engineer “intended to collect, store and review” the data “for possible use in other Google products.” It also said the engineer shared his software code and a “design document” with other members of the Street View team. The data collection may have been misguided, the agency said, but was not accidental. Although the agency said it could find no violation of American law, it also said the inquiry was inconclusive, because the engineer cited his Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination. It tagged Google with a $25,000 fine for obstructing the investigation. Google, which has repeatedly said it wants to put the episode behind it, declined to answer questions for this article. “We don’t have much choice but to trust Google,” said Christian Sandvig, a researcher in communications technology and public policy at the University of Illinois. “We rely on them for everything.” That reliance has built an impressive company — and a self-assurance that can be indistinguishable from arrogance. “Google doesn’t seem to think it ever will be held accountable,” Mr. Sandvig said. “And to date it hasn’t been.” When Street View was introduced in 2007, it elicited immediate objections in Europe, where privacy laws are tough. The Nazis used government data to systematically pursue Jews and other unwanted groups. The East German secret police, the Stasi, similarly controlled data to monitor perceived enemies. “In the United States, privacy is a consumer business,” said Jacob Kohnstamm, chairman of the Dutch Data Protection Authority. “In Europe, it is a fundamental rights issue.” Germany was a hotbed of protest. In Molfsee, a town of 4,800 people on the Baltic Sea, the deputy mayor, Reinhold Harwart, organized a group of residents in a protest. “The main feeling was: Who gives Google the right to do this?” Mr. Harwart, now 74, said in a recent interview. “We were outraged that Google would come in, invade our privacy and send the data back to America, where we had no idea what it would be used for.” Google offered few clues. After French privacy regulators inspected a Street View car in early 2010, the company was forced to explain that the cars were collecting information about household’s Wi-Fi networks — in essence, how they connected to the Internet — to improve location-based services. Peter Fleischer, Google’s global privacy counselor, wrote in a blog post on April 27, 2010, that the company had not previously revealed this part of Street View because, “We did not think it was necessary.” But he said only technical data about networks was being collected, not the actual content sent out. Still, German regulators, particularly Mr. Caspar, the data protection commissioner for Hamburg, were alarmed. Google, Mr. Caspar noted, had said nothing about collecting Wi-Fi data when negotiating permission for Street View. Mr. Caspar wanted to inspect a Street View car. Google first said it didn’t know where they were, so it couldn’t produce them. Then, on May 3, it allowed a technical expert in Mr. Caspar’s office to see a vehicle. But the hard drive with data was missing. Faced with the Germans’ persistence, Google published a post, on May 14, 2010, saying it had been prompted to “re-examine everything we have been collecting.” It turned out that Google was collecting e-mails and other personal data after all. For a company like Google, which thrives on data, more is always better. “The Google privacy officers are going to look at this and say, ‘It’s not illegal, maybe no one is ever going to be the wiser, and meanwhile we’ll have stored the data away in some big database,’ ” said Helen Nissenbaum, a privacy expert at N.Y.U. “We’re so enthralled with data, and the good it can bring, that we might overlook any problems.” Mr. Caspar asked to see the hard drive. Google said handing it over could expose it to liability for violating German telecommunications law, which prohibits network operators and other data managers from disclosing the private communications of their clients. This made no sense to Mr. Caspar, who explained that as data protection commissioner he was empowered to receive the data. Finally, in autumn 2010, the company yielded and gave Mr. Caspar the hard drive. By this point, Hamburg prosecutors had opened a criminal investigation. Google was equally resistant with the American authorities. Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut’s attorney general at the time, announced in late June 2010 that he and attorneys general from more than 30 other states had begun an investigation. Like the Europeans, they asked for the data. For months. “Google resisted providing more information, even in the face of its acknowledgment that the collection was a mistake,” Mr. Blumenthal recalled in a recent interview. Google argued that its data scooping was legal in the United States. But it told regulators it could not show them the data it collected, because to do so might be breaking privacy and wiretapping laws. In December 2010, Mr. Blumenthal issued a civil investigative demand — the equivalent of a subpoena — and threatened further legal action if he did not get results. Then he became Connecticut’s junior senator and his successor, George Jepsen, took over. No formal settlement was ever reached. Some of those who were involved in the case are mystified. “I cannot think of a single other multistate case that just disappeared,” said one former state regulator who asked not to be named since he did not want to be seen as bashing his former colleagues. “Individual state investigations, yes. But to start up a multistate and not end it with at least a consent judgment or even some token resolution is very unusual.” A spokeswoman for Mr. Jepsen said the inquiry was still “active and ongoing.” Mr. Jepsen declined to be interviewed. “The legal platform has not kept pace with the technology platform,” Mr. Blumenthal said. “So the investigative effort was done with less legal ammunition than might otherwise exist.” The same was true of other challenges to Street View. Citizens in several states filed suits against Google, saying the company had violated federal wiretapping laws through Street View. These suits were consolidated into a class action in San Francisco. Google moved for dismissal, arguing that because it had picked up information only from unencrypted networks, it had not broken the law. In a significant loss, a federal judge said what the company was doing might be more akin to tapping a phone and allowed the suit to proceed. But he let Google appeal immediately, saying these were novel questions of law. The case may eventually end up at the United States Supreme Court. In Germany, Mr. Caspar’s effort has also ground to a stop. He is waiting for prosecutors to file the criminal charges. If they do not, he said he would file his own administrative charges. As for the engineer at the center of the controversy, Marius Milner lives in Palo Alto, Calif., in the heart of Silicon Valley, and apparently still works for Google. His garage door was open, displaying a black Miata convertible with a license plate holder featuring the famous phrase from the Google search page, “I’m feeling lucky.” During a brief conversation on his front porch, Mr. Milner declined to say much of anything. Steve Lohr and Edward Wyatt contributed reporting. A version of this article appeared in print on May 23, 2012, on page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: Protecting Its Own Privacy. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/technology/google-privacy-inquiries-get-little-cooperation.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&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 sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com Fri May 25 08:46:16 2012 From: sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio_Alves_Jr=2E?=) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 09:46:16 -0300 Subject: [governance] Vint Cerf OpEd in the New York Times: "Keep the Internet Open" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: WCIT has nothing to do with expanding ITU's mandate on the internet. Any proposal in this sense is stillborn. This OpEd adds zero to the ITRs debate. This is the kind of American strategy that is killing the conference. The real topics are international connectivity, accounting rules, finances. Brazilian proposals, for instance, are focused on increasing transparency and lowering international roaming rates (topics that many, including US, don't agree to negotiate either). The only thing I agree in the text is that civil society is kept unfairly out the debate. Were SC in, there wouldn't be so many nonsense rumors like this. Abraços, Sérgio Alves Jr Em 25/05/2012 09:16, "Adam Peake" escreveu: > Hamadoun Toure, May 1 speaking about WCIT: > "There are many important issues that may be addressed at WCIT, but I > would like to focus on one broader issue in particular: how do we ensure > sufficient investment in broadband network infrastructure?" > and > "And, the current ITRs are not properly equipped to deal with this > challenge either, which raises the question of how all this new > infrastructure will be paid for?" > and > "Everyone wants mobile broadband and the benefits it will bring. But few > seem willing to pay for it -- including both the over-the-top players, who > are generating vast new demand through their applications, and consumers, > who have become accustomed to unlimited packages." > > **> > > Hello Google, enter Vint :-) > > Adam > > > > > Dear friends and colleagues, >> >> I thought you would appreciate knowing that an OpEd by Vint Cerf as >> above titled was printed today in the New York Times (and I believe >> the IHT). >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/**05/25/opinion/keep-the-** >> internet-open.html?_r=1 >> >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Nick Ashton-Hart >> Geneva Representative >> Computer & Communications Industry Association >> Tel: +41 (22) 362 02 38 >> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 >> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 >> >> Sent from my iPad, please excuse typos >> >> >> ______________________________**______________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 25 09:06:26 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 15:06:26 +0200 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: <20120523074349.DE4223CD@quill.bollow.ch> <20120523093930.158AB3CD@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message mvF510L6_EG2iA at mail.gmail.com > >**, at 11:42:57 on Fri, 25 May 2012, Andrea Glorioso < > andrea at digitalpolicy.it> writes > > But again generally speaking, I do believe we already have some form of >> "global governance" system in place which spans across many different >> policy areas; many of which are either impacted, or impact, or both, the >> Internet (and its governance). >> > > ITU and ITRs perhaps? > That's certainly the opinion of several people from different walks of life. Hence my suggestion that a mapping of this "global governance" system and > the extent to which government/public authorities already have a role could > be a useful step, not the least because it would allow to focus on those > areas where the capability of government/public authorities to exercise > their rights and obligations towards their citizens in a global > cross-border environment is somewhat limited (privacy/personal data > protection comes to mind). Furthermore, such a mapping could also help to > identify which fora/processes could benefit from a broader involvement of > more stakeholders. > I think there are already too many maps like that. We should be moving > onto the next stage by now. (And it doesn't matter if the map that's > examined is less than perfect, such things will emerge and be corrected in > the next stage). I'm aware of only two efforts, namely the APC project and the one by Norbert Bollow & co. I'd be interested to know if there are more. And I'm not clear what is the "next stage" anyway. Ciao, -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri May 25 09:07:45 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 22:07:45 +0900 Subject: [governance] Vint Cerf OpEd in the New York Times: "Keep the Internet Open" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Rumors are the main problem, when there's a lack of information lobbying is of course effective. The ITU gave a briefing on WCIT during the WSIS reviews in Geneva last week. ITU Secretariat emphasized they wanted to be as open and transparent as possible. A couple of sector members asked if they could share the information they had access to with their members, if I remember correctly the answer from the Secretariat was ask the ITU Council. Requests for information were stonewalled. The presentation did not give any information about the substance of what was being discussed (your email, a couple of sentences, is more informative), but somewhat bizarrely it did mention summary documents of the regional preparatory meetings and submissions to date had been prepared. At least two people asked if those documents could be made public, and the answer was a negative non-committal. What was the point of mentioning the existence of the documents? Sérgio, governments that care about the ITRs might do well to make sure information is made available, or the ITRs are likely to end up in the same place as ACTA, SOPA, and PIPA, etc. Look at ACTA, treaties don't seem to be quite as certain as they recently were. Of course the U.S. wants to make the ITRs as ineffectual as possible, and the lack of information from others makes their lobbying all the more effective. Best, Adam >WCIT has nothing to do with expanding ITU's > mandate on the internet. Any proposal in >this sense is stillborn. > >This OpEd adds zero to the ITRs debate. This is >the kind of American strategy that is killing >the conference. > >The real topics are international connectivity, >accounting rules, finances. Brazilian proposals, >for instance, are focused on increasing >transparency and lowering international roaming >rates (topics that many, including US, don't >agree to negotiate either). > >The only thing I agree in the text is that civil >society is kept unfairly out the debate. Were SC >in, there wouldn't be so many nonsense rumors >like this. > >Abraços, >Sérgio Alves Jr > >Em 25/05/2012 09:16, "Adam Peake" ><ajp at glocom.ac.jp> >escreveu: > >Hamadoun Toure, May 1 speaking about WCIT: >"There are many important issues that may be >addressed at WCIT, but I would like to focus on >one broader issue in particular: how do we >ensure sufficient investment in broadband >network infrastructure?" >and >"And, the current ITRs are not properly equipped >to deal with this challenge either, which raises >the question of how all this new infrastructure >will be paid for?" >and >"Everyone wants mobile broadband and the >benefits it will bring. But few seem willing to >pay for it -- including both the over-the-top >players, who are generating vast new demand >through their applications, and consumers, who >have become accustomed to unlimited packages." ><http://www.itu.int/en/osg/speeches/Pages/2012-05-01.aspx> > >Hello Google, enter Vint :-) > >Adam > > > >Dear friends and colleagues, > >I thought you would appreciate knowing that an OpEd by Vint Cerf as >above titled was printed today in the New York Times (and I believe >the IHT). > >http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/opinion/keep-the-internet-open.html?_r=1 > >-- >Regards, > >Nick Ashton-Hart >Geneva Representative >Computer & Communications Industry Association >Tel: +41 (22) 362 02 38 >Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 >Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 > >Sent from my iPad, please excuse typos > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > >http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > >http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: >http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > >http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > >http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: >http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 25 09:18:03 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 15:18:03 +0200 Subject: IETF, Twitter and Security (Was: Re: [governance] Warning : Twitter Hack) Message-ID: McTim, On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:20 PM, McTim wrote: > > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle > wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > as some of you may already know, there is a big hack circulating using > > Twitter to get passwords. and I was not vigilant enough. > > > > You receive a personal message saying something like : "someone is saying > > bad things about you" with a bit.ly URL from somebody you DO know, who has > > been compromised. > > Like this: > > > Hello someone is making really bad rumors about you... bit.ly/JAOciW > Direct message sent by B. de La Chapelle (@bdelachapelle) to you > (@_McTim) on May 24, 9:38 PM. >        bdelachapelle > B. de La Chapelle > > > Not to worry, have already had one from another ICANN Director, so you > are in good company! > > P.S. @Andrea....Is this the kind of thing the IETF is supposed to fix? In RFC3935 / BCP95 ("A mission statement for the IETF") I can read: "The goal of the IETF is to make the Internet work better. [...] The mission of the IETF is to produce high quality, relevant technical and engineering documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the Internet work better. [...] Considering security is one of the core principles of sound network engineering for the Internet". So, would the world be that off the mark by thinking that security problems such as those that happened to Bertrand and you (and to me as well some days ago, by the way) are something for the IETF to think about? 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri May 25 09:29:19 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 09:29:19 -0400 Subject: IETF, Twitter and Security (Was: Re: [governance] Warning : Twitter Hack) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > McTim, > > So, would the world be that off the mark by thinking that security > problems such as those that happened to Bertrand and you (and to me as > well some days ago, by the way) are something for the IETF to think > about? IMHO, yes. the IETF has enough to do with trying to create protocol security on lower layers. This is many layers above that. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 25 09:33:39 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 15:33:39 +0200 Subject: IETF, Twitter and Security (Was: Re: [governance] Warning : Twitter Hack) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:29 PM, McTim wrote: > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Andrea Glorioso > wrote: >> McTim, >> >> So, would the world be that off the mark by thinking that security >> problems such as those that happened to Bertrand and you (and to me as >> well some days ago, by the way) are something for the IETF to think >> about? > > IMHO, yes.  the IETF has enough to do with trying to create protocol > security on lower layers.  This is many layers above that. Then perhaps the BCP containing the mission statement of the IETF should be amended to make it a bit less bold than it currently is. Best, -- 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri May 25 09:34:31 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 22:34:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] U.S. energy and commerce committee hearing: International Proposals to Regulate the Internet Message-ID: (Thursday, May 31) witnesses: The Honorable Robert McDowell Commissioner Federal Communications Commission The Honorable David A. Gross Former U.S. Coordinator International Communications and Information Policy Ms. Sally Shipman Wentworth Senior Manager, Public Policy Internet Society -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri May 25 09:41:38 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 09:41:38 -0400 Subject: IETF, Twitter and Security (Was: Re: [governance] Warning : Twitter Hack) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:29 PM, McTim wrote: >> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Andrea Glorioso >> wrote: >>> McTim, >>> >>> So, would the world be that off the mark by thinking that security >>> problems such as those that happened to Bertrand and you (and to me as >>> well some days ago, by the way) are something for the IETF to think >>> about? >> >> IMHO, yes.  the IETF has enough to do with trying to create protocol >> security on lower layers.  This is many layers above that. > > Then perhaps the BCP containing the mission statement of the IETF > should be amended to make it a bit less bold than it currently is. No need, "social engineering" != "sound network engineering" -- 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 andrea at digitalpolicy.it Fri May 25 10:07:49 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 16:07:49 +0200 Subject: IETF, Twitter and Security (Was: Re: [governance] Warning : Twitter Hack) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:41 PM, McTim wrote: > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Andrea Glorioso > wrote: >> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:29 PM, McTim wrote: >>> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Andrea Glorioso >>> wrote: >>>> McTim, >>>> >>>> So, would the world be that off the mark by thinking that security >>>> problems such as those that happened to Bertrand and you (and to me as >>>> well some days ago, by the way) are something for the IETF to think >>>> about? >>> >>> IMHO, yes.  the IETF has enough to do with trying to create protocol >>> security on lower layers.  This is many layers above that. >> >> Then perhaps the BCP containing the mission statement of the IETF >> should be amended to make it a bit less bold than it currently is. > > No need, "social engineering" != "sound network engineering" I was thinking more about the part of "making the Internet work better". And I would argue that sound network engineering should at least contribute to making social engineering harder. But probably this goes against the other part of the mission statement, i.e. "edge-user empowerment" (which to me always sounded a bit like a "it's not my problem" statement). Best, -- 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Fri May 25 10:10:40 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 10:10:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] Google in the New York Times: In-Reply-To: <4FBF3749.5060107@ITforChange.net> References: <00000137827eb66a-4408b473-95bc-41d6-ba83-17e4c3ff8059-000000@email.amazonses.com> <4FBF3749.5060107@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:39 AM, Guru गुरु wrote: > Mr. Vint Cerf and friends and colleagues should also read another recent > (May 22, 2012)  NYT article > > Here it is the permissionless innovation that is trampling human rights.... So if I am "war-driving" your home or office, I am violating your human rights? If so, pls. explain... -- 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 andrea at digitalpolicy.it Fri May 25 10:21:38 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 16:21:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Google in the New York Times: In-Reply-To: References: <00000137827eb66a-4408b473-95bc-41d6-ba83-17e4c3ff8059-000000@email.amazonses.com> <4FBF3749.5060107@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 4:10 PM, McTim wrote: > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:39 AM, Guru गुरु wrote: >> Mr. Vint Cerf and friends and colleagues should also read another recent >> (May 22, 2012)  NYT article >> > > > >> Here it is the permissionless innovation that is trampling human rights.... > > So if I am "war-driving" your home or office, I am violating your human rights? > > If so, pls. explain... If you in the EU and, besides the SSID of my WiFi network, you are intercepting the content of my communication (which is what Google Streetview cars did - the jury is still open to what extent Google manager were aware of this) you are most probably violating art. 7 (Respect for private and family life) and art. 8 (Protection of personal data) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as a bunch of other secondary laws. Other laws regulating human rights may apply as appropriate in other parts of the world - except maybe the US, where privacy/protection of personal data are not considered human rights, as far as I know. And no, the old argument "you should encrypt your data" does not apply. You are still violating my rights even though I'm so technologically dumb that I don't know how to use encryption (which, sadly, is apparently true for a very significant portion of human population). I would personally argue that even intercepting the SSID / WiFi network identifier and its associated data (is it encrypted or not, etc) would be such a violation, but I can easily accept that this is a much grayer area. 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 25 10:31:02 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 15:31:02 +0100 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: <20120523074349.DE4223CD@quill.bollow.ch> <20120523093930.158AB3CD@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message , at 15:06:26 on Fri, 25 May 2012, Andrea Glorioso writes >> Hence my suggestion that a mapping of this "global governance" system >> and the extent to which government/public authorities already have a >> role could be a useful step, not the least because it would allow to >> focus on those areas where the capability of government/public >> authorities to exercise their rights and obligations towards their >> citizens in a global cross-border environment is somewhat limited >> (privacy/personal data protection comes to mind). Furthermore, such a >> mapping could also help to identify which fora/processes could >> benefit from a broader involvement of more stakeholders. > >I think there are already too many maps like that. We should be moving >> onto the next stage by now. (And it doesn't matter if the map that's >> examined is less than perfect, such things will emerge and be corrected in >> the next stage). > >I'm aware of only two efforts, namely the APC project and the one by >Norbert Bollow & co. I'd be interested to know if there are more. DIPLO and ISOC both have such maps, and I've encountered several others. >And I'm not clear what is the "next stage" anyway. To quote your own words... "identify which fora/processes could benefit from a broader involvement of more stakeholders". And many other things I'm sure (such as better describing what each entity contributes to the ecosystem, rather than merely acknowledging its presence). -- 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 Fri May 25 10:37:49 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 10:37:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] Google in the New York Times: In-Reply-To: References: <00000137827eb66a-4408b473-95bc-41d6-ba83-17e4c3ff8059-000000@email.amazonses.com> <4FBF3749.5060107@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 4:10 PM, McTim wrote: >> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:39 AM, Guru गुरु wrote: >>> Mr. Vint Cerf and friends and colleagues should also read another recent >>> (May 22, 2012)  NYT article >>> >> >> >> >>> Here it is the permissionless innovation that is trampling human rights.... >> >> So if I am "war-driving" your home or office, I am violating your human rights? >> >> If so, pls. explain... > > If you in the EU and, besides the SSID of my WiFi network, you are > intercepting the content of my communication which is being broadcast openly.... (which is what Google > Streetview cars did - the jury is still open to what extent Google > manager were aware of this) you are most probably violating art. 7 > (Respect for private and family life) and art. 8 (Protection of > personal data) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European > Union, as well as a bunch of other secondary laws. > > Other laws regulating human rights may apply as appropriate in other > parts of the world - except maybe the US, where privacy/protection of > personal data are not considered human rights, as far as I know. > > And no, the old argument "you should encrypt your data" does not > apply. You are still violating my rights even though I'm so > technologically dumb that I don't know how to use encryption (which, > sadly, is apparently true for a very significant portion of human > population). Actually I run open-wifi wherever I go...even tho I do know how to encrypt my data (and some I do)...I'm happy to allow "permissionless" use of my Internet connectivity, even tho it may be verboten in some countries > > I would personally argue that even intercepting the SSID / WiFi > network identifier and its associated data (is it encrypted or not, > etc) would be such a violation, but I can easily accept that this is a > much grayer area. Seriously? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Fri May 25 11:04:56 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 11:04:56 -0400 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9F380652-5AAE-4A95-87FD-363C097EC382@ella.com> On 25 May 2012, at 01:35, michael gurstein wrote: > Governments have enough problems formulating and implementing policy so as to accomplish what they are attempting to accomplish without subjecting the public to half baked ideas as a matter of principle. What? Governments are forever subjecting us to half baked ideas and calling them policy/law. I really am pleased that now a few offices in a few governments are deciding to vet their ideas with the public first. I prefer that the first time I see a half baked idea it is not as a law or regualtion I have to obey. > > Quite honestly I can`t imagine how what you are suggesting would work in the real (non-technical) world, which is the reason I was so interested in how you envisaged this being actually practically implemented in an existing world of governmental or more specifically inter-governmental (or inter-governmental/multistakeholder) policy making. I think I was pretty clear about how it would work. I think we are back to the same old problem. You think that the social issues are so much more complex and that people have a a greater diversity of views in IG than they do in Internet technology. And this is just not the case as every technical issue also has its social components, its impact analysis and a myriad of ways in which it can be approached (tradeoffs) beyond the simple bits, bytes and framework definition language. A good, but curmudgeony, friend of mine has questioned (off-list) whether these constant recursions of the oversight versus self-governed discussion on the IGC aren't a waste of time. I obviously don't think they are. But whenever one of my friends has such an opinion, I search for the thread that will give me the clue to how we can both be right. And as so often happens, found the thread in Ostrom's Governing the Commons and her explanation of self-organized and self governed CPR (common pool resources): " But until a theoretical explanation - based on human choice - for self organized and self governed enterprises is fully developed and accepted, major policy decisions will continue to be undertaken with a presumption that individuals cannot organize themselves and always need to be organized by external authorities " (location 452 in the ebook) And this brings me back to what convinces people. While I was trained as philosopher, i came out as one of the absolute relativists - most all of the philosophers made sense given their perspective and situation within a cultural-political time and place and the only thing I could be sure was the relative truth of what they had to say, most any philosopher is convincing if you put yourself in their shoes or sandals. I ended up working as an engineer for most of career, because I found I could believe in what could be built*. And after 20+ years of working with structures like the IETF, I beleive I have pragmatically seen them work. I have also seen how the principles and structures that are used in one area successfully can also be used successfully, with variation, in other situations**. I have seen how IETF organizational tools can be used elsewhere to solve other organizational problems. For me that historical precedent is enough to tell me that these tools are worth considering and experimenting with in the current IG problem area. Other people, as Ostrom says, need a theoretical framework that convinces them. Some others need to see a complete and probable narrative for how it might work work out (i.e. the thought experiment style of investigation). So while I say lets just get to work, gather a number of adequately inclined stakeholders into an open WG with a charter from the IGF and start working on the problem, instead of jawboning about what might or might not be possible. This would not preclude others from searching out other solutions with other techniques, or theoreticians from coming up with the theory on what the perfect organizational structure for IG might be or thought experimentalists from thinking hard. BTW some the references for the US*** process on consumer rights can be found at: Policy stmt: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/privacy-final.pdf lots of stuff in there on how they are organizing it Moving forward by ntia: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2012/moving-forward-consumer-privacy-bill-rights The request for comments (closed): http://www.ntia.doc.gov/federal-register-notice/2012/multistakeholder-process-develop-consumer-data-privacy-codes-conduct avri * (So I guess I am a pragmatic absolute relativist) ** (ok so maybe I am a pragmatic absolute relativist who tends towards structuralism, for some definition of these terms) *** yeah, yeah, the US is ... and nothing they say is ... I know all of that and for some definition of ... have said it myself at time. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 25 11:36:08 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 08:36:08 -0700 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <9F380652-5AAE-4A95-87FD-363C097EC382@ella.com> Message-ID: <5E49FF7426694F2CAE9C616354003B5F@UserVAIO> Avri, To be clear... Your original position was ``I think that the IETF practice of taking three steps before deeming something a standard is part of their accountability story. First they code and prove that something works before making it a proposed standard, then they test in the real world on the real Internet and fix it and call it a draft standard, and only when it becomes fully functional and mainstream in the world does it become a full standard.`` That is that somehow a code (law?) is formulated (how, and by whom, and with what process, with what ``accountability``?); then it is ``proven that it works`` (proven to whom, by what criteria, by what process, by what ``accountability``); then it becomes a ``proposed standard`` (fledgling law?) which is ```tested in the real world``, (who does the ``testing``, who are the ``test`` subjects (do they get to have ``informed consent``), what are the criteria of the tests, how are the results of the ``tests`` evaluated and so on); ``and only when it becomes fully functional and mainstream in the world does it become a full standard`` (presumably you mean law here) (what is the process for having the law become ``fully functional`` and ``mainstream`` or rather what does a law look like that isn`t ``fully functional`` and ``mainstream``? I compeletely agree with the need for much more open and inclusive (and bottom up--``community informatics`` based :)`processes of policy and law making (BTW the folks who advocate strongest for ``open processes`` usually leave out the second part i.e. ``and inclusive``) but in the formulation you keep pressing forward in this discussion all I see is a quite bizarre set of likely scenarios in the real world. I agree with the formulation by Parminder in his address to the Working Group i.e. to separate out the technical and the non-technical aspects of policy making with an IETF process perhaps being the appropriate one for the technical--I have no opinion (or experience) on that... Also, I`ve suggested what I think is a very interesting way of approaching the non-technical areas (that which is emerging from the Open Government Partnership Process) and in earlier emails I`ve indicated some of the reasons why I think such an approach might be relevant here. I see no particular reason apart from proximity to go with an IETF approach and certainly I`ve seen no convincing arguments in that direction (apart from faith in its effectiveness in other, quite different spheres... I agree with the need for moving forward and pragmatically with approaches to policy making but one of the things I do know (also as a former student of Philosophy) where you end up generally is determined by where you start and so I think it is not unimportant that we be quite clear and somewhat dispassionate on the matters which we are now discussing. Best, M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 8:05 AM, To: IGC Subject: Re: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) On 25 May 2012, at 01:35, michael gurstein wrote: > Governments have enough problems formulating and implementing policy > so as to accomplish what they are attempting to accomplish without > subjecting the public to half baked ideas as a matter of principle. What? Governments are forever subjecting us to half baked ideas and calling them policy/law. I really am pleased that now a few offices in a few governments are deciding to vet their ideas with the public first. I prefer that the first time I see a half baked idea it is not as a law or regualtion I have to obey. > > Quite honestly I can`t imagine how what you are suggesting would work > in the real (non-technical) world, which is the reason I was so > interested in how you envisaged this being actually practically > implemented in an existing world of governmental or more specifically > inter-governmental (or inter-governmental/multistakeholder) policy > making. I think I was pretty clear about how it would work. I think we are back to the same old problem. You think that the social issues are so much more complex and that people have a a greater diversity of views in IG than they do in Internet technology. And this is just not the case as every technical issue also has its social components, its impact analysis and a myriad of ways in which it can be approached (tradeoffs) beyond the simple bits, bytes and framework definition language. A good, but curmudgeony, friend of mine has questioned (off-list) whether these constant recursions of the oversight versus self-governed discussion on the IGC aren't a waste of time. I obviously don't think they are. But whenever one of my friends has such an opinion, I search for the thread that will give me the clue to how we can both be right. And as so often happens, found the thread in Ostrom's Governing the Commons and her explanation of self-organized and self governed CPR (common pool resources): " But until a theoretical explanation - based on human choice - for self organized and self governed enterprises is fully developed and accepted, major policy decisions will continue to be undertaken with a presumption that individuals cannot organize themselves and always need to be organized by external authorities " (location 452 in the ebook) And this brings me back to what convinces people. While I was trained as philosopher, i came out as one of the absolute relativists - most all of the philosophers made sense given their perspective and situation within a cultural-political time and place and the only thing I could be sure was the relative truth of what they had to say, most any philosopher is convincing if you put yourself in their shoes or sandals. I ended up working as an engineer for most of career, because I found I could believe in what could be built*. And after 20+ years of working with structures like the IETF, I beleive I have pragmatically seen them work. I have also seen how the principles and structures that are used in one area successfully can also be used successfully, with variation, in other situations**. I have seen how IETF organizational tools can be used elsewhere to solve other organizational problems. For me that historical precedent is enough to tell me that these tools are worth considering and experimenting with in the current IG problem area. Other people, as Ostrom says, need a theoretical framework that convinces them. Some others need to see a complete and probable narrative for how it might work work out (i.e. the thought experiment style of investigation). So while I say lets just get to work, gather a number of adequately inclined stakeholders into an open WG with a charter from the IGF and start working on the problem, instead of jawboning about what might or might not be possible. This would not preclude others from searching out other solutions with other techniques, or theoreticians from coming up with the theory on what the perfect organizational structure for IG might be or thought experimentalists from thinking hard. BTW some the references for the US*** process on consumer rights can be found at: Policy stmt: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/privacy-final.pdf lots of stuff in there on how they are organizing it Moving forward by ntia: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2012/moving-forward-consumer-privacy-bill-right s The request for comments (closed): http://www.ntia.doc.gov/federal-register-notice/2012/multistakeholder-proces s-develop-consumer-data-privacy-codes-conduct avri * (So I guess I am a pragmatic absolute relativist) ** (ok so maybe I am a pragmatic absolute relativist who tends towards structuralism, for some definition of these terms) *** yeah, yeah, the US is ... and nothing they say is ... I know all of that and for some definition of ... have said it myself at time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 25 11:53:46 2012 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 11:53:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations: 2012 Appeals Team Message-ID: <4FBFAB0A.4070604@communisphere.com> 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. 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) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri May 25 12:14:39 2012 From: sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio_Alves_Jr=2E?=) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 13:14:39 -0300 Subject: [governance] Vint Cerf OpEd in the New York Times: "Keep the Internet Open" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Adam, The other day, someone mentioned that UAE represents its civil society before the ITU. I'm not so so arrogant to affirm I represent the whole Brazilian one there. I'm not sure whether I or my country would be penalized at the ITU if every document we have access to was made public here or some other forum. I have tried that before, and someone from this list said I should not do it. The ITU TIES account (http://www.itu.int/TIES/) is managed by focal points from each Member State, according to the country's own policy. Once you have it, you can access anything that is free (except for some publications that are sold even for governments). In Brazil, the policy is guaranteeing access to anyone who identifies herself as a "brasileira" at the application form ( http://www.itu.int/cgi-bin/htsh/mm/scripts/reg.screen1.html?_languageid=1). One does not need to be from gov or telecom sector. In this sense, CS should go after its own country focal points, and ask for clarification on their policy. This is not enough, I'm sure. I believe CS does not have to express itself through the voice of a telecom regulator. We know that and we try to, but It has been really difficult to find partners within the ITU in favor of opening the Union's processes. I cannot speak for the ITU membership, not even for Brazil, but if that helps clarifying our strategy, these are the touchstones to guide our participation at any ITU meeting or conference regarding Internet-related public policy issues: http://www.cgi.br/english/regulations/resolution2009-003.htm My opion: forget about WCIT, it is already decided. Nothing is going to chance. The focus should be WTPF-13, WSIS+10 and PP-14. In the between, CWG-Internet might shad some light on the oldie ITU. Abraços, Sérgio 2012/5/25 Adam Peake > Rumors are the main problem, when there's a lack of information lobbying > is of course effective. The ITU gave a briefing on WCIT during the WSIS > reviews in Geneva last week. ITU Secretariat emphasized they wanted to be > as open and transparent as possible. A couple of sector members asked if > they could share the information they had access to with their members, if > I remember correctly the answer from the Secretariat was ask the ITU > Council. Requests for information were stonewalled. The presentation did > not give any information about the substance of what was being discussed > (your email, a couple of sentences, is more informative), but somewhat > bizarrely it did mention summary documents of the regional preparatory > meetings and submissions to date had been prepared. At least two people > asked if those documents could be made public, and the answer was a > negative non-committal. What was the point of mentioning the existence of > the documents? > > Sérgio, governments that care about the ITRs might do well to make sure > information is made available, or the ITRs are likely to end up in the same > place as ACTA, SOPA, and PIPA, etc. Look at ACTA, treaties don't seem to be > quite as certain as they recently were. > > Of course the U.S. wants to make the ITRs as ineffectual as possible, and > the lack of information from others makes their lobbying all the more > effective. > > Best, > > Adam > > > > > WCIT has nothing to do with expanding ITU's mandate on the internet. >> Any proposal in this sense is stillborn. >> >> This OpEd adds zero to the ITRs debate. This is the kind of American >> strategy that is killing the conference. >> >> The real topics are international connectivity, accounting rules, >> finances. Brazilian proposals, for instance, are focused on increasing >> transparency and lowering international roaming rates (topics that many, >> including US, don't agree to negotiate either). >> >> The only thing I agree in the text is that civil society is kept unfairly >> out the debate. Were SC in, there wouldn't be so many nonsense rumors like >> this. >> >> Abraços, >> Sérgio Alves Jr >> >> Em 25/05/2012 09:16, "Adam Peake" <ajp@** >> glocom.ac.jp > escreveu: >> >> >> Hamadoun Toure, May 1 speaking about WCIT: >> "There are many important issues that may be addressed at WCIT, but I >> would like to focus on one broader issue in particular: how do we ensure >> sufficient investment in broadband network infrastructure?" >> and >> "And, the current ITRs are not properly equipped to deal with this >> challenge either, which raises the question of how all this new >> infrastructure will be paid for?" >> and >> "Everyone wants mobile broadband and the benefits it will bring. But few >> seem willing to pay for it -- including both the over-the-top players, who >> are generating vast new demand through their applications, and consumers, >> who have become accustomed to unlimited packages." >> < >> **>http://www.itu.int/en/osg/**speeches/Pages/2012-05-01.aspx >> **> >> >> >> Hello Google, enter Vint :-) >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> Dear friends and colleagues, >> >> I thought you would appreciate knowing that an OpEd by Vint Cerf as >> above titled was printed today in the New York Times (and I believe >> the IHT). >> >> > internet-open.html?_r=1 >> >http:/**/www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/**opinion/keep-the-internet-** >> open.html?_r=1 >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Nick Ashton-Hart >> Geneva Representative >> Computer & Communications Industry Association >> Tel: +41 (22) 362 02 38 >> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 >> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 >> >> >> Sent from my iPad, please excuse typos >> >> >> ______________________________**______________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> >governance at lists.**igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> >> >http://www.**igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> >> >http://lists.**igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http**://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: >> >http://translate.**google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> >> ______________________________**______________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> >governance at lists.**igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> >> >http://www.**igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> >> >http://lists.**igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http**://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: >> >http://translate.**google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ______________________________**______________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 25 12:24:18 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 12:24:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations: 2012 Appeals Team In-Reply-To: <4FBFAB0A.4070604@communisphere.com> References: <4FBFAB0A.4070604@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <5A0B7DB3-B846-4963-865E-9FA1D9252B78@ella.com> Hi, I have been on the Appeals team twice (am fortunately not qualified for this round). And though we have never been called on, something for which I am glad, I think we have provided a service. I think the structure of a group like this needs to have an appeals mechanism, and it needs to be in internal appeals mechanism. I suggest the role for anyone who has a clear understanding of the charter and who is willing to read most of the message on the list. I also think it is a good vantage point from which to participate in this list. I recommend the role highly and I hope that those who are chosen continue to serve without needing to rule on any issues. Please nominate the people you respect. cheers avri On 25 May 2012, at 11:53, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > 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. > 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) > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 25 12:38:05 2012 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 12:38:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations: 2012 Appeals Team - CORRECTED In-Reply-To: <4FBFAB0A.4070604@communisphere.com> References: <4FBFAB0A.4070604@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <4FBFB56D.8010202@communisphere.com> Sorry - I'm on my way out for a short vacation and rushed things a bit, saying "Fellow Members of the IG*F*" instead of IG*C*. -------- Corrected Message -------- Fellow Members of the IGC, 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. 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) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 26 05:56:06 2012 From: vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk (vincent solomon) Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 10:56:06 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] Message-ID: <1338026166.6303.androidMobile@web29004.mail.ird.yahoo.com>

http://cis.citytech.cuny.edu/newsjournal/23SimonWhite/

-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat May 26 19:13:25 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 02:13:25 +0300 Subject: [governance] Google Lifts The Veil On Copyright Takedowns: Reveals Detailed Data On Who Requests Link Removals Message-ID: <4FC16395.5070302@gmail.com> Nice one from Google... http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120523/17520119054/google-lifts-veil-copyright-takedowns-reveals-detailed-data-who-requests-link-removals.shtml Google Lifts The Veil On Copyright Takedowns: Reveals Detailed Data On Who Requests Link Removals from the /data-data-data/ dept As part of Google's ongoing Transparency Report efforts, today the company has released a whole new section on copyright takedowns , containing a huge amount of information on the many takedown requests Google receives . It focuses specifically on the takedowns for /search/ links, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them add other areas later. As you may recall, we were among those who were victimized by a bogus takedown, and a key post about SOPA that we had written was missing from Google search for about a month. The new transparency platform lets you dig in and see quite a few details about exactly /who/ is issuing takedowns and what they're removing from search. It's using data since last July (when Google set up an organized web-form, so the data is consistent). It may be a bit surprising, but at the top of the list? *Microsoft*, who has apparently taken down over *2.5 million URLs* from Google's search results. Most of the the others in the top 10 aren't too surprising. There's NBC Universal at number two. The RIAA at number three (representing all its member companies). BPI at number five. Universal Music at number seven. Sony Music at number eight. Warner Music doesn't clock in until number 12. There's also data on which sites are most frequently /targeted/, which (not surprisingly) lists out a bunch of torrent search sites and file lockers and such. Don't be surprised to see some try to claim that this is an accurate list of "rogue sites" that Google should block entirely. However, if you look carefully at the data, Google also highlights the /percentage/ of pages on those sites for which they've received takedowns, and the vast majority of them are well below 1%. In other words, no one has complained about well over 99% of the pages on these sites. It seems pretty drastic to suggest that these sites are obviously nothing but evil, when so many of their pages don't seem to receive any complaints at all. Perhaps more important, however, is that Google is also revealing the incredible /deluge/ of takedown requests it receives in search, each of which it tries to check to make sure they're legitimate. As it stands now, Google is processing /over 250,000 such requests per week/ -- which is more than they got /in the entire year/ of 2009. For all of 2011, Google receive 3.3 million copyright takedowns for search... and here we are in just May of 2012, and they're already processing over 1.2 million /per month/. And while we've heard reports from the usual Google haters that Google is slow to respond to takedowns, it says that its average turnaround time last week was 11 hours. Think about that for a second. It's reviewing each one of these takedowns, getting 250,000 per week... and can still process them in less than 12 hours. That's pretty impressive. It's also interesting to hear that these reviews catch some pretty flagrant bogus takedown requests: /At the same time, we try to catch erroneous or abusive removal requests. For example, we recently rejected two requests from an organization representing a major entertainment company, asking us to remove a search result that linked to a major newspaper's review of a TV show. The requests mistakenly claimed copyright violations of the show, even though there was no infringing content. We've also seen baseless copyright removal requests being used for anticompetitive purposes, or to remove content unfavorable to a particular person or company from our search results. / It's good to see Google catch these, as plenty of other sites would automatically take such content down, just to avoid any question of liability. Of course, it doesn't catch them all. Some get through -- as we ourselves discovered a few months ago. That led us to wonder if this tool could drill down and find the details about takedowns targeting Techdirt, but unfortunately at the moment there doesn't seem to be any way to actually /search/ the list. Hopefully that will change soon. *Update:* The search function is not currently advertised anywhere, but you can access it by using a URL: /http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/domains/*yourdomain.com*// Of course, this is also a good reminder -- as they note in the Google blog post -- that if you run a website, you should absolutely sign up to use Google's Webmaster tools , which will quickly inform you when one of your URLs are targeted by such a takedown, allowing you to easily file a counternotice. Either way, this is really fascinating data and an interesting platform, shedding some significant light on just how often copyright holders are trying to take links out of Google, who's doing it and who they're targeting. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ca8BN.png Type: image/png Size: 127068 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: fGWWb.png Type: image/png Size: 130844 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: TdAvX.png Type: image/png Size: 121213 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Sun May 27 07:45:51 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 13:45:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to statements and recordings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FC213EF.2070102@apc.org> Dear IGC list Attached is the resolution related to WSIS follow-up adopted during last week's meeting of the CSTD. The resolution is rather minimalist, and represents the fact that there was very little consensus among CSTD members on: - enhanced cooperation in internet governance - WSIS + 10 On the former there is not much more to be said. What is quite sad is that several countries made a huge fuss about the report from the Chair (a very patient and able Mr. de la Pena, vice minister of ICTs from the Philippines) on the meeting of 18 May in Geneva. His report was a very short summary of all the views presented. I certainly felt it was accurate and easy to read. It did not go into detail.. but that was not the point of a chair's report. Particularly not when all the statements are available on the CSTD website, as well as a transcript. But, as this report is forwarded to the GA it is political and subject for negotations. On WSIS +10 it is disappointing that a very good panel discussion on this process during the CSTD (that included inputs from UNESCO, ITU, and others) is not reflected. E.g. David Souter made the point that assessing WSIS +10 outcomes and progress should not just focus on statistics and ICT access measures. It should focus on human development, and on the broader outcomes of the massive ICT/information society related changes of the last 10 years. He also pointed out that the assessment should not just be left to governments, but that business and civil society should be encouraged to assess changes/impacts from their perspective. Good comments from the floor, e.g. one from Brazil saying we should consider the impact of the Summit itself, also did not make it to the resolution. The differences of views on how WSIS +10 should take place is relevant for civil society. Parminder and I talked about this a bit in Geneva, and we don't quite agree. Some governments, Iran, South Africa, Saudi Arabia among others feel very strongly that we need another Summit. They said that only governments can assess progress on achieving outcomes. They believe there should be a multi-stakeholder prep process, but that the final assessment should be negotiated between States. Parminder shares the view that there should be another Summit, but his reasons are more nuanced and complex than that of the governments. He can explain them himself. My view is that another Summit is not a good idea. While I like the idea of civil society having a platform to reconvene, I doubt that the resources needed for a fully participative and regionally distributed preparatory process will be available. I am also not convinced that even if available, it would be the best way of spending money and time. But my main concern is that I think it will result in negotiated outcomes which will not be in the public interest. I have been looking at the Geneva Declaration and the Tunis Agenda a lot recently. They are messy documents, with view very firmly stated goals. But they are full of good ideas, openness to doing things in a different way. People-centred development and human rights are concepts scattered throughout. I doubt very, very much that in a new text we would get references to 'open source and licensing'. Take this text for example: " 27. Access to information and knowledge can be promoted by increasing awareness among all stakeholders of the possibilities offered by different software models, including proprietary, open-source and free software, in order to increase competition, access by users, diversity of choice, and to enable all users to develop solutions which best meet their requirements. Affordable access to software should be considered as an important component of a truly inclusive Information Society. 28. We strive to promote universal access with equal opportunities for all to scientific knowledge and the creation and dissemination of scientific and technical information, including open access initiatives for scientific publishing." If this was negotiated today, it would look different, or more likely, be negotiated into oblivion as governments bargained with one another over security, oversight over ICANN and IANA, commercial interests of the companies they are close to. Rather than another Summit I think that as civil society we should focus our efforts on identifying key issues that can be addressed and forming partnerships that can achieve this in as short a space of time as possible. For example, internationalisation of ICANN and IANA that gives governments equal participation without giving any single one of them control. And, another example is for us to use existing international and regional bodies mandated to protect freedom of expression and privacy rights to challenge governments and companies who violate these rights. The concerns expressed on this list about monopolies/distortion of power and companies having the influence to shape policies in their own interests also represent struggles we can take on now. We don't need new intergovernmental processes to do so. The examples of SOPA and ACTA being sent back to the drawing board illustrate this clearly. We spend time arguing about new UN bodies or not when we should be spending this time collaborating across countries, regions and policy spaces to achieve greater 'net neutrality' and more consumer choice and rights protection. This is all work that can be done NOW. Every time I listen to governments arguing with one another about the IGF, EC, etc. I am more convinced that intergovernmental oversight of internet public policy at this moment in time will do more harm than good. If - as someone from the academic community suggested to me last week - in the longer term there will have to be an international agreement of some kind (a convention, or treaty) on internet governance, the more precedent we have been able to set in terms of protecting freedom of expression and association on the internet, and the broader the public interest, the better. It will make it more likely that that agreement will be based on rights that have been won than on lowest common denominator interests among sparring governments. Anriette -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Adopted Resolution on WSIS 26May.doc Type: application/msword Size: 52736 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 May 27 10:02:56 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 10:02:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to statements and recordings In-Reply-To: <4FC213EF.2070102@apc.org> References: <4FC213EF.2070102@apc.org> Message-ID: <8CF0A288D496BC8-B24-477CD@webmail-m072.sysops.aol.com> Bravo, Anriette. I heartily agree that another summit now would at best be a pointless waste of time, energy and resources and at worst -- given the present global lineup and climate -- harmful for the future of an unfettered cyberspace. Bests, Rony Koven -----Original Message----- From: Anriette Esterhuysen To: governance Sent: Sun, May 27, 2012 1:46 pm Subject: [governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to statements and recordings Dear IGC list Attached is the resolution related to WSIS follow-up adopted during last week's meeting of the CSTD. The resolution is rather minimalist, and represents the fact that there was very little consensus among CSTD members on: - enhanced cooperation in internet governance - WSIS + 10 On the former there is not much more to be said. What is quite sad is that several countries made a huge fuss about the report from the Chair (a very patient and able Mr. de la Pena, vice minister of ICTs from the Philippines) on the meeting of 18 May in Geneva. His report was a very short summary of all the views presented. I certainly felt it was accurate and easy to read. It did not go into detail.. but that was not the point of a chair's report. Particularly not when all the statements are available on the CSTD website, as well as a transcript. But, as this report is forwarded to the GA it is political and subject for negotations. On WSIS +10 it is disappointing that a very good panel discussion on this process during the CSTD (that included inputs from UNESCO, ITU, and others) is not reflected. E.g. David Souter made the point that assessing WSIS +10 outcomes and progress should not just focus on statistics and ICT access measures. It should focus on human development, and on the broader outcomes of the massive ICT/information society related changes of the last 10 years. He also pointed out that the assessment should not just be left to governments, but that business and civil society should be encouraged to assess changes/impacts from their perspective. Good comments from the floor, e.g. one from Brazil saying we should consider the impact of the Summit itself, also did not make it to the resolution. The differences of views on how WSIS +10 should take place is relevant for civil society. Parminder and I talked about this a bit in Geneva, and we don't quite agree. Some governments, Iran, South Africa, Saudi Arabia among others feel very strongly that we need another Summit. They said that only governments can assess progress on achieving outcomes. They believe there should be a multi-stakeholder prep process, but that the final assessment should be negotiated between States. Parminder shares the view that there should be another Summit, but his reasons are more nuanced and complex than that of the governments. He can explain them himself. My view is that another Summit is not a good idea. While I like the idea of civil society having a platform to reconvene, I doubt that the resources needed for a fully participative and regionally distributed preparatory process will be available. I am also not convinced that even if available, it would be the best way of spending money and time. But my main concern is that I think it will result in negotiated outcomes which will not be in the public interest. I have been looking at the Geneva Declaration and the Tunis Agenda a lot recently. They are messy documents, with view very firmly stated goals. But they are full of good ideas, openness to doing things in a different way. People-centred development and human rights are concepts scattered throughout. I doubt very, very much that in a new text we would get references to 'open source and licensing'. Take this text for example: " 27. Access to information and knowledge can be promoted by increasing awareness among all stakeholders of the possibilities offered by different software models, including proprietary, open-source and free software, in order to increase competition, access by users, diversity of choice, and to enable all users to develop solutions which best meet their requirements. Affordable access to software should be considered as an important component of a truly inclusive Information Society. 28. We strive to promote universal access with equal opportunities for all to scientific knowledge and the creation and dissemination of scientific and technical information, including open access initiatives for scientific publishing." If this was negotiated today, it would look different, or more likely, be negotiated into oblivion as governments bargained with one another over security, oversight over ICANN and IANA, commercial interests of the companies they are close to. Rather than another Summit I think that as civil society we should focus our efforts on identifying key issues that can be addressed and forming partnerships that can achieve this in as short a space of time as possible. For example, internationalisation of ICANN and IANA that gives governments equal participation without giving any single one of them control. And, another example is for us to use existing international and regional bodies mandated to protect freedom of expression and privacy rights to challenge governments and companies who violate these rights. The concerns expressed on this list about monopolies/distortion of power and companies having the influence to shape policies in their own interests also represent struggles we can take on now. We don't need new intergovernmental processes to do so. The examples of SOPA and ACTA being sent back to the drawing board illustrate this clearly. We spend time arguing about new UN bodies or not when we should be spending this time collaborating across countries, regions and policy spaces to achieve greater 'net neutrality' and more consumer choice and rights protection. This is all work that can be done NOW. Every time I listen to governments arguing with one another about the IGF, EC, etc. I am more convinced that intergovernmental oversight of internet public policy at this moment in time will do more harm than good. If - as someone from the academic community suggested to me last week - in the longer term there will have to be an international agreement of some kind (a convention, or treaty) on internet governance, the more precedent we have been able to set in terms of protecting freedom of expression and association on the internet, and the broader the public interest, the better. It will make it more likely that that agreement will be based on rights that have been won than on lowest common denominator interests among sparring governments. Anriette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 27 10:41:56 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 10:41:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to statements and recordings In-Reply-To: <4FC213EF.2070102@apc.org> References: <4FC213EF.2070102@apc.org> Message-ID: <1939A97C-DCC4-442C-9103-45B9D752EF35@acm.org> Hi, Thanks for the update. I must say I am relieved in many way. On the Chairman's paper, did they make him change i, or does it get to go in the balanced way it was written? I was impressed by its even handedness. I wonder who actually penned the words. I think you offer a good analysis and approach. I think you are right, a new summit would only make things worse. I think the only reason we argue about government oversight or not, is because that remains the sword above our heads, and probably will for therest of the year. I agree that cooperation over the actual substance would be preferable. As for Enhanced Cooperation (EC), I see real opportunity for IGF12 to pick this up, at least to the extent of having a significant IGF session on it in Baku. I know it is not something the MAG talked about, they probably thought they couldn't. But now there is an opportunity and a void. Let IGF, who has been working on the topic for a while, just not calling it that, take charge and really start to explore how IGF mechanisms to increase EC. BTW, I don't mean another CSTD run session, though I guess I am grateful they were as open as they were, but an IGF session. There are still 5 months until Baku, and this could be a useful discussion for people to have: Given the void in EC leadership and the words of the Tunis Agenda, what can the IGF do to encourage and recommend further Enhanced Cooperation. Who know, perhaps we can define a few empirical projects (with pre-defined follow-up metrics) to see if specific modalities can actually assist in furthering cooperation. avri On 27 May 2012, at 07:45, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear IGC list > > Attached is the resolution related to WSIS follow-up adopted during last > week's meeting of the CSTD. > > The resolution is rather minimalist, and represents the fact that there > was very little consensus among CSTD members on: > > - enhanced cooperation in internet governance > - WSIS + 10 > > On the former there is not much more to be said. What is quite sad is > that several countries made a huge fuss about the report from the Chair > (a very patient and able Mr. de la Pena, vice minister of ICTs from the > Philippines) on the meeting of 18 May in Geneva. His report was a very > short summary of all the views presented. I certainly felt it was > accurate and easy to read. It did not go into detail.. but that was not > the point of a chair's report. Particularly not when all the statements > are available on the CSTD website, as well as a transcript. > > But, as this report is forwarded to the GA it is political and subject > for negotations. > > On WSIS +10 it is disappointing that a very good panel discussion on > this process during the CSTD (that included inputs from UNESCO, ITU, and > others) is not reflected. E.g. David Souter made the point that > assessing WSIS +10 outcomes and progress should not just focus on > statistics and ICT access measures. It should focus on human > development, and on the broader outcomes of the massive ICT/information > society related changes of the last 10 years. He also pointed out that > the assessment should not just be left to governments, but that business > and civil society should be encouraged to assess changes/impacts from > their perspective. > > Good comments from the floor, e.g. one from Brazil saying we should > consider the impact of the Summit itself, also did not make it to the > resolution. > > The differences of views on how WSIS +10 should take place is relevant > for civil society. Parminder and I talked about this a bit in Geneva, > and we don't quite agree. > > Some governments, Iran, South Africa, Saudi Arabia among others feel > very strongly that we need another Summit. They said that only > governments can assess progress on achieving outcomes. They believe > there should be a multi-stakeholder prep process, but that the final > assessment should be negotiated between States. > > Parminder shares the view that there should be another Summit, but his > reasons are more nuanced and complex than that of the governments. He > can explain them himself. > > My view is that another Summit is not a good idea. While I like the > idea of civil society having a platform to reconvene, I doubt that the > resources needed for a fully participative and regionally distributed > preparatory process will be available. > > I am also not convinced that even if available, it would be the best way > of spending money and time. > > But my main concern is that I think it will result in negotiated > outcomes which will not be in the public interest. > > I have been looking at the Geneva Declaration and the Tunis Agenda a lot > recently. They are messy documents, with view very firmly stated goals. > But they are full of good ideas, openness to doing things in a different > way. People-centred development and human rights are concepts scattered > throughout. > > I doubt very, very much that in a new text we would get references to > 'open source and licensing'. Take this text for example: > > " 27. Access to information and knowledge can be promoted by increasing > awareness among all stakeholders of the possibilities offered by > different software models, including proprietary, open-source and free > software, in order to increase competition, access by users, diversity > of choice, and to enable all users to develop solutions which best meet > their requirements. Affordable access to software should be considered > as an important component of a truly inclusive Information Society. > > 28. We strive to promote universal access with equal opportunities for > all to scientific knowledge and the creation and dissemination of > scientific and technical information, including open access initiatives > for scientific publishing." > > If this was negotiated today, it would look different, or more likely, > be negotiated into oblivion as governments bargained with one another > over security, oversight over ICANN and IANA, commercial interests of > the companies they are close to. > > Rather than another Summit I think that as civil society we should focus > our efforts on identifying key issues that can be addressed and forming > partnerships that can achieve this in as short a space of time as > possible. For example, internationalisation of ICANN and IANA that gives > governments equal participation without giving any single one of them > control. And, another example is for us to use existing international > and regional bodies mandated to protect freedom of expression and > privacy rights to challenge governments and companies who violate these > rights. > > The concerns expressed on this list about monopolies/distortion of power > and companies having the influence to shape policies in their own > interests also represent struggles we can take on now. We don't need new > intergovernmental processes to do so. The examples of SOPA and ACTA > being sent back to the drawing board illustrate this clearly. > > We spend time arguing about new UN bodies or not when we should be > spending this time collaborating across countries, regions and policy > spaces to achieve greater 'net neutrality' and more consumer choice and > rights protection. > > This is all work that can be done NOW. > > Every time I listen to governments arguing with one another about the > IGF, EC, etc. I am more convinced that intergovernmental oversight of > internet public policy at this moment in time will do more harm than good. > > If - as someone from the academic community suggested to me last week - > in the longer term there will have to be an international agreement of > some kind (a convention, or treaty) on internet governance, the more > precedent we have been able to set in terms of protecting freedom of > expression and association on the internet, and the broader the public > interest, the better. It will make it more likely that that agreement > will be based on rights that have been won than on lowest common > denominator interests among sparring governments. > > Anriette > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Sun May 27 11:22:55 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 17:22:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to statements and recordings In-Reply-To: <1939A97C-DCC4-442C-9103-45B9D752EF35@acm.org> References: <4FC213EF.2070102@apc.org> <1939A97C-DCC4-442C-9103-45B9D752EF35@acm.org> Message-ID: <4FC246CF.6000808@apc.org> Dear Avri We definitely must use the IGF and APC is already thinking of planning a pre-event on this. Not finalised.. and we are talking to various partners.. but I feel strongly we must facilitate substantive dialogue. The IGF was set up to facilitate such discussions. Some people tried to prevent this from happening. I think they now realise that a) they might have been wrong and/or b) further avoidance is not in the interest of the IGF or of multi-stakeholder participation in IG. Anriette On 27/05/2012 16:41, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for the update. I must say I am relieved in many way. On the Chairman's paper, did they make him change i, or does it get to go in the balanced way it was written? I was impressed by its even handedness. I wonder who actually penned the words. > > I think you offer a good analysis and approach. I think you are right, a new summit would only make things worse. > > I think the only reason we argue about government oversight or not, is because that remains the sword above our heads, and probably will for therest of the year. I agree that cooperation over the actual substance would be preferable. > > As for Enhanced Cooperation (EC), I see real opportunity for IGF12 to pick this up, at least to the extent of having a significant IGF session on it in Baku. I know it is not something the MAG talked about, they probably thought they couldn't. But now there is an opportunity and a void. Let IGF, who has been working on the topic for a while, just not calling it that, take charge and really start to explore how IGF mechanisms to increase EC. BTW, I don't mean another CSTD run session, though I guess I am grateful they were as open as they were, but an IGF session. There are still 5 months until Baku, and this could be a useful discussion for people to have: Given the void in EC leadership and the words of the Tunis Agenda, what can the IGF do to encourage and recommend further Enhanced Cooperation. Who know, perhaps we can define a few empirical projects (with pre-defined follow-up metrics) to see if specific modalities can actually assist in furthering cooperation. > > avri > > On 27 May 2012, at 07:45, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> Dear IGC list >> >> Attached is the resolution related to WSIS follow-up adopted during last >> week's meeting of the CSTD. >> >> The resolution is rather minimalist, and represents the fact that there >> was very little consensus among CSTD members on: >> >> - enhanced cooperation in internet governance >> - WSIS + 10 >> >> On the former there is not much more to be said. What is quite sad is >> that several countries made a huge fuss about the report from the Chair >> (a very patient and able Mr. de la Pena, vice minister of ICTs from the >> Philippines) on the meeting of 18 May in Geneva. His report was a very >> short summary of all the views presented. I certainly felt it was >> accurate and easy to read. It did not go into detail.. but that was not >> the point of a chair's report. Particularly not when all the statements >> are available on the CSTD website, as well as a transcript. >> >> But, as this report is forwarded to the GA it is political and subject >> for negotations. >> >> On WSIS +10 it is disappointing that a very good panel discussion on >> this process during the CSTD (that included inputs from UNESCO, ITU, and >> others) is not reflected. E.g. David Souter made the point that >> assessing WSIS +10 outcomes and progress should not just focus on >> statistics and ICT access measures. It should focus on human >> development, and on the broader outcomes of the massive ICT/information >> society related changes of the last 10 years. He also pointed out that >> the assessment should not just be left to governments, but that business >> and civil society should be encouraged to assess changes/impacts from >> their perspective. >> >> Good comments from the floor, e.g. one from Brazil saying we should >> consider the impact of the Summit itself, also did not make it to the >> resolution. >> >> The differences of views on how WSIS +10 should take place is relevant >> for civil society. Parminder and I talked about this a bit in Geneva, >> and we don't quite agree. >> >> Some governments, Iran, South Africa, Saudi Arabia among others feel >> very strongly that we need another Summit. They said that only >> governments can assess progress on achieving outcomes. They believe >> there should be a multi-stakeholder prep process, but that the final >> assessment should be negotiated between States. >> >> Parminder shares the view that there should be another Summit, but his >> reasons are more nuanced and complex than that of the governments. He >> can explain them himself. >> >> My view is that another Summit is not a good idea. While I like the >> idea of civil society having a platform to reconvene, I doubt that the >> resources needed for a fully participative and regionally distributed >> preparatory process will be available. >> >> I am also not convinced that even if available, it would be the best way >> of spending money and time. >> >> But my main concern is that I think it will result in negotiated >> outcomes which will not be in the public interest. >> >> I have been looking at the Geneva Declaration and the Tunis Agenda a lot >> recently. They are messy documents, with view very firmly stated goals. >> But they are full of good ideas, openness to doing things in a different >> way. People-centred development and human rights are concepts scattered >> throughout. >> >> I doubt very, very much that in a new text we would get references to >> 'open source and licensing'. Take this text for example: >> >> " 27. Access to information and knowledge can be promoted by increasing >> awareness among all stakeholders of the possibilities offered by >> different software models, including proprietary, open-source and free >> software, in order to increase competition, access by users, diversity >> of choice, and to enable all users to develop solutions which best meet >> their requirements. Affordable access to software should be considered >> as an important component of a truly inclusive Information Society. >> >> 28. We strive to promote universal access with equal opportunities for >> all to scientific knowledge and the creation and dissemination of >> scientific and technical information, including open access initiatives >> for scientific publishing." >> >> If this was negotiated today, it would look different, or more likely, >> be negotiated into oblivion as governments bargained with one another >> over security, oversight over ICANN and IANA, commercial interests of >> the companies they are close to. >> >> Rather than another Summit I think that as civil society we should focus >> our efforts on identifying key issues that can be addressed and forming >> partnerships that can achieve this in as short a space of time as >> possible. For example, internationalisation of ICANN and IANA that gives >> governments equal participation without giving any single one of them >> control. And, another example is for us to use existing international >> and regional bodies mandated to protect freedom of expression and >> privacy rights to challenge governments and companies who violate these >> rights. >> >> The concerns expressed on this list about monopolies/distortion of power >> and companies having the influence to shape policies in their own >> interests also represent struggles we can take on now. We don't need new >> intergovernmental processes to do so. The examples of SOPA and ACTA >> being sent back to the drawing board illustrate this clearly. >> >> We spend time arguing about new UN bodies or not when we should be >> spending this time collaborating across countries, regions and policy >> spaces to achieve greater 'net neutrality' and more consumer choice and >> rights protection. >> >> This is all work that can be done NOW. >> >> Every time I listen to governments arguing with one another about the >> IGF, EC, etc. I am more convinced that intergovernmental oversight of >> internet public policy at this moment in time will do more harm than good. >> >> If - as someone from the academic community suggested to me last week - >> in the longer term there will have to be an international agreement of >> some kind (a convention, or treaty) on internet governance, the more >> precedent we have been able to set in terms of protecting freedom of >> expression and association on the internet, and the broader the public >> interest, the better. It will make it more likely that that agreement >> will be based on rights that have been won than on lowest common >> denominator interests among sparring governments. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 27 11:34:37 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 21:04:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to statements and recordings In-Reply-To: <8CF0A288D496BC8-B24-477CD@webmail-m072.sysops.aol.com> References: <4FC213EF.2070102@apc.org> <8CF0A288D496BC8-B24-477CD@webmail-m072.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4FC2498D.20405@itforchange.net> On Sunday 27 May 2012 07:32 PM, Koven Ronald wrote: > Bravo, Anriette. > > I heartily agree that another summit now would at best be a pointless > waste of time, energy and resources and at worst At least for the most powerful, this is for the same reason as UNCTAD was sought, last month, to be disallowed to continue with some of its most important mandates, like analysing and giving recommendations regarding the global financial system. This was becuase the powerful wanted such key matter of global governance to be left to the forums controlled by them - IMF, G8 and such. The same powerful forces want Internet policies to continue to be developed unilaterally, or at clubs of rich countries like the OECD, and therefore the resistance to a WSIS like summit. Think where would we be without the original WSIS - the IGF, even the IGC, all the present global discussions ....... > -- given the present global lineup and climate -- harmful for the > future of an unfettered cyberspace. Yes, we want an unfettered cyberspace (based btw on human rights discussed and decided at the UN). At the same time, we also want a fair and just Internet, which helps support global economic, social, cultural and political flows towards greater democracy, equity and social justice. All of these requires greater political work at the global level. Wanting to globalize economic-ally and socially, without doing so politically, is either the vain fantasy of an anarchist, or the design of the more powerful for an unfettered run on global resources. parminder > > Bests, Rony Koven > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Anriette Esterhuysen > To: governance > Sent: Sun, May 27, 2012 1:46 pm > Subject: [governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to > statements and recordings > > Dear IGC list > > Attached is the resolution related to WSIS follow-up adopted during last > week's meeting of the CSTD. > > The resolution is rather minimalist, and represents the fact that there > was very little consensus among CSTD members on: > > - enhanced cooperation in internet governance > - WSIS + 10 > > On the former there is not much more to be said. What is quite sad is > that several countries made a huge fuss about the report from the Chair > (a very patient and able Mr. de la Pena, vice minister of ICTs from the > Philippines) on the meeting of 18 May in Geneva. His report was a very > short summary of all the views presented. I certainly felt it was > accurate and easy to read. It did not go into detail.. but that was not > the point of a chair's report. Particularly not when all the statements > are available on the CSTD website, as well as a transcript. > > But, as this report is forwarded to the GA it is political and subject > for negotations. > > On WSIS +10 it is disappointing that a very good panel discussion on > this process during the CSTD (that included inputs from UNESCO, ITU, and > others) is not reflected. E.g. David Souter made the point that > assessing WSIS +10 outcomes and progress should not just focus on > statistics and ICT access measures. It should focus on human > development, and on the broader outcomes of the massive ICT/information > society related changes of the last 10 years. He also pointed out that > the assessment should not just be left to governments, but that business > and civil society should be encouraged to assess changes/impacts from > their perspective. > > Good comments from the floor, e.g. one from Brazil saying we should > consider the impact of the Summit itself, also did not make it to the > resolution. > > The differences of views on how WSIS +10 should take place is relevant > for civil society. Parminder and I talked about this a bit in Geneva, > and we don't quite agree. > > Some governments, Iran, South Africa, Saudi Arabia among others feel > very strongly that we need another Summit. They said that only > governments can assess progress on achieving outcomes. They believe > there should be a multi-stakeholder prep process, but that the final > assessment should be negotiated between States. > > Parminder shares the view that there should be another Summit, but his > reasons are more nuanced and complex than that of the governments. He > can explain them himself. > > My view is that another Summit is not a good idea. While I like the > idea of civil society having a platform to reconvene, I doubt that the > resources needed for a fully participative and regionally distributed > preparatory process will be available. > > I am also not convinced that even if available, it would be the best way > of spending money and time. > > But my main concern is that I think it will result in negotiated > outcomes which will not be in the public interest. > > I have been looking at the Geneva Declaration and the Tunis Agenda a lot > recently. They are messy documents, with view very firmly stated goals. > But they are full of good ideas, openness to doing things in a different > way. People-centred development and human rights are concepts scattered > throughout. > > I doubt very, very much that in a new text we would get references to > 'open source and licensing'. Take this text for example: > > " 27. Access to information and knowledge can be promoted by increasing > awareness among all stakeholders of the possibilities offered by > different software models, including proprietary, open-source and free > software, in order to increase competition, access by users, diversity > of choice, and to enable all users to develop solutions which best meet > their requirements. Affordable access to software should be considered > as an important component of a truly inclusive Information Society. > > 28. We strive to promote universal access with equal opportunities for > all to scientific knowledge and the creation and dissemination of > scientific and technical information, including open access initiatives > for scientific publishing." > > If this was negotiated today, it would look different, or more likely, > be negotiated into oblivion as governments bargained with one another > over security, oversight over ICANN and IANA, commercial interests of > the companies they are close to. > > Rather than another Summit I think that as civil society we should focus > our efforts on identifying key issues that can be addressed and forming > partnerships that can achieve this in as short a space of time as > possible. For example, internationalisation of ICANN and IANA that gives > governments equal participation without giving any single one of them > control. And, another example is for us to use existing international > and regional bodies mandated to protect freedom of expression and > privacy rights to challenge governments and companies who violate these > rights. > > The concerns expressed on this list about monopolies/distortion of power > and companies having the influence to shape policies in their own > interests also represent struggles we can take on now. We don't need new > intergovernmental processes to do so. The examples of SOPA and ACTA > being sent back to the drawing board illustrate this clearly. > > We spend time arguing about new UN bodies or not when we should be > spending this time collaborating across countries, regions and policy > spaces to achieve greater 'net neutrality' and more consumer choice and > rights protection. > > This is all work that can be done NOW. > > Every time I listen to governments arguing with one another about the > IGF, EC, etc. I am more convinced that intergovernmental oversight of > internet public policy at this moment in time will do more harm than good. > > If - as someone from the academic community suggested to me last week - > in the longer term there will have to be an international agreement of > some kind (a convention, or treaty) on internet governance, the more > precedent we have been able to set in terms of protecting freedom of > expression and association on the internet, and the broader the public > interest, the better. It will make it more likely that that agreement > will be based on rights that have been won than on lowest common > denominator interests among sparring governments. > > Anriette > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sun May 27 11:37:30 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 11:37:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to statements and recordings In-Reply-To: <4FC246CF.6000808@apc.org> References: <4FC213EF.2070102@apc.org> <1939A97C-DCC4-442C-9103-45B9D752EF35@acm.org> <4FC246CF.6000808@apc.org> Message-ID: <3991E07F-A12C-41D1-8D8A-99404E28435E@ella.com> Hi, This is good news. Perhaps not yet IGF, but at least coming into proximity to IGF - a half step forward is a good thing when we are unable to take a full step forward. The parallel tracks the GA wanted come closer. I wonder is this something that the IGC would be able and willing to support? avri On 27 May 2012, at 11:22, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Avri > > We definitely must use the IGF and APC is already thinking of planning a > pre-event on this. Not finalised.. and we are talking to various > partners.. but I feel strongly we must facilitate substantive dialogue. > > The IGF was set up to facilitate such discussions. Some people tried to > prevent this from happening. I think they now realise that a) they might > have been wrong and/or b) further avoidance is not in the interest of > the IGF or of multi-stakeholder participation in IG. > > Anriette > > > On 27/05/2012 16:41, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Thanks for the update. I must say I am relieved in many way. On the Chairman's paper, did they make him change i, or does it get to go in the balanced way it was written? I was impressed by its even handedness. I wonder who actually penned the words. >> >> I think you offer a good analysis and approach. I think you are right, a new summit would only make things worse. >> >> I think the only reason we argue about government oversight or not, is because that remains the sword above our heads, and probably will for therest of the year. I agree that cooperation over the actual substance would be preferable. >> >> As for Enhanced Cooperation (EC), I see real opportunity for IGF12 to pick this up, at least to the extent of having a significant IGF session on it in Baku. I know it is not something the MAG talked about, they probably thought they couldn't. But now there is an opportunity and a void. Let IGF, who has been working on the topic for a while, just not calling it that, take charge and really start to explore how IGF mechanisms to increase EC. BTW, I don't mean another CSTD run session, though I guess I am grateful they were as open as they were, but an IGF session. There are still 5 months until Baku, and this could be a useful discussion for people to have: Given the void in EC leadership and the words of the Tunis Agenda, what can the IGF do to encourage and recommend further Enhanced Cooperation. Who know, perhaps we can define a few empirical projects (with pre-defined follow-up metrics) to see if specific modalities can actually assist in furthering cooperation. >> >> avri >> >> On 27 May 2012, at 07:45, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> Dear IGC list >>> >>> Attached is the resolution related to WSIS follow-up adopted during last >>> week's meeting of the CSTD. >>> >>> The resolution is rather minimalist, and represents the fact that there >>> was very little consensus among CSTD members on: >>> >>> - enhanced cooperation in internet governance >>> - WSIS + 10 >>> >>> On the former there is not much more to be said. What is quite sad is >>> that several countries made a huge fuss about the report from the Chair >>> (a very patient and able Mr. de la Pena, vice minister of ICTs from the >>> Philippines) on the meeting of 18 May in Geneva. His report was a very >>> short summary of all the views presented. I certainly felt it was >>> accurate and easy to read. It did not go into detail.. but that was not >>> the point of a chair's report. Particularly not when all the statements >>> are available on the CSTD website, as well as a transcript. >>> >>> But, as this report is forwarded to the GA it is political and subject >>> for negotations. >>> >>> On WSIS +10 it is disappointing that a very good panel discussion on >>> this process during the CSTD (that included inputs from UNESCO, ITU, and >>> others) is not reflected. E.g. David Souter made the point that >>> assessing WSIS +10 outcomes and progress should not just focus on >>> statistics and ICT access measures. It should focus on human >>> development, and on the broader outcomes of the massive ICT/information >>> society related changes of the last 10 years. He also pointed out that >>> the assessment should not just be left to governments, but that business >>> and civil society should be encouraged to assess changes/impacts from >>> their perspective. >>> >>> Good comments from the floor, e.g. one from Brazil saying we should >>> consider the impact of the Summit itself, also did not make it to the >>> resolution. >>> >>> The differences of views on how WSIS +10 should take place is relevant >>> for civil society. Parminder and I talked about this a bit in Geneva, >>> and we don't quite agree. >>> >>> Some governments, Iran, South Africa, Saudi Arabia among others feel >>> very strongly that we need another Summit. They said that only >>> governments can assess progress on achieving outcomes. They believe >>> there should be a multi-stakeholder prep process, but that the final >>> assessment should be negotiated between States. >>> >>> Parminder shares the view that there should be another Summit, but his >>> reasons are more nuanced and complex than that of the governments. He >>> can explain them himself. >>> >>> My view is that another Summit is not a good idea. While I like the >>> idea of civil society having a platform to reconvene, I doubt that the >>> resources needed for a fully participative and regionally distributed >>> preparatory process will be available. >>> >>> I am also not convinced that even if available, it would be the best way >>> of spending money and time. >>> >>> But my main concern is that I think it will result in negotiated >>> outcomes which will not be in the public interest. >>> >>> I have been looking at the Geneva Declaration and the Tunis Agenda a lot >>> recently. They are messy documents, with view very firmly stated goals. >>> But they are full of good ideas, openness to doing things in a different >>> way. People-centred development and human rights are concepts scattered >>> throughout. >>> >>> I doubt very, very much that in a new text we would get references to >>> 'open source and licensing'. Take this text for example: >>> >>> " 27. Access to information and knowledge can be promoted by increasing >>> awareness among all stakeholders of the possibilities offered by >>> different software models, including proprietary, open-source and free >>> software, in order to increase competition, access by users, diversity >>> of choice, and to enable all users to develop solutions which best meet >>> their requirements. Affordable access to software should be considered >>> as an important component of a truly inclusive Information Society. >>> >>> 28. We strive to promote universal access with equal opportunities for >>> all to scientific knowledge and the creation and dissemination of >>> scientific and technical information, including open access initiatives >>> for scientific publishing." >>> >>> If this was negotiated today, it would look different, or more likely, >>> be negotiated into oblivion as governments bargained with one another >>> over security, oversight over ICANN and IANA, commercial interests of >>> the companies they are close to. >>> >>> Rather than another Summit I think that as civil society we should focus >>> our efforts on identifying key issues that can be addressed and forming >>> partnerships that can achieve this in as short a space of time as >>> possible. For example, internationalisation of ICANN and IANA that gives >>> governments equal participation without giving any single one of them >>> control. And, another example is for us to use existing international >>> and regional bodies mandated to protect freedom of expression and >>> privacy rights to challenge governments and companies who violate these >>> rights. >>> >>> The concerns expressed on this list about monopolies/distortion of power >>> and companies having the influence to shape policies in their own >>> interests also represent struggles we can take on now. We don't need new >>> intergovernmental processes to do so. The examples of SOPA and ACTA >>> being sent back to the drawing board illustrate this clearly. >>> >>> We spend time arguing about new UN bodies or not when we should be >>> spending this time collaborating across countries, regions and policy >>> spaces to achieve greater 'net neutrality' and more consumer choice and >>> rights protection. >>> >>> This is all work that can be done NOW. >>> >>> Every time I listen to governments arguing with one another about the >>> IGF, EC, etc. I am more convinced that intergovernmental oversight of >>> internet public policy at this moment in time will do more harm than good. >>> >>> If - as someone from the academic community suggested to me last week - >>> in the longer term there will have to be an international agreement of >>> some kind (a convention, or treaty) on internet governance, the more >>> precedent we have been able to set in terms of protecting freedom of >>> expression and association on the internet, and the broader the public >>> interest, the better. It will make it more likely that that agreement >>> will be based on rights that have been won than on lowest common >>> denominator interests among sparring governments. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sun May 27 11:44:23 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 11:44:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to statements and recordings In-Reply-To: <4FC2498D.20405@itforchange.net> References: <4FC213EF.2070102@apc.org> <8CF0A288D496BC8-B24-477CD@webmail-m072.sysops.aol.com> <4FC2498D.20405@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <3A35B60F-77FA-4848-A7F7-FBEA10395135@ella.com> Hi, > Wanting to globalize economic-ally and socially, without doing so politically, is ... vain fantasy of an anarchist ... If by anarchist;s fantasy you mean: The long range goal of those who beleive in bottom-up multistakeholder participatory democracy. we can talk. I think your mistake is in not recognizing that achieving multistakeholder participatory democracy is a political goal. avri On 27 May 2012, at 11:34, parminder wrote: > > > On Sunday 27 May 2012 07:32 PM, Koven Ronald wrote: >> Bravo, Anriette. >> >> I heartily agree that another summit now would at best be a pointless waste of time, energy and resources and at worst > > At least for the most powerful, this is for the same reason as UNCTAD was sought, last month, to be disallowed to continue with some of its most important mandates, like analysing and giving recommendations regarding the global financial system. This was becuase the powerful wanted such key matter of global governance to be left to the forums controlled by them - IMF, G8 and such. The same powerful forces want Internet policies to continue to be developed unilaterally, or at clubs of rich countries like the OECD, and therefore the resistance to a WSIS like summit. Think where would we be without the original WSIS - the IGF, even the IGC, all the present global discussions ....... > >> -- given the present global lineup and climate -- harmful for the future of an unfettered cyberspace. > > Yes, we want an unfettered cyberspace (based btw on human rights discussed and decided at the UN). At the same time, we also want a fair and just Internet, which helps support global economic, social, cultural and political flows towards greater democracy, equity and social justice. All of these requires greater political work at the global level. > > Wanting to globalize economic-ally and socially, without doing so politically, is either the vain fantasy of an anarchist, or the design of the more powerful for an unfettered run on global resources. > > parminder > > >> >> Bests, Rony Koven >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Anriette Esterhuysen >> To: governance >> Sent: Sun, May 27, 2012 1:46 pm >> Subject: [governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to statements and recordings >> >> Dear IGC list >> >> Attached is the resolution related to WSIS follow-up adopted during last >> week's meeting of the CSTD. >> >> The resolution is rather minimalist, and represents the fact that there >> was very little consensus among CSTD members on: >> >> - enhanced cooperation in internet governance >> - WSIS + 10 >> >> On the former there is not much more to be said. What is quite sad is >> that several countries made a huge fuss about the report from the Chair >> (a very patient and able Mr. de la Pena, vice minister of ICTs from the >> Philippines) on the meeting of 18 May in Geneva. His report was a very >> short summary of all the views presented. I certainly felt it was >> accurate and easy to read. It did not go into detail.. but that was not >> the point of a chair's report. Particularly not when all the statements >> are available on the CSTD website, as well as a transcript. >> >> But, as this report is forwarded to the GA it is political and subject >> for negotations. >> >> On WSIS +10 it is disappointing that a very good panel discussion on >> this process during the CSTD (that included inputs from UNESCO, ITU, and >> others) is not reflected. E.g. David Souter made the point that >> assessing WSIS +10 outcomes and progress should not just focus on >> statistics and ICT access measures. It should focus on human >> development, and on the broader outcomes of the massive ICT/information >> society related changes of the last 10 years. He also pointed out that >> the assessment should not just be left to governments, but that business >> and civil society should be encouraged to assess changes/impacts from >> their perspective. >> >> Good comments from the floor, e.g. one from Brazil saying we should >> consider the impact of the Summit itself, also did not make it to the >> resolution. >> >> The differences of views on how WSIS +10 should take place is relevant >> for civil society. Parminder and I talked about this a bit in Geneva, >> and we don't quite agree. >> >> Some governments, Iran, South Africa, Saudi Arabia among others feel >> very strongly that we need another Summit. They said that only >> governments can assess progress on achieving outcomes. They believe >> there should be a multi-stakeholder prep process, but that the final >> assessment should be negotiated between States. >> >> Parminder shares the view that there should be another Summit, but his >> reasons are more nuanced and complex than that of the governments. He >> can explain them himself. >> >> My view is that another Summit is not a good idea. While I like the >> idea of civil society having a platform to reconvene, I doubt that the >> resources needed for a fully participative and regionally distributed >> preparatory process will be available. >> >> I am also not convinced that even if available, it would be the best way >> of spending money and time. >> >> But my main concern is that I think it will result in negotiated >> outcomes which will not be in the public interest. >> >> I have been looking at the Geneva Declaration and the Tunis Agenda a lot >> recently. They are messy documents, with view very firmly stated goals. >> But they are full of good ideas, openness to doing things in a different >> way. People-centred development and human rights are concepts scattered >> throughout. >> >> I doubt very, very much that in a new text we would get references to >> 'open source and licensing'. Take this text for example: >> >> " 27. Access to information and knowledge can be promoted by increasing >> awareness among all stakeholders of the possibilities offered by >> different software models, including proprietary, open-source and free >> software, in order to increase competition, access by users, diversity >> of choice, and to enable all users to develop solutions which best meet >> their requirements. Affordable access to software should be considered >> as an important component of a truly inclusive Information Society. >> >> 28. We strive to promote universal access with equal opportunities for >> all to scientific knowledge and the creation and dissemination of >> scientific and technical information, including open access initiatives >> for scientific publishing." >> >> If this was negotiated today, it would look different, or more likely, >> be negotiated into oblivion as governments bargained with one another >> over security, oversight over ICANN and IANA, commercial interests of >> the companies they are close to. >> >> Rather than another Summit I think that as civil society we should focus >> our efforts on identifying key issues that can be addressed and forming >> partnerships that can achieve this in as short a space of time as >> possible. For example, internationalisation of ICANN and IANA that gives >> governments equal participation without giving any single one of them >> control. And, another example is for us to use existing international >> and regional bodies mandated to protect freedom of expression and >> privacy rights to challenge governments and companies who violate these >> rights. >> >> The concerns expressed on this list about monopolies/distortion of power >> and companies having the influence to shape policies in their own >> interests also represent struggles we can take on now. We don't need new >> intergovernmental processes to do so. The examples of SOPA and ACTA >> being sent back to the drawing board illustrate this clearly. >> >> We spend time arguing about new UN bodies or not when we should be >> spending this time collaborating across countries, regions and policy >> spaces to achieve greater 'net neutrality' and more consumer choice and >> rights protection. >> >> This is all work that can be done NOW. >> >> Every time I listen to governments arguing with one another about the >> IGF, EC, etc. I am more convinced that intergovernmental oversight of >> internet public policy at this moment in time will do more harm than good. >> >> If - as someone from the academic community suggested to me last week - >> in the longer term there will have to be an international agreement of >> some kind (a convention, or treaty) on internet governance, the more >> precedent we have been able to set in terms of protecting freedom of >> expression and association on the internet, and the broader the public >> interest, the better. It will make it more likely that that agreement >> will be based on rights that have been won than on lowest common >> denominator interests among sparring governments. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> Translate this email: >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 27 12:08:37 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 09:08:37 -0700 Subject: [governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to statements and recordings In-Reply-To: <3A35B60F-77FA-4848-A7F7-FBEA10395135@ella.com> Message-ID: <733593848F164200AF9A09423A815881@UserVAIO> Avri, That sounds really really great and I really applaud with you the idea of a "bottom-up multistakeholder participatory democracy" or at least I can and do applaud each of the terms taken on their own, which to me individually actually have some meaning... Bottom-up-yes, multistakeholder-yes, participatory-yes, democracy-yes... However, I have no idea what the overall concept/model/structure/form would be of a "bottom-up-multistakeholder-participatory-democracy" i.e what it might actually look like in practice. Honestly for me it either means simply "democracy" with its mutliple meanings, ambiguities and frailities or it means nothing much at all. But maybe it means something more than that to you and I would be very interested in having you describe (another homework assignment :) what it might look like--without, dare I say, invoking as an example the IETF or any grouping that isn't larger than one than can comfortably meet in a room let's say the size of the UN GA (or a New England Town Hall.. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 8:44 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to statements and recordings Hi, > Wanting to globalize economic-ally and socially, without doing so > politically, is ... vain fantasy of an anarchist ... If by anarchist;s fantasy you mean: The long range goal of those who beleive in bottom-up multistakeholder participatory democracy. we can talk. I think your mistake is in not recognizing that achieving multistakeholder participatory democracy is a political goal. avri On 27 May 2012, at 11:34, parminder wrote: > > > On Sunday 27 May 2012 07:32 PM, Koven Ronald wrote: >> Bravo, Anriette. >> >> I heartily agree that another summit now would at best be a pointless >> waste of time, energy and resources and at worst > > At least for the most powerful, this is for the same reason as UNCTAD > was sought, last month, to be disallowed to continue with some of its > most important mandates, like analysing and giving recommendations > regarding the global financial system. This was becuase the powerful > wanted such key matter of global governance to be left to the forums > controlled by them - IMF, G8 and such. The same powerful forces want > Internet policies to continue to be developed unilaterally, or at > clubs of rich countries like the OECD, and therefore the resistance to > a WSIS like summit. Think where would we be without the original WSIS > - the IGF, even the IGC, all the present global discussions ....... > >> -- given the present global lineup and climate -- harmful for the >> future of an unfettered cyberspace. > > Yes, we want an unfettered cyberspace (based btw on human rights > discussed and decided at the UN). At the same time, we also want a fair and just Internet, which helps support global economic, social, cultural and political flows towards greater democracy, equity and social justice. All of these requires greater political work at the global level. > > Wanting to globalize economic-ally and socially, without doing so > politically, is either the vain fantasy of an anarchist, or the design of the more powerful for an unfettered run on global resources. > > parminder > > >> >> Bests, Rony Koven >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Anriette Esterhuysen >> To: governance >> Sent: Sun, May 27, 2012 1:46 pm >> Subject: [governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to >> statements and recordings >> >> Dear IGC list >> >> Attached is the resolution related to WSIS follow-up adopted during >> last week's meeting of the CSTD. >> >> The resolution is rather minimalist, and represents the fact that >> there was very little consensus among CSTD members on: >> >> - enhanced cooperation in internet governance >> - WSIS + 10 >> >> On the former there is not much more to be said. What is quite sad is >> that several countries made a huge fuss about the report from the >> Chair (a very patient and able Mr. de la Pena, vice minister of ICTs >> from the >> Philippines) on the meeting of 18 May in Geneva. His report was a very >> short summary of all the views presented. I certainly felt it was >> accurate and easy to read. It did not go into detail.. but that was not >> the point of a chair's report. Particularly not when all the statements >> are available on the CSTD website, as well as a transcript. >> >> But, as this report is forwarded to the GA it is political and >> subject for negotations. >> >> On WSIS +10 it is disappointing that a very good panel discussion on >> this process during the CSTD (that included inputs from UNESCO, ITU, >> and >> others) is not reflected. E.g. David Souter made the point that >> assessing WSIS +10 outcomes and progress should not just focus on >> statistics and ICT access measures. It should focus on human >> development, and on the broader outcomes of the massive ICT/information >> society related changes of the last 10 years. He also pointed out that >> the assessment should not just be left to governments, but that business >> and civil society should be encouraged to assess changes/impacts from >> their perspective. >> >> Good comments from the floor, e.g. one from Brazil saying we should >> consider the impact of the Summit itself, also did not make it to the >> resolution. >> >> The differences of views on how WSIS +10 should take place is >> relevant for civil society. Parminder and I talked about this a bit >> in Geneva, and we don't quite agree. >> >> Some governments, Iran, South Africa, Saudi Arabia among others feel >> very strongly that we need another Summit. They said that only >> governments can assess progress on achieving outcomes. They believe >> there should be a multi-stakeholder prep process, but that the final >> assessment should be negotiated between States. >> >> Parminder shares the view that there should be another Summit, but >> his reasons are more nuanced and complex than that of the >> governments. He can explain them himself. >> >> My view is that another Summit is not a good idea. While I like the >> idea of civil society having a platform to reconvene, I doubt that >> the resources needed for a fully participative and regionally >> distributed preparatory process will be available. >> >> I am also not convinced that even if available, it would be the best >> way of spending money and time. >> >> But my main concern is that I think it will result in negotiated >> outcomes which will not be in the public interest. >> >> I have been looking at the Geneva Declaration and the Tunis Agenda a >> lot recently. They are messy documents, with view very firmly stated >> goals. But they are full of good ideas, openness to doing things in a >> different way. People-centred development and human rights are >> concepts scattered throughout. >> >> I doubt very, very much that in a new text we would get references to >> 'open source and licensing'. Take this text for example: >> >> " 27. Access to information and knowledge can be promoted by >> increasing awareness among all stakeholders of the possibilities >> offered by different software models, including proprietary, >> open-source and free software, in order to increase competition, >> access by users, diversity of choice, and to enable all users to >> develop solutions which best meet their requirements. Affordable >> access to software should be considered as an important component of >> a truly inclusive Information Society. >> >> 28. We strive to promote universal access with equal opportunities >> for all to scientific knowledge and the creation and dissemination of >> scientific and technical information, including open access >> initiatives for scientific publishing." >> >> If this was negotiated today, it would look different, or more >> likely, be negotiated into oblivion as governments bargained with one >> another over security, oversight over ICANN and IANA, commercial >> interests of the companies they are close to. >> >> Rather than another Summit I think that as civil society we should >> focus our efforts on identifying key issues that can be addressed and >> forming partnerships that can achieve this in as short a space of >> time as possible. For example, internationalisation of ICANN and IANA >> that gives governments equal participation without giving any single >> one of them control. And, another example is for us to use existing >> international and regional bodies mandated to protect freedom of >> expression and privacy rights to challenge governments and companies >> who violate these rights. >> >> The concerns expressed on this list about monopolies/distortion of >> power and companies having the influence to shape policies in their >> own interests also represent struggles we can take on now. We don't >> need new intergovernmental processes to do so. The examples of SOPA >> and ACTA being sent back to the drawing board illustrate this >> clearly. >> >> We spend time arguing about new UN bodies or not when we should be >> spending this time collaborating across countries, regions and policy >> spaces to achieve greater 'net neutrality' and more consumer choice >> and rights protection. >> >> This is all work that can be done NOW. >> >> Every time I listen to governments arguing with one another about the >> IGF, EC, etc. I am more convinced that intergovernmental oversight of >> internet public policy at this moment in time will do more harm than >> good. >> >> If - as someone from the academic community suggested to me last week >> - in the longer term there will have to be an international agreement >> of some kind (a convention, or treaty) on internet governance, the >> more precedent we have been able to set in terms of protecting >> freedom of expression and association on the internet, and the >> broader the public interest, the better. It will make it more likely >> that that agreement will be based on rights that have been won than >> on lowest common denominator interests among sparring governments. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> Translate this email: >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Sun May 27 12:08:51 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 18:08:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to statements and recordings In-Reply-To: <4FC2498D.20405@itforchange.net> References: <4FC213EF.2070102@apc.org> <8CF0A288D496BC8-B24-477CD@webmail-m072.sysops.aol.com> <4FC2498D.20405@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4FC25193.2070001@apc.org> Hi all I agree with Parminder in the sense that 'cyberspace' is not 'unfettered' at the moment, and that keeping the freedom we have, and increasing it where needed, cannot be done without using existing regulations (e.g. what we are trying to do with freedom of expression at HRC level) and in some cases creating new ones (e.g. efforts to make social networking platforms default to max privacy settings). I just don't agree that establishing a new UN body is the best way of going about this. I think it will take too long, that will be too difficult to get agreement between governments, participation of non-governmental stakeholders will be too constrained, and, that when governments do agree... the results are not likely to be what most people on this list want.. not from the perspective of introducing more geo-political balance or if your goal is to contain the influence of large internet companies. Perhaps once we have a more stable, rights oriented institutional and regulatory environment it could make sense to assign oversight to one or more UN-linked mechanisms... as for example in the case of human rights standards. But to build the institution first, and then assume it will make public policy that we like in the current political and economic environment is a very hopeful assumption. As Parminder, correctly, pointed out to me.. there will be a need to lobby for such a body to act in a public-interest oriented way, and to be multi-stakeholder in a meaningful way. Just as we have to lobby in this way at national level, and in other global forums. I just don't feel based on the current environment in the UN that starting with the 'new body' is the way to go. Hypothetically, as more and more governments are leaning to the ITU having oversight of internet public policy, a new body might be a better option and therefore I do think we should discuss the IT for Change statement seriously even if many of us don't support it. Anriette On 27/05/2012 17:34, parminder wrote: > > > On Sunday 27 May 2012 07:32 PM, Koven Ronald wrote: >> B ravo, Anriette. >> >> I heartily agree that another summit now would at best be a pointless >> waste of time, energy and resources and at worst > > At least for the most powerful, this is for the same reason as UNCTAD > was sought, last month, to be disallowed to continue with some of its > most important mandates, like analysing and giving recommendations > regarding the global financial system. This was becuase the powerful > wanted such key matter of global governance to be left to the forums > controlled by them - IMF, G8 and such. The same powerful forces want > Internet policies to continue to be developed unilaterally, or at clubs > of rich countries like the OECD, and therefore the resistance to a WSIS > like summit. Think where would we be without the original WSIS - the > IGF, even the IGC, all the present global discussions ....... > >> -- given the present global lineup and climate -- harmful for the >> future of an unfettered cyberspace. > > Yes, we want an unfettered cyberspace (based btw on human rights > discussed and decided at the UN). At the same time, we also want a fair > and just Internet, which helps support global economic, social, cultural > and political flows towards greater democracy, equity and social > justice. All of these requires greater political work at the global level. > > Wanting to globalize economic-ally and socially, without doing so > politically, is either the vain fantasy of an anarchist, or the design > of the more powerful for an unfettered run on global resources. > > parminder > > >> >> Bests, Rony Koven >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Anriette Esterhuysen >> To: governance >> >> Sent: Sun, May 27, 2012 1:46 pm >> Subject: [governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to >> statements and recordings >> >> Dear IGC list >> >> Attached is the resolution related to WSIS follow-up adopted during last >> week's meeting of the CSTD. >> >> The resolution is rather minimalist, and represents the fact that there >> was very little consensus among CSTD members on: >> >> - enhanced cooperation in internet governance >> - WSIS + 10 >> >> On the former there is not much more to be said. What is quite sad is >> that several countries made a huge fuss about the report from the Chair >> (a very patient and able Mr. de la Pena, vice minister of ICTs from the >> Philippines) on the meeting of 18 May in Geneva. His report was a very >> short summary of all the views presented. I certainly felt it was >> accurate and easy to read. It did not go into detail.. but that was not >> the point of a chair's report. Particularly not when all the statements >> are available on the CSTD website, as well as a transcript. >> >> But, as this report is forwarded to the GA it is political and subject >> for negotations. >> >> On WSIS +10 it is disappointing that a very good panel discussion on >> this process during the CSTD (that included inputs from UNESCO, ITU, and >> others) is not reflected. E.g. David Souter made the point that >> assessing WSIS +10 outcomes and progress should not just focus on >> statistics and ICT access measures. It should focus on human >> development, and on the broader outcomes of the massive ICT/information >> society related changes of the last 10 years. He also pointed out that >> the assessment should not just be left to governments, but that business >> and civil society should be encouraged to assess changes/impacts from >> their perspective. >> >> Good comments from the floor, e.g. one from Brazil saying we should >> consider the impact of the Summit itself, also did not make it to the >> resolution. >> >> The differences of views on how WSIS +10 should take place is relevant >> for civil society. Parminder and I talked about this a bit in Geneva, >> and we don't quite agree. >> >> Some governments, Iran, South Africa, Saudi Arabia among others feel >> very strongly that we need another Summit. They said that only >> governments can assess progress on achieving outcomes. They believe >> there should be a multi-stakeholder prep process, but that the final >> assessment should be negotiated between States. >> >> Parminder shares the view that there should be another Summit, but his >> reasons are more nuanced and complex than that of the governments. He >> can explain them himself. >> >> My view is that another Summit is not a good idea. While I like the >> idea of civil society having a platform to reconvene, I doubt that the >> resources needed for a fully participative and regionally distributed >> preparatory process will be available. >> >> I am also not convinced that even if available, it would be the best way >> of spending money and time. >> >> But my main concern is that I think it will result in negotiated >> outcomes which will not be in the public interest. >> >> I have been looking at the Geneva Declaration and the Tunis Agenda a lot >> recently. They are messy documents, with view very firmly stated goals. >> But they are full of good ideas, openness to doing things in a different >> way. People-centred development and human rights are concepts scattered >> throughout. >> >> I doubt very, very much that in a new text we would get references to >> 'open source and licensing'. Take this text for example: >> >> " 27. Access to information and knowledge can be promoted by increasing >> awareness among all stakeholders of the possibilities offered by >> different software models, including proprietary, open-source and free >> software, in order to increase competition, access by users, diversity >> of choice, and to enable all users to develop solutions which best meet >> their requirements. Affordable access to software should be considered >> as an important component of a truly inclusive Information Society. >> >> 28. We strive to promote universal access with equal opportunities for >> all to scientific knowledge and the creation and dissemination of >> scientific and technical information, including open access initiatives >> for scientific publishing." >> >> If this was negotiated today, it would look different, or more likely, >> be negotiated into oblivion as governments bargained with one another >> over security, oversight over ICANN and IANA, commercial interests of >> the companies they are close to. >> >> Rather than another Summit I think that as civil society we should focus >> our efforts on identifying key issues that can be addressed and forming >> partnerships that can achieve this in as short a space of time as >> possible. For example, internationalisation of ICANN and IANA that gives >> governments equal participation without giving any single one of them >> control. And, another example is for us to use existing international >> and regional bodies mandated to protect freedom of expression and >> privacy rights to challenge governments and companies who violate these >> rights. >> >> The concerns expressed on this list about monopolies/distortion of power >> and companies having the influence to shape policies in their own >> interests also represent struggles we can take on now. We don't need new >> intergovernmental processes to do so. The examples of SOPA and ACTA >> being sent back to the drawing board illustrate this clearly. >> >> We spend time arguing about new UN bodies or not when we should be >> spending this time collaborating across countries, regions and policy >> spaces to achieve greater 'net neutrality' and more consumer choice and >> rights protection. >> >> This is all work that can be done NOW. >> >> Every time I listen to governments arguing with one another about the >> IGF, EC, etc. I am more convinced that intergovernmental oversight of >> internet public policy at this moment in time will do more harm than good. >> >> If - as someone from the academic community suggested to me last week - >> in the longer term there will have to be an international agreement of >> some kind (a convention, or treaty) on internet governance, the more >> precedent we have been able to set in terms of protecting freedom of >> expression and association on the internet, and the broader the public >> interest, the better. It will make it more likely that that agreement >> will be based on rights that have been won than on lowest common >> denominator interests among sparring governments. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sun May 27 12:29:56 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 12:29:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to statements and recordings In-Reply-To: <733593848F164200AF9A09423A815881@UserVAIO> References: <733593848F164200AF9A09423A815881@UserVAIO> Message-ID: Hi, On 27 May 2012, at 12:08, michael gurstein wrote: > But maybe it means something more than that to you and I would be very > interested in having you describe (another homework assignment :) what it > might look like--without, dare I say, invoking as an example the IETF or any > grouping that isn't larger than one than can comfortably meet in a room > let's say the size of the UN GA (or a New England Town Hall.. You are asking me to be utopian again. And maybe I should try to write a novel or a play that shows how a bottom-up participatory democracy could work. But I expect some aspect of my personality or day to day life will keep me from ever completing such a project. I think the solution is an emergent one, and it is by doing the work (theory and design) and the experimentation (empiricism) that we find the solution. It is not about 1 advocates utopian visions. The issue between the things you tell me not to use as examples and the global is a scaling factor. I beleive that subsidiarity and aggregation moving, from the bottom, up to areas of greater scope that can't be handled at the local would be a key to any solution. And I beleive that finding the ways to use e-governance to reach people directly whereever possible (including making it possible to use everywhere) are a critical part of any solution. I.e governance by and of the Internet. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 27 12:56:27 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 22:26:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to statements and recordings In-Reply-To: <4FC25193.2070001@apc.org> References: <4FC213EF.2070102@apc.org> <8CF0A288D496BC8-B24-477CD@webmail-m072.sysops.aol.com> <4FC2498D.20405@itforchange.net> <4FC25193.2070001@apc.org> Message-ID: <4FC25CBB.5050203@itforchange.net> Hi Anriette First of all, I would seperate the discussions on a summit level WSIS + 10 event and that about a possible new UN based Internet policy body. In my view, they are different arguments. (Please allow me to engage with some other issues raised in your email later, in a separate email.) The proposed summit is to be with a participative preparatory process, including corresponding regional processes, as with WSIS (it can only be improved with our improved multistakeholder experience at IG related forums since). This was specifically the demand of developing countries at the CSTD, and some of it finds mention in the final resolution (although the final modalities of the review process will be decided at the UN GA). And if indeed we have to connect this discussion about a possible WSIS like process to that about shaping institutions for global Internet policy making, when you say that a long preparatory process may be required before we can think of the right institutional design, isnt the WSIS kind of process, that goes to the regional levels as well, the right kind. Alternatively, we have the G8 meetings, OECD meetings, the London/ Stockholm kind of meetings, and the calender is quite busy .... Is this the right preparatory process to what we want eventually... And this point also goes to your question about resources for such a summit process.Why does the resources question always gets raised for a UN based globally democratic process, while so much money globally gets spent every year on these other kind of 'global' Internet governance meetings. parminder On Sunday 27 May 2012 09:38 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Hi all > > I agree with Parminder in the sense that 'cyberspace' is not > 'unfettered' at the moment, and that keeping the freedom we have, and > increasing it where needed, cannot be done without using existing > regulations (e.g. what we are trying to do with freedom of expression at > HRC level) and in some cases creating new ones (e.g. efforts to make > social networking platforms default to max privacy settings). > > I just don't agree that establishing a new UN body is the best way of > going about this. I think it will take too long, that will be too > difficult to get agreement between governments, participation of > non-governmental stakeholders will be too constrained, and, that when > governments do agree... the results are not likely to be what most > people on this list want.. not from the perspective of introducing more > geo-political balance or if your goal is to contain the influence of > large internet companies. > > Perhaps once we have a more stable, rights oriented institutional and > regulatory environment it could make sense to assign oversight to one or > more UN-linked mechanisms... as for example in the case of human rights > standards. > > But to build the institution first, and then assume it will make public > policy that we like in the current political and economic environment is > a very hopeful assumption. > > As Parminder, correctly, pointed out to me.. there will be a need to > lobby for such a body to act in a public-interest oriented way, and to > be multi-stakeholder in a meaningful way. Just as we have to lobby in > this way at national level, and in other global forums. > > I just don't feel based on the current environment in the UN that > starting with the 'new body' is the way to go. > > Hypothetically, as more and more governments are leaning to the ITU > having oversight of internet public policy, a new body might be a better > option and therefore I do think we should discuss the IT for Change > statement seriously even if many of us don't support it. > > > Anriette > > > On 27/05/2012 17:34, parminder wrote: > >> >> On Sunday 27 May 2012 07:32 PM, Koven Ronald wrote: >> >>> B ravo, Anriette. >>> >>> I heartily agree that another summit now would at best be a pointless >>> waste of time, energy and resources and at worst >>> >> At least for the most powerful, this is for the same reason as UNCTAD >> was sought, last month, to be disallowed to continue with some of its >> most important mandates, like analysing and giving recommendations >> regarding the global financial system. This was becuase the powerful >> wanted such key matter of global governance to be left to the forums >> controlled by them - IMF, G8 and such. The same powerful forces want >> Internet policies to continue to be developed unilaterally, or at clubs >> of rich countries like the OECD, and therefore the resistance to a WSIS >> like summit. Think where would we be without the original WSIS - the >> IGF, even the IGC, all the present global discussions ....... >> >> >>> -- given the present global lineup and climate -- harmful for the >>> future of an unfettered cyberspace. >>> >> Yes, we want an unfettered cyberspace (based btw on human rights >> discussed and decided at the UN). At the same time, we also want a fair >> and just Internet, which helps support global economic, social, cultural >> and political flows towards greater democracy, equity and social >> justice. All of these requires greater political work at the global level. >> >> Wanting to globalize economic-ally and socially, without doing so >> politically, is either the vain fantasy of an anarchist, or the design >> of the more powerful for an unfettered run on global resources. >> >> parminder >> >> >> >>> Bests, Rony Koven >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Anriette Esterhuysen >>> To: governance >>> >>> Sent: Sun, May 27, 2012 1:46 pm >>> Subject: [governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to >>> statements and recordings >>> >>> Dear IGC list >>> >>> Attached is the resolution related to WSIS follow-up adopted during last >>> week's meeting of the CSTD. >>> >>> The resolution is rather minimalist, and represents the fact that there >>> was very little consensus among CSTD members on: >>> >>> - enhanced cooperation in internet governance >>> - WSIS + 10 >>> >>> On the former there is not much more to be said. What is quite sad is >>> that several countries made a huge fuss about the report from the Chair >>> (a very patient and able Mr. de la Pena, vice minister of ICTs from the >>> Philippines) on the meeting of 18 May in Geneva. His report was a very >>> short summary of all the views presented. I certainly felt it was >>> accurate and easy to read. It did not go into detail.. but that was not >>> the point of a chair's report. Particularly not when all the statements >>> are available on the CSTD website, as well as a transcript. >>> >>> But, as this report is forwarded to the GA it is political and subject >>> for negotations. >>> >>> On WSIS +10 it is disappointing that a very good panel discussion on >>> this process during the CSTD (that included inputs from UNESCO, ITU, and >>> others) is not reflected. E.g. David Souter made the point that >>> assessing WSIS +10 outcomes and progress should not just focus on >>> statistics and ICT access measures. It should focus on human >>> development, and on the broader outcomes of the massive ICT/information >>> society related changes of the last 10 years. He also pointed out that >>> the assessment should not just be left to governments, but that business >>> and civil society should be encouraged to assess changes/impacts from >>> their perspective. >>> >>> Good comments from the floor, e.g. one from Brazil saying we should >>> consider the impact of the Summit itself, also did not make it to the >>> resolution. >>> >>> The differences of views on how WSIS +10 should take place is relevant >>> for civil society. Parminder and I talked about this a bit in Geneva, >>> and we don't quite agree. >>> >>> Some governments, Iran, South Africa, Saudi Arabia among others feel >>> very strongly that we need another Summit. They said that only >>> governments can assess progress on achieving outcomes. They believe >>> there should be a multi-stakeholder prep process, but that the final >>> assessment should be negotiated between States. >>> >>> Parminder shares the view that there should be another Summit, but his >>> reasons are more nuanced and complex than that of the governments. He >>> can explain them himself. >>> >>> My view is that another Summit is not a good idea. While I like the >>> idea of civil society having a platform to reconvene, I doubt that the >>> resources needed for a fully participative and regionally distributed >>> preparatory process will be available. >>> >>> I am also not convinced that even if available, it would be the best way >>> of spending money and time. >>> >>> But my main concern is that I think it will result in negotiated >>> outcomes which will not be in the public interest. >>> >>> I have been looking at the Geneva Declaration and the Tunis Agenda a lot >>> recently. They are messy documents, with view very firmly stated goals. >>> But they are full of good ideas, openness to doing things in a different >>> way. People-centred development and human rights are concepts scattered >>> throughout. >>> >>> I doubt very, very much that in a new text we would get references to >>> 'open source and licensing'. Take this text for example: >>> >>> " 27. Access to information and knowledge can be promoted by increasing >>> awareness among all stakeholders of the possibilities offered by >>> different software models, including proprietary, open-source and free >>> software, in order to increase competition, access by users, diversity >>> of choice, and to enable all users to develop solutions which best meet >>> their requirements. Affordable access to software should be considered >>> as an important component of a truly inclusive Information Society. >>> >>> 28. We strive to promote universal access with equal opportunities for >>> all to scientific knowledge and the creation and dissemination of >>> scientific and technical information, including open access initiatives >>> for scientific publishing." >>> >>> If this was negotiated today, it would look different, or more likely, >>> be negotiated into oblivion as governments bargained with one another >>> over security, oversight over ICANN and IANA, commercial interests of >>> the companies they are close to. >>> >>> Rather than another Summit I think that as civil society we should focus >>> our efforts on identifying key issues that can be addressed and forming >>> partnerships that can achieve this in as short a space of time as >>> possible. For example, internationalisation of ICANN and IANA that gives >>> governments equal participation without giving any single one of them >>> control. And, another example is for us to use existing international >>> and regional bodies mandated to protect freedom of expression and >>> privacy rights to challenge governments and companies who violate these >>> rights. >>> >>> The concerns expressed on this list about monopolies/distortion of power >>> and companies having the influence to shape policies in their own >>> interests also represent struggles we can take on now. We don't need new >>> intergovernmental processes to do so. The examples of SOPA and ACTA >>> being sent back to the drawing board illustrate this clearly. >>> >>> We spend time arguing about new UN bodies or not when we should be >>> spending this time collaborating across countries, regions and policy >>> spaces to achieve greater 'net neutrality' and more consumer choice and >>> rights protection. >>> >>> This is all work that can be done NOW. >>> >>> Every time I listen to governments arguing with one another about the >>> IGF, EC, etc. I am more convinced that intergovernmental oversight of >>> internet public policy at this moment in time will do more harm than good. >>> >>> If - as someone from the academic community suggested to me last week - >>> in the longer term there will have to be an international agreement of >>> some kind (a convention, or treaty) on internet governance, the more >>> precedent we have been able to set in terms of protecting freedom of >>> expression and association on the internet, and the broader the public >>> interest, the better. It will make it more likely that that agreement >>> will be based on rights that have been won than on lowest common >>> denominator interests among sparring governments. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 27 14:04:04 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 11:04:04 -0700 Subject: [governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to statements and recordings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7EE5AEA897CE4219A4310EB50E683CC8@UserVAIO> Avri, I have nothing against being utopian -- I've been accused of that virtue myself from time to time, the problem is that utopianism can sometimes divert energy and attention away from more practical approaches to the same issues and that I think has been happening in spades around the Internet where a lot of (dare I say naïve) utopiansim has diverted a lot of energy away from the practical work of figuring out how to use the Internet to enhance and deepen democracy including through increased participation, through strengthening bottom up processes as I've spent the last 15 years or so trying to do through community informatics, through providing opportunities for contributions from multiple stakeholders as and where appropriate and so on. But unfortunately as you well know a lot of the efforts driven by utopian dreams around using the Internet for democratic purposes have foundered precisely on the shoals of "scaling up"... Using the Internet for enhancing participation (a la "likes" on Facebook, or "signing on" to Avaaz petitions is one thing, actually making workable decisions democratically even in a group as small as we are is something else again. My feeling now is that democracy can be enhanced by working both bottom up and top down... Bottom up -- by using ICTs to strengthen community capabilities particularly in enhancing participation in decision making of more immediate relevance to them, but also top down by opening up existing channels to broader participation, including multi-stakeholder contributions as input into broadbased democratic decision making; by enhancing the transparency and accountability of bureaucratic and political decision making through implementing the optimal opportunities for bottom up participation in those processes that ICTs present; and by overall beginning a process of adapting existing decision making and administrative structures and processes to the enhanced capability for information flow, transparency, accountability/participation and so on which ICTs provide. It's going to be a long hard slog but a necessary one I think and better to start off both with the head in the clouds and the feet in the muck. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 9:30 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to statements and recordings Hi, On 27 May 2012, at 12:08, michael gurstein wrote: > But maybe it means something more than that to you and I would be very > interested in having you describe (another homework assignment :) what > it might look like--without, dare I say, invoking as an example the > IETF or any grouping that isn't larger than one than can comfortably > meet in a room let's say the size of the UN GA (or a New England Town > Hall.. You are asking me to be utopian again. And maybe I should try to write a novel or a play that shows how a bottom-up participatory democracy could work. But I expect some aspect of my personality or day to day life will keep me from ever completing such a project. I think the solution is an emergent one, and it is by doing the work (theory and design) and the experimentation (empiricism) that we find the solution. It is not about 1 advocates utopian visions. The issue between the things you tell me not to use as examples and the global is a scaling factor. I beleive that subsidiarity and aggregation moving, from the bottom, up to areas of greater scope that can't be handled at the local would be a key to any solution. And I beleive that finding the ways to use e-governance to reach people directly whereever possible (including making it possible to use everywhere) are a critical part of any solution. I.e governance by and of the Internet. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sun May 27 17:11:25 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 17:11:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to statements and recordings In-Reply-To: <7EE5AEA897CE4219A4310EB50E683CC8@UserVAIO> References: <7EE5AEA897CE4219A4310EB50E683CC8@UserVAIO> Message-ID: Dear All, Were you aware that there was outside remote participation, or at least remote observation :-), all last week? Apparently this is the first time it has happened. There was an invitation from UNCTAD to remote participarnts on the Friday of the week before - I expressed an interest, I got a reply asking me about membership of an organisation with accreditation - to ECOSOC, WSIS - to which I answered no, that I was just interested - expecting that that would definitely be that - and lo and behold I was sent the links. I was late on the first 2 days - the sessions started at 4am here - and on Friday I had to leave about 10pm Geneva time (the debate lasted until about 2am Geneva time), but otherwise I was "there" all week. There were usually about 5 of us. I have just emailed Mr Hamdi to thank UNCTAD for making this possible. Friday a week ago Izumi stood up in the EC meeting and expressed his displeasure - very diplomatically but as harshly as I have ever heard Izumi speak - and it worked. So I think we have to just keep pushing and, following Mike's earlier message, get lots of other people to push with us. Maybe we should sing too - Eurovision got lots of coverage :-) Deirdre On 27 May 2012 14:04, michael gurstein wrote: > Avri, > > I have nothing against being utopian -- I've been accused of that virtue > myself from time to time, the problem is that utopianism can sometimes > divert energy and attention away from more practical approaches to the same > issues and that I think has been happening in spades around the Internet > where a lot of (dare I say naïve) utopiansim has diverted a lot of energy > away from the practical work of figuring out how to use the Internet to > enhance and deepen democracy including through increased participation, > through strengthening bottom up processes as I've spent the last 15 years > or > so trying to do through community informatics, through providing > opportunities for contributions from multiple stakeholders as and where > appropriate and so on. > > But unfortunately as you well know a lot of the efforts driven by utopian > dreams around using the Internet for democratic purposes have foundered > precisely on the shoals of "scaling up"... Using the Internet for enhancing > participation (a la "likes" on Facebook, or "signing on" to Avaaz petitions > is one thing, actually making workable decisions democratically even in a > group as small as we are is something else again. > > My feeling now is that democracy can be enhanced by working both bottom up > and top down... Bottom up -- by using ICTs to strengthen community > capabilities particularly in enhancing participation in decision making of > more immediate relevance to them, but also top down by opening up existing > channels to broader participation, including multi-stakeholder > contributions > as input into broadbased democratic decision making; by enhancing the > transparency and accountability of bureaucratic and political decision > making through implementing the optimal opportunities for bottom up > participation in those processes that ICTs present; and by overall > beginning > a process of adapting existing decision making and administrative > structures > and processes to the enhanced capability for information flow, > transparency, > accountability/participation and so on which ICTs provide. > > It's going to be a long hard slog but a necessary one I think and better to > start off both with the head in the clouds and the feet in the muck. > > Mike > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 9:30 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to > statements and recordings > > > Hi, > > On 27 May 2012, at 12:08, michael gurstein wrote: > > > But maybe it means something more than that to you and I would be very > > interested in having you describe (another homework assignment :) what > > it might look like--without, dare I say, invoking as an example the > > IETF or any grouping that isn't larger than one than can comfortably > > meet in a room let's say the size of the UN GA (or a New England Town > > Hall.. > > > You are asking me to be utopian again. And maybe I should try to write a > novel or a play that shows how a bottom-up participatory democracy could > work. But I expect some aspect of my personality or day to day life will > keep me from ever completing such a project. > > I think the solution is an emergent one, and it is by doing the work > (theory > and design) and the experimentation (empiricism) that we find the > solution. > It is not about 1 advocates utopian visions. > > The issue between the things you tell me not to use as examples and the > global is a scaling factor. I beleive that subsidiarity and aggregation > moving, from the bottom, up to areas of greater scope that can't be handled > at the local would be a key to any solution. > > And I beleive that finding the ways to use e-governance to reach people > directly whereever possible (including making it possible to use > everywhere) > are a critical part of any solution. I.e governance by and of the Internet. > > 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 > > -- “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 vanda at uol.com.br Sun May 27 19:12:36 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 20:12:36 -0300 Subject: RES: [governance] Vint Cerf OpEd in the New York Times: "Keep the Internet Open" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <045b01cd3c5e$35c0c2b0$a1424810$@uol.com.br> HI Sergio, I tried to enter and apply to see if I wll get authorization to enter. Kke you psoted. Thank you for your points. All the best, Vanda Scartezini Nominating Committee Chair ICANN Tel + 5511 3266.6253 Mob + 55118181.1464 Skype:vanda.scartezini Domain dialing free Descrição: 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 Sérgio Alves Jr. Enviada em: sexta-feira, 25 de maio de 2012 13:15 Para: Adam Peake; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Assunto: Re: [governance] Vint Cerf OpEd in the New York Times: "Keep the Internet Open" Adam, The other day, someone mentioned that UAE represents its civil society before the ITU. I'm not so so arrogant to affirm I represent the whole Brazilian one there. I'm not sure whether I or my country would be penalized at the ITU if every document we have access to was made public here or some other forum. I have tried that before, and someone from this list said I should not do it. The ITU TIES account (http://www.itu.int/TIES/) is managed by focal points from each Member State, according to the country's own policy. Once you have it, you can access anything that is free (except for some publications that are sold even for governments). In Brazil, the policy is guaranteeing access to anyone who identifies herself as a "brasileira" at the application form (http://www.itu.int/cgi-bin/htsh/mm/scripts/reg.screen1.html?_languageid=1). One does not need to be from gov or telecom sector. In this sense, CS should go after its own country focal points, and ask for clarification on their policy. This is not enough, I'm sure. I believe CS does not have to express itself through the voice of a telecom regulator. We know that and we try to, but It has been really difficult to find partners within the ITU in favor of opening the Union's processes. I cannot speak for the ITU membership, not even for Brazil, but if that helps clarifying our strategy, these are the touchstones to guide our participation at any ITU meeting or conference regarding Internet-related public policy issues: http://www.cgi.br/english/regulations/resolution2009-003.htm My opion: forget about WCIT, it is already decided. Nothing is going to chance. The focus should be WTPF-13, WSIS+10 and PP-14. In the between, CWG-Internet might shad some light on the oldie ITU. Abraços, Sérgio 2012/5/25 Adam Peake Rumors are the main problem, when there's a lack of information lobbying is of course effective. The ITU gave a briefing on WCIT during the WSIS reviews in Geneva last week. ITU Secretariat emphasized they wanted to be as open and transparent as possible. A couple of sector members asked if they could share the information they had access to with their members, if I remember correctly the answer from the Secretariat was ask the ITU Council. Requests for information were stonewalled. The presentation did not give any information about the substance of what was being discussed (your email, a couple of sentences, is more informative), but somewhat bizarrely it did mention summary documents of the regional preparatory meetings and submissions to date had been prepared. At least two people asked if those documents could be made public, and the answer was a negative non-committal. What was the point of mentioning the existence of the documents? Sérgio, governments that care about the ITRs might do well to make sure information is made available, or the ITRs are likely to end up in the same place as ACTA, SOPA, and PIPA, etc. Look at ACTA, treaties don't seem to be quite as certain as they recently were. Of course the U.S. wants to make the ITRs as ineffectual as possible, and the lack of information from others makes their lobbying all the more effective. Best, Adam WCIT has nothing to do with expanding ITU's mandate on the internet. Any proposal in this sense is stillborn. This OpEd adds zero to the ITRs debate. This is the kind of American strategy that is killing the conference. The real topics are international connectivity, accounting rules, finances. Brazilian proposals, for instance, are focused on increasing transparency and lowering international roaming rates (topics that many, including US, don't agree to negotiate either). The only thing I agree in the text is that civil society is kept unfairly out the debate. Were SC in, there wouldn't be so many nonsense rumors like this. Abraços, Sérgio Alves Jr Em 25/05/2012 09:16, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> escreveu: Hamadoun Toure, May 1 speaking about WCIT: "There are many important issues that may be addressed at WCIT, but I would like to focus on one broader issue in particular: how do we ensure sufficient investment in broadband network infrastructure?" and "And, the current ITRs are not properly equipped to deal with this challenge either, which raises the question of how all this new infrastructure will be paid for?" and "Everyone wants mobile broadband and the benefits it will bring. But few seem willing to pay for it -- including both the over-the-top players, who are generating vast new demand through their applications, and consumers, who have become accustomed to unlimited packages." <http://www.itu.in t/en/osg/speeches/Pages/2012-05-01.aspx> Hello Google, enter Vint :-) Adam Dear friends and colleagues, I thought you would appreciate knowing that an OpEd by Vint Cerf as above titled was printed today in the New York Times (and I believe the IHT). http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/opinion/keep-the-internet-open.html?_r=1 -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Geneva Representative Computer & Communications Industry Association Tel: +41 (22) 362 02 38 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 Sent from my iPad, please excuse typos ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/go vernance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/transla te_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/go vernance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/transla te_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 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 vanda at uol.com.br Sun May 27 19:17:20 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 20:17:20 -0300 Subject: RES: [governance] Vint Cerf OpEd in the New York Times: "Keep the Internet Open" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <046501cd3c5e$dee98250$9cbc86f0$@uol.com.br> I have tried, but since I am not teaching at Universidade do Para or member of Brazilian Government I can not have access through that site you posted. Thank you for tried. All the best Vanda Scartezini Nominating Committee Chair ICANN Tel + 5511 3266.6253 Mob + 55118181.1464 Skype:vanda.scartezini Domain dialing free Descrição: 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 Sérgio Alves Jr. Enviada em: sexta-feira, 25 de maio de 2012 13:15 Para: Adam Peake; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Assunto: Re: [governance] Vint Cerf OpEd in the New York Times: "Keep the Internet Open" Adam, The other day, someone mentioned that UAE represents its civil society before the ITU. I'm not so so arrogant to affirm I represent the whole Brazilian one there. I'm not sure whether I or my country would be penalized at the ITU if every document we have access to was made public here or some other forum. I have tried that before, and someone from this list said I should not do it. The ITU TIES account (http://www.itu.int/TIES/) is managed by focal points from each Member State, according to the country's own policy. Once you have it, you can access anything that is free (except for some publications that are sold even for governments). In Brazil, the policy is guaranteeing access to anyone who identifies herself as a "brasileira" at the application form (http://www.itu.int/cgi-bin/htsh/mm/scripts/reg.screen1.html?_languageid=1). One does not need to be from gov or telecom sector. In this sense, CS should go after its own country focal points, and ask for clarification on their policy. This is not enough, I'm sure. I believe CS does not have to express itself through the voice of a telecom regulator. We know that and we try to, but It has been really difficult to find partners within the ITU in favor of opening the Union's processes. I cannot speak for the ITU membership, not even for Brazil, but if that helps clarifying our strategy, these are the touchstones to guide our participation at any ITU meeting or conference regarding Internet-related public policy issues: http://www.cgi.br/english/regulations/resolution2009-003.htm My opion: forget about WCIT, it is already decided. Nothing is going to chance. The focus should be WTPF-13, WSIS+10 and PP-14. In the between, CWG-Internet might shad some light on the oldie ITU. Abraços, Sérgio 2012/5/25 Adam Peake Rumors are the main problem, when there's a lack of information lobbying is of course effective. The ITU gave a briefing on WCIT during the WSIS reviews in Geneva last week. ITU Secretariat emphasized they wanted to be as open and transparent as possible. A couple of sector members asked if they could share the information they had access to with their members, if I remember correctly the answer from the Secretariat was ask the ITU Council. Requests for information were stonewalled. The presentation did not give any information about the substance of what was being discussed (your email, a couple of sentences, is more informative), but somewhat bizarrely it did mention summary documents of the regional preparatory meetings and submissions to date had been prepared. At least two people asked if those documents could be made public, and the answer was a negative non-committal. What was the point of mentioning the existence of the documents? Sérgio, governments that care about the ITRs might do well to make sure information is made available, or the ITRs are likely to end up in the same place as ACTA, SOPA, and PIPA, etc. Look at ACTA, treaties don't seem to be quite as certain as they recently were. Of course the U.S. wants to make the ITRs as ineffectual as possible, and the lack of information from others makes their lobbying all the more effective. Best, Adam WCIT has nothing to do with expanding ITU's mandate on the internet. Any proposal in this sense is stillborn. This OpEd adds zero to the ITRs debate. This is the kind of American strategy that is killing the conference. The real topics are international connectivity, accounting rules, finances. Brazilian proposals, for instance, are focused on increasing transparency and lowering international roaming rates (topics that many, including US, don't agree to negotiate either). The only thing I agree in the text is that civil society is kept unfairly out the debate. Were SC in, there wouldn't be so many nonsense rumors like this. Abraços, Sérgio Alves Jr Em 25/05/2012 09:16, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> escreveu: Hamadoun Toure, May 1 speaking about WCIT: "There are many important issues that may be addressed at WCIT, but I would like to focus on one broader issue in particular: how do we ensure sufficient investment in broadband network infrastructure?" and "And, the current ITRs are not properly equipped to deal with this challenge either, which raises the question of how all this new infrastructure will be paid for?" and "Everyone wants mobile broadband and the benefits it will bring. But few seem willing to pay for it -- including both the over-the-top players, who are generating vast new demand through their applications, and consumers, who have become accustomed to unlimited packages." <http://www.itu.in t/en/osg/speeches/Pages/2012-05-01.aspx> Hello Google, enter Vint :-) Adam Dear friends and colleagues, I thought you would appreciate knowing that an OpEd by Vint Cerf as above titled was printed today in the New York Times (and I believe the IHT). http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/opinion/keep-the-internet-open.html?_r=1 -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Geneva Representative Computer & Communications Industry Association Tel: +41 (22) 362 02 38 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 Sent from my iPad, please excuse typos ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/go vernance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/transla te_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/go vernance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/transla te_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 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 Guru at ITforChange.net Mon May 28 00:36:05 2012 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 10:06:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] Who controls the World Wide Web? Message-ID: <4FC300B5.7020608@ITforChange.net> A post CSTD meeting article in the Hindu, yesterday... regards, Guru ps - just for information, The Hindu has a circulation of 2.1 million, more than double of that of NYT .... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_circulation) http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/internet/article3459842.ece Who controls the World Wide Web? Deepa Kurup BANGALORE, May 27, 2012 Earlier this week, at the United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development, held in Geneva, India reiterated its proposal to create a Committee on Internet-related Policies (CIRP). This proposal, backed by many others in the global south, aims at democratising the Internet and critical resources that are currently controlled by the U.S., big businesses and powerful nations in various other governance forums. The proposed CIRP will be a multilateral institution, where governments will sit together and take decisions on internet policies, treaties and standards. Not surprisingly, many have interpreted this as a move towards greater governmental control of the Web (read tighter censorship), even as others have lauded this as a progressive step towards greater democratisation of the internet. This techno-political debate is bitterly polarised, with experts and stakeholders, often backed by powerful lobbies, arguing for status quo with the U.S.-based non-profit ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) calling the shots, insisting that critical Internet resources cannot be controlled efficiently by a bureaucratic body like the UN,or governments that lack the expertise to keep pace with rapid technological challenges. Amidst speculation that India might roll back its earlier proposal, in Geneva, Indian representatives went ahead and called for ‘enhanced cooperation' to enable governments on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities pertaining to the Internet, and promote a “developmental agenda” for the Web. The U.S., and corporate lobbies (most big Internet firms being U.S.-based or operating out of other developed countries) have argued for retaining the current structure, where ICANN (which already has a governing council with government representatives) retains control over Internet technologies. They argue that though jurisdictionally under the U.S., the ICANN is more likely to retain the democratic and free structure of the Internet. They argue that governments, in general, are more likely to stifle free speech, and by extension, that the US is more likely to uphold commitments to free speech on the web. However, recent events such as the clamp-down on Wikileaks (where web companies cut off payment pathways and services to the whistleblower site, reportedly upon government request) and recently proposed Bills such as the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA) — which manipulate the domain name system (DNS) infrastructure to enforce Intellectual Property laws — make a mockery of these claims. Technological debate There are two sides to this debate: one that purely deals with the techno-political aspect of the control of the Internet, and the other that deals with social and political policy debates. In purely technological terms, this debate revolved around the DNS root name servers or the Internet Domain Name System, which forms the backbone of communication on the Web. The DNS is a large database used by Internet applications to map or translate Web URLs (for instance, www.thehindu.com) to a unique IP address. All the generic names and the IP addresses for all top level domains (for the purpose of mapping) are stored in what is called a root zone file. So when you type in a URL address in your browser's address bar, a query is sent to the DNS (often through your Internet service provider's servers, which often caches this information so queries don't have to be sent every single time) which translates it into the numeric IP address. While, as users, this saves us the trouble of remembering numbers and codes, the larger benefits of course have to do with the fact that you can access any site from anywhere. Indeed, there is some obfuscation on what these servers, and by extension technological control, are all about. At the core of the DNS system are 13 root servers controlled by 12 separate organisations and private entities, or operators. There are many hundreds of root servers at over 130 physical locations in many different countries, says an official ICANN blog that seeks to bust myths on how the U.S. controls the Internet through 13 root servers. Sometimes, one server is located in over 25 countries, it clarified. However, what really matters here is who controls the root zone file. This file contains the domain names and IP addresses that enable the querying-mapping process. The root zone file, and access or authority to edit it, is what is crucial in this debate because finally the architecture of the DNS system, and in essence the Internet, is dependent on how this file is handled. So, a domain is valid only if it is there on this file. As of now, this root zone file is controlled by the ICANN. Why not ICANN? But why is it problematic that the authority to manipulate this file lies with a body like the ICANN? ICANN continues to be a non-profit registered in the U.S., one that is subject to decisions and laws made by the U.S. government. For instance, under the pretext of enforcing an IP regime, the U.S. can enforce alterations to the DNS system, as was proposed in the SOPA legislation, which was retracted after web companies and tech activists lobbied against it, earlier this year. So what is the solution? It is not surprising that India's proposal to the UN, for pure governmental control, is being perceived as problematic, given recent announcements by Indian politicians expressing the desire to “regulate” social media or “pre-screen what appears on the Web. Indeed, governments across the world, have now and then, sought to clamp down on the Internet. Tech commentators have also argued that under indirect US control, ICANN has in recent years restricted its mandate to technical domains, and may be a better alternative than a UN body. But then where does the developing world's point of view fit in? “By and large, it is legitimate to say that to have one powerful country control the Internet is illegitimate. The UN bodies have a better track record as far as democratic methods go, where countries can sit together and vote. Which is why the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) countries are pushing for more equal control of the Internet as it is a global resource,” says Senthil S, member of the Free Software Movement of India. However, the UN will have to ensure that it promotes a body without censorship so that internet governance can be more democratic. Commenting on this debate, Parminder Jeet Singh, executive director of Bangalore-based NGO, IT for Change, seeks to draw the line between issues of technical governance or management and other cultural, social and political aspects of Internet governance. While the Internet's technical governance — albiet being dominated by big business - is indeed a very distributed and open system, issues related to larger public policies concerning social, economic, cultural and political matters are much more important and are neglected in this debate, Mr. Singh said. He also commented on how Internet monopoly companies are increasingly deciding policy matters, and questioned why bodies such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the Council of Europe should make policies without consulting developing countries. -- 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 -------------- 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 andrea at digitalpolicy.it Mon May 28 02:23:48 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 08:23:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, both during the WSIS week in Geneva and recently on this mailing list I had the occasion to hear/read a number of persons claiming (rather forcefully) that the conclusions of the WSIS "clearly" meant the IGF to be the or at least an instrument to implement Enhanced Cooperation. Leaving aside for a moment the subsequent UNGA resolution on the matter (but noting that even though, strictly speaking, we are not talking about binding international law, the principle of "lex posterior" could apply) I would be curious to know your views on which passages of the WSIS texts could lead to such conclusion. PS: re-reading WSIS texts is always interesting. For example, I (re-)discovered that the IGF is meant to be "multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent". So, at least in 2005, some people believed multilateralism and multistakeholderism could live under the same roof. Best, Andrea -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon May 28 02:35:04 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 14:35:04 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FC31C98.3080800@ciroap.org> On 28/05/12 14:23, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > both during the WSIS week in Geneva and recently on this mailing list > I had the occasion to hear/read a number of persons claiming (rather > forcefully) that the conclusions of the WSIS "clearly" meant the IGF > to be the or at least an instrument to implement Enhanced Cooperation. > > Leaving aside for a moment the subsequent UNGA resolution on the > matter (but noting that even though, strictly speaking, we are not > talking about binding international law, the principle of "lex > posterior" could apply) I would be curious to know your views on which > passages of the WSIS texts could lead to such conclusion. > Lazily, just copying and pasting from page 518 of my 2008 book on the IGF (http://books.google.com.my/books?id=G8ETBPD6jHIC): "...there is no clear division between the role of the IGF and the process of enhanced cooperation in the Tunis Agenda; rather the former is treated as an integral component of the latter.[341] What can be taken from this is that whilst governments will continue to maintain sovereignty over the authoritative statement of public policy principles in international and domestic law, those principles are to be developed in a multi-stakeholder forum, the IGF (from where they may equally find implementation through other, non-legal mechanisms of governance)." [341] See WSIS, Tunis Agenda for the Information Society (as in n. 5 on page 2), paras 67–72, in which the middle paragraphs on enhanced cooperation are sandwiched by those calling for the establishment of the IGF. -- *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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon May 28 02:55:49 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 07:55:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4sm3pMc1FywPFAyN@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 08:23:48 on Mon, 28 May 2012, Andrea Glorioso writes >both during the WSIS week in Geneva and recently on this mailing list I >had the occasion to hear/read a number of persons claiming (rather >forcefully) that the conclusions of the WSIS "clearly" meant the IGF to >be the or at least an instrument to implement Enhanced Cooperation. > >Leaving aside for a moment the subsequent UNGA resolution on the matter >(but noting that even though, strictly speaking, we are not talking >about binding international law, the principle of "lex posterior" could >apply) I would be curious to know your views on which passages of the >WSIS texts could lead to such conclusion. I refer you to my posting (18 May 2012 11:41:44) which describe why I believe the IGF is part of the delivery mechanism of EC (for example when ICANN runs an Open Forum it is engaging in capacity building to encourage stakeholders, including governments, to be come more aware and involved in ICANN). Similarly the ITU running an IGF workshop on Cybersecurity[1]. But it is only a small part, the bulk of the responsibility falling upon numerous organisations to do outreach outwith the IGF, for the other 51 weeks of the year. [1] Some are sceptical about such a role in Cybersecurity, but the ITU are perfectly entitled to their workshop. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Mon May 28 03:23:32 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 09:23:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to statements and recordings In-Reply-To: <4FC25CBB.5050203@itforchange.net> References: <4FC213EF.2070102@apc.org> <8CF0A288D496BC8-B24-477CD@webmail-m072.sysops.aol.com> <4FC2498D.20405@itforchange.net> <4FC25193.2070001@apc.org> <4FC25CBB.5050203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4FC327F4.4060504@apc.org> Hi Parminder.. yes.. they are two separate discussions. I linked them because when I posted the resolution I kind of spontaneously posted my thoughts.. not something I do very often on this list :) Good to pursue the discussions in two threads. Both are important. Anriette On 27/05/2012 18:56, parminder wrote: > Hi Anriette > > First of all, I would seperate the discussions on a summit level WSIS + > 10 event and that about a possible new UN based Internet policy body. In > my view, they are different arguments. (Please allow me to engage with > some other issues raised in your email later, in a separate email.) > > The proposed summit is to be with a participative preparatory process, > including corresponding regional processes, as with WSIS (it can only be > improved with our improved multistakeholder experience at IG related > forums since). This was specifically the demand of developing countries > at the CSTD, and some of it finds mention in the final resolution > (although the final modalities of the review process will be decided at > the UN GA). > > And if indeed we have to connect this discussion about a possible WSIS > like process to that about shaping institutions for global Internet > policy making, when you say that a long preparatory process may be > required before we can think of the right institutional design, isnt the > WSIS kind of process, that goes to the regional levels as well, the > right kind. Alternatively, we have the G8 meetings, OECD meetings, the > London/ Stockholm kind of meetings, and the calender is quite busy .... > Is this the right preparatory process to what we want eventually... And > this point also goes to your question about resources for such a summit > process.Why does the resources question always gets raised for a UN > based globally democratic process, while so much money globally gets > spent every year on these other kind of 'global' Internet governance > meetings. > > parminder > > > > On Sunday 27 May 2012 09:38 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> Hi all >> >> I agree with Parminder in the sense that 'cyberspace' is not >> 'unfettered' at the moment, and that keeping the freedom we have, and >> increasing it where needed, cannot be done without using existing >> regulations (e.g. what we are trying to do with freedom of expression at >> HRC level) and in some cases creating new ones (e.g. efforts to make >> social networking platforms default to max privacy settings). >> >> I just don't agree that establishing a new UN body is the best way of >> going about this. I think it will take too long, that will be too >> difficult to get agreement between governments, participation of >> non-governmental stakeholders will be too constrained, and, that when >> governments do agree... the results are not likely to be what most >> people on this list want.. not from the perspective of introducing more >> geo-political balance or if your goal is to contain the influence of >> large internet companies. >> >> Perhaps once we have a more stable, rights oriented institutional and >> regulatory environment it could make sense to assign oversight to one or >> more UN-linked mechanisms... as for example in the case of human rights >> standards. >> >> But to build the institution first, and then assume it will make public >> policy that we like in the current political and economic environment is >> a very hopeful assumption. >> >> As Parminder, correctly, pointed out to me.. there will be a need to >> lobby for such a body to act in a public-interest oriented way, and to >> be multi-stakeholder in a meaningful way. Just as we have to lobby in >> this way at national level, and in other global forums. >> >> I just don't feel based on the current environment in the UN that >> starting with the 'new body' is the way to go. >> >> Hypothetically, as more and more governments are leaning to the ITU >> having oversight of internet public policy, a new body might be a better >> option and therefore I do think we should discuss the IT for Change >> statement seriously even if many of us don't support it. >> >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 27/05/2012 17:34, parminder wrote: >> >>> On Sunday 27 May 2012 07:32 PM, Koven Ronald wrote: >>> >>>> B ravo, Anriette. >>>> >>>> I heartily agree that another summit now would at best be a pointless >>>> waste of time, energy and resources and at worst >>>> >>> At least for the most powerful, this is for the same reason as UNCTAD >>> was sought, last month, to be disallowed to continue with some of its >>> most important mandates, like analysing and giving recommendations >>> regarding the global financial system. This was becuase the powerful >>> wanted such key matter of global governance to be left to the forums >>> controlled by them - IMF, G8 and such. The same powerful forces want >>> Internet policies to continue to be developed unilaterally, or at clubs >>> of rich countries like the OECD, and therefore the resistance to a WSIS >>> like summit. Think where would we be without the original WSIS - the >>> IGF, even the IGC, all the present global discussions ....... >>> >>> >>>> -- given the present global lineup and climate -- harmful for the >>>> future of an unfettered cyberspace. >>>> >>> Yes, we want an unfettered cyberspace (based btw on human rights >>> discussed and decided at the UN). At the same time, we also want a fair >>> and just Internet, which helps support global economic, social, cultural >>> and political flows towards greater democracy, equity and social >>> justice. All of these requires greater political work at the global level. >>> >>> Wanting to globalize economic-ally and socially, without doing so >>> politically, is either the vain fantasy of an anarchist, or the design >>> of the more powerful for an unfettered run on global resources. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>>> Bests, Rony Koven >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Anriette Esterhuysen >>>> To: governance >>>> >>>> Sent: Sun, May 27, 2012 1:46 pm >>>> Subject: [governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to >>>> statements and recordings >>>> >>>> Dear IGC list >>>> >>>> Attached is the resolution related to WSIS follow-up adopted during last >>>> week's meeting of the CSTD. >>>> >>>> The resolution is rather minimalist, and represents the fact that there >>>> was very little consensus among CSTD members on: >>>> >>>> - enhanced cooperation in internet governance >>>> - WSIS + 10 >>>> >>>> On the former there is not much more to be said. What is quite sad is >>>> that several countries made a huge fuss about the report from the Chair >>>> (a very patient and able Mr. de la Pena, vice minister of ICTs from the >>>> Philippines) on the meeting of 18 May in Geneva. His report was a very >>>> short summary of all the views presented. I certainly felt it was >>>> accurate and easy to read. It did not go into detail.. but that was not >>>> the point of a chair's report. Particularly not when all the statements >>>> are available on the CSTD website, as well as a transcript. >>>> >>>> But, as this report is forwarded to the GA it is political and subject >>>> for negotations. >>>> >>>> On WSIS +10 it is disappointing that a very good panel discussion on >>>> this process during the CSTD (that included inputs from UNESCO, ITU, and >>>> others) is not reflected. E.g. David Souter made the point that >>>> assessing WSIS +10 outcomes and progress should not just focus on >>>> statistics and ICT access measures. It should focus on human >>>> development, and on the broader outcomes of the massive ICT/information >>>> society related changes of the last 10 years. He also pointed out that >>>> the assessment should not just be left to governments, but that business >>>> and civil society should be encouraged to assess changes/impacts from >>>> their perspective. >>>> >>>> Good comments from the floor, e.g. one from Brazil saying we should >>>> consider the impact of the Summit itself, also did not make it to the >>>> resolution. >>>> >>>> The differences of views on how WSIS +10 should take place is relevant >>>> for civil society. Parminder and I talked about this a bit in Geneva, >>>> and we don't quite agree. >>>> >>>> Some governments, Iran, South Africa, Saudi Arabia among others feel >>>> very strongly that we need another Summit. They said that only >>>> governments can assess progress on achieving outcomes. They believe >>>> there should be a multi-stakeholder prep process, but that the final >>>> assessment should be negotiated between States. >>>> >>>> Parminder shares the view that there should be another Summit, but his >>>> reasons are more nuanced and complex than that of the governments. He >>>> can explain them himself. >>>> >>>> My view is that another Summit is not a good idea. While I like the >>>> idea of civil society having a platform to reconvene, I doubt that the >>>> resources needed for a fully participative and regionally distributed >>>> preparatory process will be available. >>>> >>>> I am also not convinced that even if available, it would be the best way >>>> of spending money and time. >>>> >>>> But my main concern is that I think it will result in negotiated >>>> outcomes which will not be in the public interest. >>>> >>>> I have been looking at the Geneva Declaration and the Tunis Agenda a lot >>>> recently. They are messy documents, with view very firmly stated goals. >>>> But they are full of good ideas, openness to doing things in a different >>>> way. People-centred development and human rights are concepts scattered >>>> throughout. >>>> >>>> I doubt very, very much that in a new text we would get references to >>>> 'open source and licensing'. Take this text for example: >>>> >>>> " 27. Access to information and knowledge can be promoted by increasing >>>> awareness among all stakeholders of the possibilities offered by >>>> different software models, including proprietary, open-source and free >>>> software, in order to increase competition, access by users, diversity >>>> of choice, and to enable all users to develop solutions which best meet >>>> their requirements. Affordable access to software should be considered >>>> as an important component of a truly inclusive Information Society. >>>> >>>> 28. We strive to promote universal access with equal opportunities for >>>> all to scientific knowledge and the creation and dissemination of >>>> scientific and technical information, including open access initiatives >>>> for scientific publishing." >>>> >>>> If this was negotiated today, it would look different, or more likely, >>>> be negotiated into oblivion as governments bargained with one another >>>> over security, oversight over ICANN and IANA, commercial interests of >>>> the companies they are close to. >>>> >>>> Rather than another Summit I think that as civil society we should focus >>>> our efforts on identifying key issues that can be addressed and forming >>>> partnerships that can achieve this in as short a space of time as >>>> possible. For example, internationalisation of ICANN and IANA that gives >>>> governments equal participation without giving any single one of them >>>> control. And, another example is for us to use existing international >>>> and regional bodies mandated to protect freedom of expression and >>>> privacy rights to challenge governments and companies who violate these >>>> rights. >>>> >>>> The concerns expressed on this list about monopolies/distortion of power >>>> and companies having the influence to shape policies in their own >>>> interests also represent struggles we can take on now. We don't need new >>>> intergovernmental processes to do so. The examples of SOPA and ACTA >>>> being sent back to the drawing board illustrate this clearly. >>>> >>>> We spend time arguing about new UN bodies or not when we should be >>>> spending this time collaborating across countries, regions and policy >>>> spaces to achieve greater 'net neutrality' and more consumer choice and >>>> rights protection. >>>> >>>> This is all work that can be done NOW. >>>> >>>> Every time I listen to governments arguing with one another about the >>>> IGF, EC, etc. I am more convinced that intergovernmental oversight of >>>> internet public policy at this moment in time will do more harm than good. >>>> >>>> If - as someone from the academic community suggested to me last week - >>>> in the longer term there will have to be an international agreement of >>>> some kind (a convention, or treaty) on internet governance, the more >>>> precedent we have been able to set in terms of protecting freedom of >>>> expression and association on the internet, and the broader the public >>>> interest, the better. It will make it more likely that that agreement >>>> will be based on rights that have been won than on lowest common >>>> denominator interests among sparring governments. >>>> >>>> Anriette >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >> -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon May 28 03:30:39 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 15:30:39 +0800 Subject: [governance] US hearing on International Proposals to Regulate the Internet Message-ID: <4FC3299F.4010900@ciroap.org> Speaking of inclusive and multi-stakeholder debates on Internet governance reform, this will not be happening on 31 May at the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce, when there will be a hearing on "International Proposals to Regulate the Internet" with the following (closed) list of witnesses: The Honorable Robert McDowell Commissioner Federal Communications Commission The Honorable David A. Gross Former U.S. Coordinator International Communications and Information Policy Ms. Sally Shipman Wentworth Senior Manager, Public Policy Internet Society http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=9543 The event will be streamed at http://energycommerce.house.gov/ and it may be worth at least following and tweeting about it (there is a tweet box on the front page of the site). As an aside, the Energy and Commerce Committee site is full of partisan slurs again "Obamacare", environmentalists, anti-nuclear activists and the like. We can expect the depth of intellectual debate at this hearing to rise to the level of "America invented the Internet, we don't want no UN bureaucrats from Iran or China meddling with 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 -------------- 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 anriette at apc.org Mon May 28 04:15:54 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 10:15:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] US hearing on International Proposals to Regulate the Internet In-Reply-To: <4FC3299F.4010900@ciroap.org> References: <4FC3299F.4010900@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4FC3343A.5000301@apc.org> Thanks for posting this, Jeremy. Not very promising. And I wonder which proposals they are going to discuss. Personally I don't think that any proposals to date, not CIRP or IBSA or IT for Change or others made on Sunday qualify as proposals for 'regulating the internet'. Perhaps the Saudi Arabia comments are closest to this direction. Countries who proposed UN oversight on the 18th, such as South Africa and Iran always qualified that they are arguing for intergovernmental oversight of internet public policy and that this role should not include technical management of the internet. It is in fact the 'public policy oversight' that I am concerned about, particularly as they are proposing to locate this in the ITU. The distorted FCC reaction to talk of the ITU taking over and 'regulating' the internet only sets serious discussion about international cooperation, and rooting internet policy in existing international agreements, back. It has also been clear from following this process that governments that were open to non-ITU options are increasingly going for a pro-ITU option because their concerns are not taken seriously in other spaces. Anriette On 28/05/2012 09:30, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: Speaking of inclusive and multi-stakeholder debates on Internet governance reform, this will not be happening on 31 May at the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce, when there will be a hearing on "International Proposals to Regulate the Internet" with the following (closed) list of witnesses: The Honorable Robert McDowell Commissioner Federal Communications Commission The Honorable David A. Gross Former U.S. Coordinator International Communications and Information Policy Ms. Sally Shipman Wentworth Senior Manager, Public Policy Internet Society http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=9543 The event will be streamed at http://energycommerce.house.gov/ and it may be worth at least following and tweeting about it (there is a tweet box on the front page of the site). As an aside, the Energy and Commerce Committee site is full of partisan slurs again "Obamacare", environmentalists, anti-nuclear activists and the like. We can expect the depth of intellectual debate at this hearing to rise to the level of "America invented the Internet, we don't want no UN bureaucrats from Iran or China meddling with it!". -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Mon May 28 04:41:55 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 10:41:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <4FC31C98.3080800@ciroap.org> References: <4FC31C98.3080800@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4FC33A53.2090003@apc.org> Dear Andrea and others I think Jeremy's interpretation is accurate and a good summary of what I think most authors (governments, after all) of the TA intended. If you read the text preceding paragraph 67 (which describes IG) and then para 67: "67. We agree, inter alia, to invite the UN Secretary-General to convene a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue." .. and then the text from paras 68 to 82 (the rest of the TA under the heading 'internet governance' it is very, very clear that the IGF was meant to be a forum to continue discussion about EC in IG. As for that UNGA resolution that states EC and the IGF are two distinct processes...it is also usually assumed and stated that it still implies they are complimentary.. so the TA's mandate for the IGF to be the primary forum for taking EC forward is not contradicted. It is also worth considering whether that 2010 GA resolution would ever have been made if some governments, and some members of business and the tech community were not so averse to having serious discussion of EC in the IGF for its first few years. As for 'multi-lateral and multi-stakeholder. Yes, this is in the TA, and there are different interpretations of what it means, as there are different interpretations of what EC means. Anriette On 28/05/2012 08:35, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 28/05/12 14:23, Andrea Glorioso wrote: >> both during the WSIS week in Geneva and recently on this mailing list >> I had the occasion to hear/read a number of persons claiming (rather >> forcefully) that the conclusions of the WSIS "clearly" meant the IGF >> to be the or at least an instrument to implement Enhanced Cooperation. >> >> Leaving aside for a moment the subsequent UNGA resolution on the >> matter (but noting that even though, strictly speaking, we are not >> talking about binding international law, the principle of "lex >> posterior" could apply) I would be curious to know your views on which >> passages of the WSIS texts could lead to such conclusion. >> > > Lazily, just copying and pasting from page 518 of my 2008 book on the > IGF (http://books.google.com.my/books?id=G8ETBPD6jHIC): > > "...there is no clear division between the role of the IGF and the > process of enhanced cooperation in the Tunis Agenda; rather the former > is treated as an integral component of the latter.[341] What can be > taken from this is that whilst governments will continue to maintain > sovereignty over the authoritative statement of public policy principles > in international and domestic law, those principles are to be developed > in a multi-stakeholder forum, the IGF (from where they may equally find > implementation through other, non-legal mechanisms of governance)." > > [341] See WSIS, Tunis Agenda for the Information Society (as in n. 5 on > page 2), paras 67–72, in > which the middle paragraphs on enhanced cooperation are sandwiched by > those calling for the > establishment of the IGF. > > -- > > *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. > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Mon May 28 04:52:09 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 10:52:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] US hearing on International Proposals to Regulate the Internet In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD94@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD94@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4FC33CB9.8030906@apc.org> Reposting Wolfgang's excellent analysis to the correct list address. My interpretation of the ITU's comments on the 18th was as follows: 'If governments want more oversight and EC in IG, come to the ITU, we can give it to them' (paraphrased and interpreted) It might be worth discussing which aspects of internet technical governance overlaps with the work of the ITU. Can someone post on this? There must be some elements emerging from the convergence between telecoms and IP that the ITU must address? As for the transparency. Definitely Wolfgang.. ITRs should not be renegotiated behind closed doors. Therefore the letter that several CSOs sent to Mr. Toure on 17 May. Anriette -------- Original Message -------- Subject: AW: [governance] US hearing on International Proposals to Regulate the Internet Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 10:35:37 +0200 From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Anriette Esterhuysen , governance at lists.cpsr.org Hello my understanding is that the US Hearing is aimed less on ICANN and CIR oversight und more on ITU, WCIT and ITR. David Gross, who was the head of the US governmental delegation during WSIS II and in Tunis, raised this issue, by ringing the alarm bells, a couple of months ago. http://www.whoswholegal.com/news/features/article/29378/the-2012-world-conference-international-telecommunications-brewing-storm-potential-un-regulation-internet/ I participated in the WCIT consultations during the recent WSIS Forum in Room 16 in the ILO Building where ITU´s Alexander Ntoko tried to water down the growing political debate about the renewal of the ITRs from 1988 which is the subject of the "World Conference on International Telecommunication" (WCIT), scheduled for Dubai, December 2012. The debate was partly bizarr. We discussed documents which the majority of the people in the room (around 150) didn´t know. The governmental representative from Iran said that "Internet Governance is not on the agenda of the Dubai conference". But in the next statement he said that IPv6 is part of the agenda and that today "the Internet is everyhwere". An even more irritating position was taken by the rep from the UAE, the host of the WCIT. I felt that we are back in 2002, during PrepCom1, when CS (together with the PS) was moved out of the room. The UAE rep argued that the governments represent their people and there is no need to give access to documents to non-member states of the ITU. As a private company you can join ITU as a sector member, have to pay a high entrance fee and get access to the documents. If a CS organisations wants to have the documents they should contact their governments, was the recommendnation. As you know, all WCIT conference documents are not accessible. You have to have a TIED account to open the documents and this is reserved to member states only. The problem with ITR is that the old treaty was drafted by the WATTC in Melbourne 1988 when the Internet was not an issue. It is understandable that such a treaty needs a renewal,. The question is HOW? The ITR are seen as an umbrella treaty for all kinds of transborder telecommunication. It needs ratification and is legally binding. The WCIT Prep Committee had several meetings, the final one will be in June 2012 just at the eve of the ICANN meeting in Prague. It is "behind closed doors". A key problem is that the short text of the ITR regulations include a lot of "definitions". By extending the scope of the "defined categories" for international telecommunication the risk is high that you extend ITRs to the Internet. With other words, if you do not like the existing Internet mechanisms, there is no need to attack them directly, it is much easier to undermine them by introducing an addtional regulatiry layer (in a legally binding form). With the ITR you give governments a legal incentive to "re-nationalize" the Internet and you open the door for a split into a "governmental led part of the Internet" (under the ITU) and a "multistakeholder led part of the Internet" (under ICANN). The ITU-ICANN relationship is still unsettled and full of mistrust, The ITU (and ICANN) didn´t do anything to implement the ITU resolution from 2010 (Guadalajara) which called for new forms of collaboration. Did the ITU made any serious statement in the UNCSTD consultatitons on "enhanced cooperation"? In Geneva last week it was announced that the ITU will come to the ICANN meeting in Prague. So lets wait an see what they have to say. Here is a para. from my intervention in Geneva:: "EU Commissioner Nelly Kroes, in a speech recently in Berlin, called the protest of tens of thousands of people against ACTA a "wake up call for Brussels". The EU obviously starts to realize that in a multistakeholder Internet environment one can no longer negotiate issues of general interests, which affect two billions of Internet users, by governments only behind closed doors. Madame Kroes declared in Berlin that ACTA in its present form can not survive. The ITU should learn from this. If you negotiate the ITRs behind closed doors, we will probably see in 2013 another wave of public protest around the world. Two years ago, nobody knew what ACTA means. Today it is a symbol for a wrong approach to manage global issues related to the Internet. Today nobody knows what ITR means. Tomorrow it could become a symbol for a wrong approach to regulate the Internet. Again: If you want to have a sustainable renewal of the ITRs, open the doors to the ITR negotiations. Otherwise the year 2013 could see a "wake up call for Geneva". Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Anriette Esterhuysen Gesendet: Mo 28.05.2012 09:21 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] US hearing on International Proposals to Regulate the Internet Thanks for posting this, Jeremy. Not very promising. And I wonder which proposals they are going to discuss. Personally I don't think that any proposals to date, not CIRP or IBSA or IT for Change or others made on Sunday qualify as proposals for 'regulating the internet'. Perhaps the Saudi Arabia comments are closest to this direction. Countries who proposed UN oversight on the 18th, such as South Africa and Iran always qualified that they are arguing for intergovernmental oversight of internet public policy and that this role should not include technical management of the internet. It is in fact the 'public policy oversight' that I am concerned about, particularly as they are proposing to locate this in the ITU. The distorted FCC reaction to talk of the ITU taking over and 'regulating' the internet only sets serious discussion about international cooperation, and rooting internet policy in existing international agreements, back. It has also been clear from following this process that governments that were open to non-ITU options are increasingly going for a pro-ITU option because their concerns are not taken seriously in other spaces. Anriette On 28/05/2012 04:56, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Speaking of inclusive and multi-stakeholder debates on Internet > governance reform, this will not be happening on 31 May at the US House > Committee on Energy and Commerce, when there will be a hearing on > "International Proposals to Regulate the Internet" with the following > (closed) list of witnesses: > > The Honorable Robert McDowell > Commissioner > Federal Communications Commission > > The Honorable David A. Gross > Former U.S. Coordinator > International Communications and Information Policy > > Ms. Sally Shipman Wentworth > Senior Manager, Public Policy > Internet Society > > http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=9543 > > The event will be streamed at http://energycommerce.house.gov/ and it > may be worth at least following and tweeting about it (there is a tweet > box on the front page of the site). > > As an aside, the Energy and Commerce Committee site is full of partisan > slurs again "Obamacare", environmentalists, anti-nuclear activists and > the like. > > We can expect the depth of intellectual debate at this hearing to rise > to the level of "America invented the Internet, we don't want no UN > bureaucrats from Iran or China meddling with it!". > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 28 05:04:26 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 11:04:26 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation References: <4FC31C98.3080800@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD96@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Here is the background for the IGF/EC confusion: It started within the WGIG (2004) where we had a mandate to define Internet Governance. After agreeing on the basics of the definition we soon realized that to "implement the definition" we have to take into consideration various functions. We ended up with a "forum function" (for policy development) and on "oversight function" (for decision making, mainly related to ICANN). The IGF was the proposal for the forum function. The "four models" for the oversight function (Status Quo-, Status Quo, Status Quo+, Status Quo++). With other words: We had consensus on the forum function but no consensus on the oversight function. The compromise in Tunis was to move from a "new cooperation MODEL" (as proposed by the EU/ this was status quo+ and included the establishment of an intergovernmental council for the level of "principle") to a "PROCESS of enhanced cooperation" (which postponed the decision on a new model). With other words, Tunis agreed on a "wait and see" approach for the "oversight function". It was very clear - and this was accepted already during the IGF 2007 in Rio by the MAG - that a "process" needs discussion, needs a forum. Insofar today IGF and EC are indeed interconencted as elements of a global Internet PDP. But they remain different with regard to decision making and institutionalization (oversight function). In my eyes, the multistakeholder review process, established under the AOC, is the most adequate oversight mechanism for ICANN. However the first round of the four reviews (not yet completed) have documented also some weaknesses in the process. This has to be improved. Energy should be invested to make the second round of reviews - which starts end of 2013/early 2014 - stronger, more efficient and more public. The innovation of the ICANNs AOC Review Mechanism (AREM) is, that this process is both multistakeholder and decentralized with a strong role for governments (also for governments from developing countries). BTW, I could imagine also an IGF Review Mechanism to make IGF Improvement on onging process. Anyhow, the future is open. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm Gesendet: Mo 28.05.2012 08:35 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Andrea Glorioso Betreff: Re: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation On 28/05/12 14:23, Andrea Glorioso wrote: both during the WSIS week in Geneva and recently on this mailing list I had the occasion to hear/read a number of persons claiming (rather forcefully) that the conclusions of the WSIS "clearly" meant the IGF to be the or at least an instrument to implement Enhanced Cooperation. Leaving aside for a moment the subsequent UNGA resolution on the matter (but noting that even though, strictly speaking, we are not talking about binding international law, the principle of "lex posterior" could apply) I would be curious to know your views on which passages of the WSIS texts could lead to such conclusion. Lazily, just copying and pasting from page 518 of my 2008 book on the IGF (http://books.google.com.my/books?id=G8ETBPD6jHIC): "...there is no clear division between the role of the IGF and the process of enhanced cooperation in the Tunis Agenda; rather the former is treated as an integral component of the latter.[341] What can be taken from this is that whilst governments will continue to maintain sovereignty over the authoritative statement of public policy principles in international and domestic law, those principles are to be developed in a multi-stakeholder forum, the IGF (from where they may equally find implementation through other, non-legal mechanisms of governance)." [341] See WSIS, Tunis Agenda for the Information Society (as in n. 5 on page 2), paras 67-72, in which the middle paragraphs on enhanced cooperation are sandwiched by those calling for the establishment of the IGF. -- 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 nb at bollow.ch Mon May 28 05:25:22 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 11:25:22 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <20120525104714.187F73CD@quill.bollow.ch> (message from Norbert Bollow on Fri, 25 May 2012 12:47:14 +0200 (CEST)) References: <20120523074349.DE4223CD@quill.bollow.ch> <20120523093930.158AB3CD@quill.bollow.ch> <20120523174635.5721D3CD@quill.bollow.ch> <20120525104714.187F73CD@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20120528092522.F41B37841@quill.bollow.ch> Norbert Bollow wrote: > Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > > I would envision the body that is modeled on the IETF to not make the > > > final decisions, but develop a set of models of potential regulations on > > > these topics, with documentation of advantages and drawbacks of each, > > > and leave it to the relevant parliaments to make the choice between > > > them. > > > > Then I must wonder, noting that the European Commission does not have an > > official position on this: if the mandate Committe for Internet Related > > Policies was modified to take out the "oversight" of standards-setting > > bodies (an unfortunate term in my opinion) and the "crisis management" > > (which can mean everything and the contrary of everything) would it then > > be such a horrible solution to make these pesky governments a bit happier? > > Sorry I simply don't understand this question. Oh sorry... understanding has finally dawned on me that with "Committe for Internet Related Policies" you're referring to India's CIRP proposal... somehow my mind had filed those debates under the search keys "CIRP" and "an unconvincing Internet governance proposal from India that I'm not particularly interested in", but not under "Committee for Internet Related Policies". Here's my answer, in fact it's what I've been trying to say all along during this conversation: In my opinion, making governments "a bit happier" is no more a worhwhile objective for spending tax money on than making civil society a bit happier, or making businesses a bit happier. What we need is something that develops, in a reasonably fair way, reasonably good solutions to the problems that we have. Therefore, we need to create a kind of social information processing system that * takes as input the knowledge and understanding of knowledgeable participating people, and * produces, in a reasonably fair way, output texts that reflect a rough consensus of these knowledgeable participants. We can learn from IETF how this can work. We cannot learn from any classical intergovernmental structure how this can work, because the classical intergovernmental structures do not contain solutions to the problem of powerful stakeholders having unreasonably great influence. Those who seek to create forms of global governance should IMO therefore inform themselves about what can be learned from IETF, by having someone on their team who has actual experience of participating there. Just reading up on the IETF from the outside isn't sufficient, as it doesn't give you the kind of understanding that you need to have. In fact, when just reading IETF documents from the outside you're likely to misunderstand even key terms like "Internet", a word which in the IETF context still has its original connotations of internetworking, i.e. connecting networks together and the necessary protocol work for making that happen -- in IETF contexts this word still primarily refers to the lower protocol layers. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon May 28 05:25:54 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 18:25:54 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <4FC33A53.2090003@apc.org> References: <4FC31C98.3080800@ciroap.org> <4FC33A53.2090003@apc.org> Message-ID: >Dear Andrea and others > >I think Jeremy's interpretation is accurate and a good summary of >what I think most authors (governments, after all) of the TA intended. Anriette, hi. I remember thinking at the time the Tunis Agenda was being drafted/finalized that EC and IGF were separate. And still think if they'd meant to be part of the same process the document would have said so. Paragraphs 71 and 72 would have had linking text, there isn't any. I have no remaining notes from the discussions at the time, and we didn't have scribes back then, so I wouldn't bet on being right. But as you said in another email, the document's not great. It certainly was thought through, editing of these paragraphs was going late into the evening on the eve the Summit, so I think logical structure of the document is not something to rely on. What I think does matter is Nitin Desai's interpretation, as the SG's special advisor representative and so the authority for 71 and 72, he said they were separate processes. Doesn't mean that can't be undone, but believe it's where we are now until the SG or his representative tells us otherwise. Best, Adam >If you read the text preceding paragraph 67 (which describes IG) and >then para 67: > >"67. We agree, inter alia, to invite the UN Secretary-General to convene >a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue." > >.. and then the text from paras 68 to 82 (the rest of the TA under the >heading 'internet governance' it is very, very clear that the IGF was >meant to be a forum to continue discussion about EC in IG. > >As for that UNGA resolution that states EC and the IGF are two distinct >processes...it is also usually assumed and stated that it still implies >they are complimentary.. so the TA's mandate for the IGF to be the >primary forum for taking EC forward is not contradicted. > >It is also worth considering whether that 2010 GA resolution would ever >have been made if some governments, and some members of business and the >tech community were not so averse to having serious discussion of EC in >the IGF for its first few years. > >As for 'multi-lateral and multi-stakeholder. Yes, this is in the TA, and >there are different interpretations of what it means, as there are >different interpretations of what EC means. > >Anriette > > > > >On 28/05/2012 08:35, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 28/05/12 14:23, Andrea Glorioso wrote: >>> both during the WSIS week in Geneva and recently on this mailing list >>> I had the occasion to hear/read a number of persons claiming (rather >>> forcefully) that the conclusions of the WSIS "clearly" meant the IGF >>> to be the or at least an instrument to implement Enhanced Cooperation. >>> >>> Leaving aside for a moment the subsequent UNGA resolution on the >>> matter (but noting that even though, strictly speaking, we are not >>> talking about binding international law, the principle of "lex >>> posterior" could apply) I would be curious to know your views on which >>> passages of the WSIS texts could lead to such conclusion. >>> >> >> Lazily, just copying and pasting from page 518 of my 2008 book on the >> IGF (http://books.google.com.my/books?id=G8ETBPD6jHIC): >> >> "...there is no clear division between the role of the IGF and the >> process of enhanced cooperation in the Tunis Agenda; rather the former >> is treated as an integral component of the latter.[341] What can be >> taken from this is that whilst governments will continue to maintain >> sovereignty over the authoritative statement of public policy principles >> in international and domestic law, those principles are to be developed >> in a multi-stakeholder forum, the IGF (from where they may equally find >> implementation through other, non-legal mechanisms of governance)." >> >> [341] See WSIS, Tunis Agenda for the Information Society (as in n. 5 on >> page 2), paras 67â?ì72, in >> which the middle paragraphs on enhanced cooperation are sandwiched by >> those calling for the > > establishment of the IGF. > > >> -- >> >> *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. >> > >-- >------------------------------------------------------ >anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >executive director, association for progressive communications >www.apc.org >po box 29755, melville 2109 >south africa >tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon May 28 05:27:26 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 18:27:26 +0900 Subject: [governance] Who controls the World Wide Web? In-Reply-To: <4FC300B5.7020608@ITforChange.net> References: <4FC300B5.7020608@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: Couple of old quotes from this list, from past civil society statements: At 5:23 AM +0100 3/20/03, karen banks wrote: >Root Zone file >-------------- >We would like to underscore that unilateral control of the root zone file >is a public policy issue. We agree with WGIG that no single government >should have a pre-eminent role in global governance of the logical >infrastructure of the Internet. (following was draft) At 5:23 AM +0100 3/20/03, karen banks wrote: > >3. More specifically, it indicates that the current framework regarding US >unilateral control over the root zone file currently working under the >contract with VeriSign, will be maintained for an indefinite time into the >future. This directly contradicts the consensus of WGIG: "No single >Government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international >Internet governance" (in para 48 of the WGIG report"). > Time to think about this again. Hope it can be a small part of enhanced cooperation we can agree on. And also perhaps agree on what we mean by "ICANN", the article seems a but muddled, but if you get by that there are some good points. Best, Adam >A post CSTD meeting article in the Hindu, yesterday... >regards, >Guru >ps - just for information, The Hindu has a >circulation of 2.1 million, more than double of >that of NYT ....    >(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_circulation) > >http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/internet/article3459842.ece > >Who controls the World Wide Web? >Deepa Kurup >BANGALORE, May 27, 2012 > >Earlier this week, at the United Nations >Commission on Science and Technology for >Development, held in Geneva, India reiterated >its proposal to create a Committee on >Internet-related Policies (CIRP). This proposal, >backed by many others in the global south, aims >at democratising the Internet and critical >resources that are currently controlled by the >U.S., big businesses and powerful nations in >various other governance forums. > >The proposed CIRP will be a multilateral >institution, where governments will sit together >and take decisions on internet policies, >treaties and standards. Not surprisingly, many >have interpreted this as a move towards greater >governmental control of the Web (read tighter >censorship), even as others have lauded this as >a progressive step towards greater >democratisation of the internet. This >techno-political debate is bitterly polarised, >with experts and stakeholders, often backed by >powerful lobbies, arguing for status quo with >the U.S.-based non-profit ICANN (Internet >Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) >calling the shots, insisting that critical >Internet resources cannot be controlled >efficiently by a bureaucratic body like the >UN,or governments that lack the expertise to >keep pace with rapid technological challenges. > >Amidst speculation that India might roll back >its earlier proposal, in Geneva, Indian >representatives went ahead and called for >Œenhanced cooperation' to enable governments on >an equal footing to carry out their roles and >responsibilities pertaining to the Internet, and >promote a ³developmental agenda² for the Web. > >The U.S., and corporate lobbies (most big >Internet firms being U.S.-based or operating out >of other developed countries) have argued for >retaining the current structure, where ICANN >(which already has a governing council with >government representatives) retains control over >Internet technologies. They argue that though >jurisdictionally under the U.S., the ICANN is >more likely to retain the democratic and free >structure of the Internet. They argue that >governments, in general, are more likely to >stifle free speech, and by extension, that the >US is more likely to uphold commitments to free >speech on the web. > >However, recent events such as the clamp-down on >Wikileaks (where web companies cut off payment >pathways and services to the whistleblower site, >reportedly upon government request) and recently >proposed Bills such as the Stop Online Piracy >Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA) ‹ which >manipulate the domain name system (DNS) >infrastructure to enforce Intellectual Property >laws ‹ make a mockery of these claims. > >Technological debate > >There are two sides to this debate: one that >purely deals with the techno-political aspect of >the control of the Internet, and the other that >deals with social and political policy debates. >In purely technological terms, this debate >revolved around the DNS root name servers or the >Internet Domain Name System, which forms the >backbone of communication on the Web. > >The DNS is a large database used by Internet >applications to map or translate Web URLs (for >instance, www.thehindu.com) to a unique IP >address. All the generic names and the IP >addresses for all top level domains (for the >purpose of mapping) are stored in what is called >a root zone file. So when you type in a URL >address in your browser's address bar, a query >is sent to the DNS (often through your Internet >service provider's servers, which often caches >this information so queries don't have to be >sent every single time) which translates it into >the numeric IP address. While, as users, this >saves us the trouble of remembering numbers and >codes, the larger benefits of course have to do >with the fact that you can access any site from >anywhere. > >Indeed, there is some obfuscation on what these >servers, and by extension technological control, >are all about. At the core of the DNS system are >13 root servers controlled by 12 separate >organisations and private entities, or >operators. There are many hundreds of root >servers at over 130 physical locations in many >different countries, says an official ICANN blog >that seeks to bust myths on how the U.S. >controls the Internet through 13 root servers. >Sometimes, one server is located in over 25 >countries, it clarified. > >However, what really matters here is who >controls the root zone file. This file contains >the domain names and IP addresses that enable >the querying-mapping process. The root zone >file, and access or authority to edit it, is >what is crucial in this debate because finally >the architecture of the DNS system, and in >essence the Internet, is dependent on how this >file is handled. So, a domain is valid only if >it is there on this file. As of now, this root >zone file is controlled by the ICANN. > >Why not ICANN? > >But why is it problematic that the authority to >manipulate this file lies with a body like the >ICANN? ICANN continues to be a non-profit >registered in the U.S., one that is subject to >decisions and laws made by the U.S. government. >For instance, under the pretext of enforcing an >IP regime, the U.S. can enforce alterations to >the DNS system, as was proposed in the SOPA >legislation, which was retracted after web >companies and tech activists lobbied against it, >earlier this year. > >So what is the solution? It is not surprising >that India's proposal to the UN, for pure >governmental control, is being perceived as >problematic, given recent announcements by >Indian politicians expressing the desire to >³regulate² social media or ³pre-screen what >appears on the Web. Indeed, governments across >the world, have now and then, sought to clamp >down on the Internet. > >Tech commentators have also argued that under >indirect US control, ICANN has in recent years >restricted its mandate to technical domains, and >may be a better alternative than a UN body. But >then where does the developing world's point of >view fit in? ³By and large, it is legitimate to >say that to have one powerful country control >the Internet is illegitimate. The UN bodies have >a better track record as far as democratic >methods go, where countries can sit together and >vote. Which is why the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, >India, China and South Africa) countries are >pushing for more equal control of the Internet >as it is a global resource,² says Senthil S, >member of the Free Software Movement of India. >However, the UN will have to ensure that it >promotes a body without censorship so that >internet governance can be more democratic. > >Commenting on this debate, Parminder Jeet Singh, >executive director of Bangalore-based NGO, IT >for Change, seeks to draw the line between >issues of technical governance or management and >other cultural, social and political aspects of >Internet governance. > >While the Internet's technical governance ‹ >albiet being dominated by big business - is >indeed a very distributed and open system, >issues related to larger public policies >concerning social, economic, cultural and >political matters are much more important and >are neglected in this debate, Mr. Singh said. He >also commented on how Internet monopoly >companies are increasingly deciding policy >matters, and questioned why bodies such as the >Organisation for Economic Cooperation and >Development, and the Council of Europe should >make policies without consulting developing >countries. >-- > >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 > > >A post CSTD meeting article in the Hindu, yesterday... >regards, >Guru >ps - just for information, The Hindu has a >circulation of 2.1 million, more than double of >that of NYT .... >(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_circulation) > >http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/internet/article3459842.ece > >Who controls the World Wide Web? >Deepa Kurup >BANGALORE, May 27, 2012 > >Earlier this week, at the United Nations >Commission on Science and Technology for >Development, held in Geneva, India reiterated >its proposal to create a Committee on >Internet-related Policies (CIRP). This proposal, >backed by many others in the global south, aims >at democratising the Internet and critical >resources that are currently controlled by the >U.S., big businesses and powerful nations in >various other governance forums. > >The proposed CIRP will be a multilateral >institution, where governments will sit together >and take decisions on internet policies, >treaties and standards. Not surprisingly, many >have interpreted this as a move towards greater >governmental control of the Web (read tighter >censorship), even as others have lauded this as >a progressive step towards greater >democratisation of the internet. This >techno-political debate is bitterly polarised, >with experts and stakeholders, often backed by >powerful lobbies, arguing for status quo with >the U.S.-based non-profit ICANN (Internet >Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) >calling the shots, insisting that critical >Internet resources cannot be controlled >efficiently by a bureaucratic body like the >UN,or governments that lack the expertise to >keep pace with rapid technological challenges. > >Amidst speculation that India might roll back >its earlier proposal, in Geneva, Indian >representatives went ahead and called for >Œenhanced cooperation' to enable governments on >an equal footing to carry out their roles and >responsibilities pertaining to the Internet, and >promote a ³developmental agenda² for the Web. > >The U.S., and corporate lobbies (most big >Internet firms being U.S.-based or operating out >of other developed countries) have argued for >retaining the current structure, where ICANN >(which already has a governing council with >government representatives) retains control over >Internet technologies. They argue that though >jurisdictionally under the U.S., the ICANN is >more likely to retain the democratic and free >structure of the Internet. They argue that >governments, in general, are more likely to >stifle free speech, and by extension, that the >US is more likely to uphold commitments to free >speech on the web. > >However, recent events such as the clamp-down on >Wikileaks (where web companies cut off payment >pathways and services to the whistleblower site, >reportedly upon government request) and recently >proposed Bills such as the Stop Online Piracy >Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA) ‹ which >manipulate the domain name system (DNS) >infrastructure to enforce Intellectual Property >laws ‹ make a mockery of these claims. > >Technological debate > >There are two sides to this debate: one that >purely deals with the techno-political aspect of >the control of the Internet, and the other that >deals with social and political policy debates. >In purely technological terms, this debate >revolved around the DNS root name servers or the >Internet Domain Name System, which forms the >backbone of communication on the Web. > >The DNS is a large database used by Internet >applications to map or translate Web URLs (for >instance, >www.thehindu.com) to a >unique IP address. All the generic names and the >IP addresses for all top level domains (for the >purpose of mapping) are stored in what is called >a root zone file. So when you type in a URL >address in your browser's address bar, a query >is sent to the DNS (often through your Internet >service provider's servers, which often caches >this information so queries don't have to be >sent every single time) which translates it into >the numeric IP address. While, as users, this >saves us the trouble of remembering numbers and >codes, the larger benefits of course have to do >with the fact that you can access any site from >anywhere. > >Indeed, there is some obfuscation on what these >servers, and by extension technological control, >are all about. At the core of the DNS system are >13 root servers controlled by 12 separate >organisations and private entities, or >operators. There are many hundreds of root >servers at over 130 physical locations in many >different countries, says an official ICANN blog >that seeks to bust myths on how the U.S. >controls the Internet through 13 root servers. >Sometimes, one server is located in over 25 >countries, it clarified. > >However, what really matters here is who >controls the root zone file. This file contains >the domain names and IP addresses that enable >the querying-mapping process. The root zone >file, and access or authority to edit it, is >what is crucial in this debate because finally >the architecture of the DNS system, and in >essence the Internet, is dependent on how this >file is handled. So, a domain is valid only if >it is there on this file. As of now, this root >zone file is controlled by the ICANN. > >Why not ICANN? > >But why is it problematic that the authority to >manipulate this file lies with a body like the >ICANN? ICANN continues to be a non-profit >registered in the U.S., one that is subject to >decisions and laws made by the U.S. government. >For instance, under the pretext of enforcing an >IP regime, the U.S. can enforce alterations to >the DNS system, as was proposed in the SOPA >legislation, which was retracted after web >companies and tech activists lobbied against it, >earlier this year. > >So what is the solution? It is not surprising >that India's proposal to the UN, for pure >governmental control, is being perceived as >problematic, given recent announcements by >Indian politicians expressing the desire to >³regulate² social media or ³pre-screen what >appears on the Web. Indeed, governments across >the world, have now and then, sought to clamp >down on the Internet. > >Tech commentators have also argued that under >indirect US control, ICANN has in recent years >restricted its mandate to technical domains, and >may be a better alternative than a UN body. But >then where does the developing world's point of >view fit in? ³By and large, it is legitimate to >say that to have one powerful country control >the Internet is illegitimate. The UN bodies have >a better track record as far as democratic >methods go, where countries can sit together and >vote. Which is why the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, >India, China and South Africa) countries are >pushing for more equal control of the Internet >as it is a global resource,² says Senthil S, >member of the Free Software Movement of India. >However, the UN will have to ensure that it >promotes a body without censorship so that >internet governance can be more democratic. > >Commenting on this debate, Parminder Jeet Singh, >executive director of Bangalore-based NGO, IT >for Change, seeks to draw the line between >issues of technical governance or management and >other cultural, social and political aspects of >Internet governance. > >While the Internet's technical governance ‹ >albiet being dominated by big business - is >indeed a very distributed and open system, >issues related to larger public policies >concerning social, economic, cultural and >political matters are much more important and >are neglected in this debate, Mr. Singh said. He >also commented on how Internet monopoly >companies are increasingly deciding policy >matters, and questioned why bodies such as the >Organisation for Economic Cooperation and >Development, and the Council of Europe should >make policies without consulting developing >countries. > >-- > >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 > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon May 28 05:54:31 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 18:54:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] which list: cpsr or igcaucus Message-ID: We seem to have the same threads running on two lists governance at lists.cpsr.org and governance at lists.igcaucus.org and just to be helpful, they have the same subject line tag [governance]. Could we agree on one list? Confused :-) 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 anriette at apc.org Mon May 28 06:10:03 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 12:10:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] US hearing on International Proposals to Regulate the Internet In-Reply-To: <64A862BD-09B1-4B34-8934-D34BCFA2341B@uzh.ch> References: <4FC2E95F.9090005@ciroap.org> <4FC32791.5080000@apc.org> <64A862BD-09B1-4B34-8934-D34BCFA2341B@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <4FC34EFB.4090409@apc.org> Thanks for the clarification Bill... the Wall Street journal was indeed not an official FCC reaction. Any reactions to my question on what internet issues the ITU needs to consider? Other than telecoms infrastructure, broadband and so on? Cheers Anriette On 28/05/2012 11:20, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On May 28, 2012, at 9:21 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> The distorted FCC reaction to talk of the ITU taking over and >> 'regulating' the internet only sets serious discussion about >> international cooperation, and rooting internet policy in existing >> international agreements, back. > > To be clear: the US House is under Republican control, so the selection > of speakers is part of a larger effort to portray things as "the Obama > administration is asleep at the wheel while the UN is moving to take > over the Internet." Robert McDowell is one of two Republican > commissions on an FCC of five, and he is looking to make a name for > himself via Wall St. Journal etc. pumping up UN black helicopter > paranoias among the political "base". When he's off the commission > he'll get a good job somewhere and nice speaking fees. But I wouldn't > take his views as "the FCC reaction." Dems on the commission may also > have concerns about some of the WCIT proposals, and for good reason, but > I've not seen them hyperventilating in the same manner. > > David A. Gross is there because he was Bush's Ambassador at State. Nice > smile, but also pretty far to the right, and no formal role in US policy > discussions. Apparently the subcom chair saw no reason to hear from the > person who's actually ambassador now and could relate what's happening > both in the administration's planning process and in discussions with > ITU members. > > Sally Shipman Wentworth will be able to reflect on all the work ISOC's > been doing deep diving into the proposed ITR revisions. Her > presentation will be the one serious one to watch. > > Best, > > Bill > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Mon May 28 06:18:54 2012 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 18:18:54 +0800 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: <20120523074349.DE4223CD@quill.bollow.ch> <7DA34771-D58A-49CF-B166-7028BF86FCC4@acm.org> <4FBDC2E8.1060102@gmx.net> Message-ID: On 24/05/2012, at 3:35 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > Dear Norbert, > > no worries: I was simply trying to gently make fun at a certain tendency, which is certainly not unique to the Internet Governance civil society community, to over-use acronyms. I try hard not to fall into the trap otherwise. I remember my first few days at an ICANN meeting, thinking that surely acronym production was the real purpose of these meetings because the sheer quantity of them was hard to explain otherwise. By the end of the week, I was having conversations where every noun was an acronym myself. It is a tendency that certainly deserves to be made fun of, though unfortunately no one seems to have a better solution. Cheers David David Cake Chair, Electronic Frontiers Australia 'Here comes the future, you can't run from it, If you've got a blacklist, I want to be on it' - Billy Bragg, Waiting for the Great Leap Forward -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 28 06:37:33 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 12:37:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] US hearing on International Proposals to Regulate the Internet In-Reply-To: <4FC34EFB.4090409@apc.org> References: <4FC2E95F.9090005@ciroap.org> <4FC32791.5080000@apc.org> <64A862BD-09B1-4B34-8934-D34BCFA2341B@uzh.ch> <4FC34EFB.4090409@apc.org> Message-ID: <78A98430-AAD7-4092-B51E-1CE782A6880D@uzh.ch> AE "Needs" to cover is very much in the eye of the beholder. If you read the submission from the protagonists of expansive ITRs, they "need" to cover everything that in any way involves IP-based networks whether operated by members' "administrations" or by other entities operating under the "special arrangements." So everything from defining Internet as telecom under international law (so all provisions apply) to having accounting and settlements for interconnection (!) to security/spam to ITU being a global registry for IPV6 to bringing IXPs under transit provisions to preventing fraud using names and numbers to imposing data collection requirements on private suppliers to imposing supervision on all entities within a territory to prohibiting alternative calling arrangements (like VOIP) "needs" to be considered. To the critics, they don't. The direction of change in the ITR's over the past fifty years has been toward deformalization, with provisions being moved to the voluntary Recommendations. To the extent they can still serve a useful purpose, they should adapt to world as it is today and embody minimalist regulations for only those bits of international telecom needed to carry out ITU's existing mission, rather than seek to expand the mission and accompanying reach in ways that cannot possibly be consensual. It's hard to see how revisiting the battles of 1988 with newly raised stakes will be good for anyone, including the ITU. BD On May 28, 2012, at 12:10 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Thanks for the clarification Bill... the Wall Street journal was indeed > not an official FCC reaction. Any reactions to my question on what > internet issues the ITU needs to consider? Other than telecoms > infrastructure, broadband and so on? > > Cheers > > Anriette > > > On 28/05/2012 11:20, William Drake wrote: >> Hi >> >> On May 28, 2012, at 9:21 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> The distorted FCC reaction to talk of the ITU taking over and >>> 'regulating' the internet only sets serious discussion about >>> international cooperation, and rooting internet policy in existing >>> international agreements, back. >> >> To be clear: the US House is under Republican control, so the selection >> of speakers is part of a larger effort to portray things as "the Obama >> administration is asleep at the wheel while the UN is moving to take >> over the Internet." Robert McDowell is one of two Republican >> commissions on an FCC of five, and he is looking to make a name for >> himself via Wall St. Journal etc. pumping up UN black helicopter >> paranoias among the political "base". When he's off the commission >> he'll get a good job somewhere and nice speaking fees. But I wouldn't >> take his views as "the FCC reaction." Dems on the commission may also >> have concerns about some of the WCIT proposals, and for good reason, but >> I've not seen them hyperventilating in the same manner. >> >> David A. Gross is there because he was Bush's Ambassador at State. Nice >> smile, but also pretty far to the right, and no formal role in US policy >> discussions. Apparently the subcom chair saw no reason to hear from the >> person who's actually ambassador now and could relate what's happening >> both in the administration's planning process and in discussions with >> ITU members. >> >> Sally Shipman Wentworth will be able to reflect on all the work ISOC's >> been doing deep diving into the proposed ITR revisions. Her >> presentation will be the one serious one to watch. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon May 28 07:47:04 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 19:47:04 +0800 Subject: [governance] which list: cpsr or igcaucus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200AF330-EFF2-49AC-BC18-178C98F12FA2@ciroap.org> On 28/05/2012, at 5:54 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > We seem to have the same threads running on two lists > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > and > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > and just to be helpful, they have the same subject line tag [governance]. > > Could we agree on one list? I'm not sure how lists.cpsr.org because active again, because one of my last acts when establishing the new list was to change it into moderated mode, so that no posts could get through without approval. Unless Sala or Izumi have deliberately reverted that change, I'll put it back in that mode. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Follow @ConsumersInt Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon May 28 07:51:37 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 19:51:37 +0800 Subject: [governance] which list: cpsr or igcaucus In-Reply-To: <200AF330-EFF2-49AC-BC18-178C98F12FA2@ciroap.org> References: <200AF330-EFF2-49AC-BC18-178C98F12FA2@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On 28/05/2012, at 7:47 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I'm not sure how lists.cpsr.org because active again, because one of my last acts when establishing the new list was to change it into moderated mode, so that no posts could get through without approval. Unless Sala or Izumi have deliberately reverted that change, I'll put it back in that mode. Uh no I won't, because I no longer seem to have access to do so. Someone called "Al Whaley", who presumably opened up the old list again, is now its owner. In any case, nobody should be using that list anymore, everyone should be using governance at lists.igcaucus.org. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Follow @ConsumersInt Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon May 28 08:18:25 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 21:18:25 +0900 Subject: [governance] Iceland and social media Message-ID: Apologies for off topic request. A colleague's interested in use of social media in Iceland, famous for using twitter, facebook etc to take comments and draft a new constitution a couple of years ago. Anyone know any Icelandic researchers/experts on social media use? Please let me know offlist. Thanks, 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 andrea at digitalpolicy.it Mon May 28 08:26:46 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 14:26:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] Iceland and social media In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Actually, I think the topic would be very interesting on this list, too. Or am I the only one who thinks Iceland's use of the Internet for political purposes would deserve a more thoughtful discussion than the soundbites of the past months? Cheers, Andrea On May 28, 2012 2:19 PM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > Apologies for off topic request. > A colleague's interested in use of social media in Iceland, famous for > using twitter, facebook etc to take comments and draft a new constitution a > couple of years ago. > > Anyone know any Icelandic researchers/experts on social media use? Please > let me know offlist. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Mon May 28 09:09:02 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 15:09:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] Iceland and social media In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6F0F8F3E-C0B1-411E-80A0-F32539F9ACB5@uzh.ch> Elfa Gylfadottir follows such things for the government and was a lead organizer of the Icelandic IGF last year… On May 28, 2012, at 2:26 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > Actually, I think the topic would be very interesting on this list, too. > > Or am I the only one who thinks Iceland's use of the Internet for political purposes would deserve a more thoughtful discussion than the soundbites of the past months? > > Cheers, > > Andrea > > On May 28, 2012 2:19 PM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > Apologies for off topic request. > A colleague's interested in use of social media in Iceland, famous for using twitter, facebook etc to take comments and draft a new constitution a couple of years ago. > > Anyone know any Icelandic researchers/experts on social media use? Please let me know offlist. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Mon May 28 09:10:11 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 09:10:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E3DE84E-EC35-405B-905C-5E9542B0A76A@acm.org> On 28 May 2012, at 02:23, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > Leaving aside for a moment the subsequent UNGA resolution on the matter (but noting that even though, strictly speaking, we are not talking about binding international law, the principle of "lex posterior" could apply) I would be curious to know your views on which passages of the WSIS texts could lead to such conclusion. I think I may have already sent this to this list at some point, but it bears repeating often. In terms of my personal opinion, I think the Tunis Agenda actually places responsiblity for the Enhanced Cooperation with the Forum. As I read the Tunis Agenda text, - 67 calls for a forum in a general sense, - 68 calls for the equal participation of governments, - 69 call for enhanced cooperation - 70 calls for the participation of existing IG organizations and creation of principles, - 71 calls for UNSG initiation of a multistakeholder process on enhanced cooperation with yearly status reports and - 72 defines the forum called for in 67. In other words the entire discussion is bracketed by the notion of a forum. It is called for, it is described, one task is brought out more than any other, and then they get into the nitty gritty of the forum called for in 67. In any case it is certain that the TA called for the process of EC, whether we argue it is in or out of the context of the IGF, that it must also be a multistakeholder process: from 71: "... should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders," avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Mon May 28 09:19:34 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 15:19:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <4E3DE84E-EC35-405B-905C-5E9542B0A76A@acm.org> References: <4E3DE84E-EC35-405B-905C-5E9542B0A76A@acm.org> Message-ID: <4FC37B66.4060403@apc.org> Agree completely with this logical sequential interpretation by Avri. Anriette On 28/05/2012 15:10, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 28 May 2012, at 02:23, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > >> Leaving aside for a moment the subsequent UNGA resolution on the matter (but noting that even though, strictly speaking, we are not talking about binding international law, the principle of "lex posterior" could apply) I would be curious to know your views on which passages of the WSIS texts could lead to such conclusion. > > I think I may have already sent this to this list at some point, but it bears repeating often. > > In terms of my personal opinion, I think the Tunis Agenda actually places responsiblity for the Enhanced Cooperation with the Forum. > As I read the Tunis Agenda text, > > - 67 calls for a forum in a general sense, > - 68 calls for the equal participation of governments, > - 69 call for enhanced cooperation > - 70 calls for the participation of existing IG organizations and creation of principles, > - 71 calls for UNSG initiation of a multistakeholder process on enhanced cooperation with yearly status reports and > - 72 defines the forum called for in 67. > > In other words the entire discussion is bracketed by the notion of a forum. It is called for, it is described, one task is brought out more than any other, and then they get into the nitty gritty of the forum called for in 67. In any case it is certain that the TA called for the process of EC, whether we argue it is in or out of the context of the IGF, that it must also be a multistakeholder process: from 71: "... should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders," > > avri -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon May 28 09:35:30 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 22:35:30 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <4FC37B66.4060403@apc.org> References: <4E3DE84E-EC35-405B-905C-5E9542B0A76A@acm.org> <4FC37B66.4060403@apc.org> Message-ID: >Agree completely with this logical sequential interpretation by Avri. I agree with the logic, but as mentioned, don't think the document was drafted with that in mind, those last hours were a mess and this was the text that was being worked on. But I wasn't the only one on the room and my memory is terrible! I read 71 and 72 as separate. If they'd intended to be linked there would be text saying so, there would be some connecting language (furthermore...), and the mandate of the IGF would include a reference to enhanced cooperation. The mandate's very clear, a to l. Wish I could remember if this was discussed in Tunis. And also Nitin decided it for us. Both paragraphs ask the secretary general to do something, Nitin as the special advisor for Internet governance said separate and I guess that's him speaking for the SG. So if they are to be linked now it would be the SG or his proxy that does it. Adam >Anriette > > >On 28/05/2012 15:10, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> On 28 May 2012, at 02:23, Andrea Glorioso wrote: >> >>> Leaving aside for a moment the subsequent >>>UNGA resolution on the matter (but noting that >>>even though, strictly speaking, we are not >>>talking about binding international law, the >>>principle of "lex posterior" could apply) I >>>would be curious to know your views on which >>>passages of the WSIS texts could lead to such >>>conclusion. >> >> I think I may have already sent this to this >>list at some point, but it bears repeating >>often. >> >> In terms of my personal opinion, I think the >>Tunis Agenda actually places responsiblity for >>the Enhanced Cooperation with the Forum.  >> As I read the Tunis Agenda text, >> >> - 67 calls for a forum in a general sense, >> - 68 calls for the equal participation of governments, >> - 69 call for enhanced cooperation >> - 70 calls for the participation of existing >>IG organizations and creation of principles, >> - 71 calls for UNSG initiation of a >>multistakeholder process on enhanced >>cooperation with yearly status reports and >> - 72 defines the forum called for in 67. >> >> In other words the entire discussion is >>bracketed by the notion of a forum. It is >>called for, it is described, one task is >>brought out more than any other, and then they >>get into the nitty gritty of the forum called >>for in 67. In any case it is certain that the >>TA called for the process of EC, whether we >>argue it is in or out of the context of the >>IGF, that it must also be a multistakeholder >>process: from 71: "... should commence a >>process towards enhanced cooperation involving >>all stakeholders," >> >> avri > >-- >------------------------------------------------------ >anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >executive director, association for progressive communications >www.apc.org >po box 29755, melville 2109 >south africa >tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Mon May 28 09:43:54 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 09:43:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <4E3DE84E-EC35-405B-905C-5E9542B0A76A@acm.org> <4FC37B66.4060403@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi, Well I think it is very difficult to categorize the intention of everyone allowed to negotiate this. I assume that if you press various individuals who where there and had a voice, you would find a mixed awareness of what they were actually doing. Remember they all came out of the room thinking they got what they wanted. Ok, not all. avri On 28 May 2012, at 09:35, Adam Peake wrote: >> Agree completely with this logical sequential interpretation by Avri. > > > I agree with the logic, but as mentioned, don't > think the document was drafted with that in mind, > those last hours were a mess and this was the > text that was being worked on. But I wasn't the > only one on the room and my memory is terrible! > > I read 71 and 72 as separate. If they'd intended > to be linked there would be text saying so, there > would be some connecting language > (furthermore...), and the mandate of the IGF > would include a reference to enhanced > cooperation. The mandate's very clear, a to l. > Wish I could remember if this was discussed in > Tunis. > > And also Nitin decided it for us. Both > paragraphs ask the secretary general to do > something, Nitin as the special advisor for > Internet governance said separate and I guess > that's him speaking for the SG. So if they are > to be linked now it would be the SG or his proxy > that does it. > > Adam > > > >> Anriette >> >> >> On 28/05/2012 15:10, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>> On 28 May 2012, at 02:23, Andrea Glorioso wrote: >>> >>>> Leaving aside for a moment the subsequent >>>> UNGA resolution on the matter (but noting that >>>> even though, strictly speaking, we are not >>>> talking about binding international law, the >>>> principle of "lex posterior" could apply) I >>>> would be curious to know your views on which >>>> passages of the WSIS texts could lead to such >>>> conclusion. >>> >>> I think I may have already sent this to this >>> list at some point, but it bears repeating >>> often. >>> >>> In terms of my personal opinion, I think the >>> Tunis Agenda actually places responsiblity for >>> the Enhanced Cooperation with the Forum. >>> As I read the Tunis Agenda text, >>> >>> - 67 calls for a forum in a general sense, >>> - 68 calls for the equal participation of governments, >>> - 69 call for enhanced cooperation >>> - 70 calls for the participation of existing >>> IG organizations and creation of principles, >>> - 71 calls for UNSG initiation of a >>> multistakeholder process on enhanced >>> cooperation with yearly status reports and >>> - 72 defines the forum called for in 67. >>> >>> In other words the entire discussion is >>> bracketed by the notion of a forum. It is >>> called for, it is described, one task is >>> brought out more than any other, and then they >>> get into the nitty gritty of the forum called >>> for in 67. In any case it is certain that the >>> TA called for the process of EC, whether we >>> argue it is in or out of the context of the >>> IGF, that it must also be a multistakeholder >>> process: from 71: "... should commence a >>> process towards enhanced cooperation involving >>> all stakeholders," >>> >>> avri >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Mon May 28 09:46:50 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 15:46:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <4E3DE84E-EC35-405B-905C-5E9542B0A76A@acm.org> <4FC37B66.4060403@apc.org> Message-ID: <4FC381CA.9000803@apc.org> Hi Adam We actually checked with one of the authors recently... and she said that was exactly what she remembers intending the text to say (Avri's interpretation). Anriette On 28/05/2012 15:35, Adam Peake wrote: >> Agree completely with this logical sequential interpretation by Avri. > > > I agree with the logic, but as mentioned, don't think the document was > drafted with that in mind, those last hours were a mess and this was the > text that was being worked on. But I wasn't the only one on the room > and my memory is terrible! > > I read 71 and 72 as separate. If they'd intended to be linked there > would be text saying so, there would be some connecting language > (furthermore...), and the mandate of the IGF would include a reference > to enhanced cooperation. The mandate's very clear, a to l. Wish I could > remember if this was discussed in Tunis. > > And also Nitin decided it for us. Both paragraphs ask the secretary > general to do something, Nitin as the special advisor for Internet > governance said separate and I guess that's him speaking for the SG. So > if they are to be linked now it would be the SG or his proxy that does it. > > Adam > > > >> Anriette >> >> >> On 28/05/2012 15:10, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>> On 28 May 2012, at 02:23, Andrea Glorioso wrote: >>> >>>> Leaving aside for a moment the subsequent UNGA resolution on the >>>> matter (but noting that even though, strictly speaking, we are not >>>> talking about binding international law, the principle of "lex >>>> posterior" could apply) I would be curious to know your views on >>>> which passages of the WSIS texts could lead to such conclusion. >>> >>> I think I may have already sent this to this list at some point, but >>> it bears repeating often. >>> >>> In terms of my personal opinion, I think the Tunis Agenda actually >>> places responsiblity for the Enhanced Cooperation with the Forum. >>> As I read the Tunis Agenda text, >>> >>> - 67 calls for a forum in a general sense, >>> - 68 calls for the equal participation of governments, >>> - 69 call for enhanced cooperation >>> - 70 calls for the participation of existing IG organizations and >>> creation of principles, >>> - 71 calls for UNSG initiation of a multistakeholder process on >>> enhanced cooperation with yearly status reports and >>> - 72 defines the forum called for in 67. >>> >>> In other words the entire discussion is bracketed by the notion of a >>> forum. It is called for, it is described, one task is brought out >>> more than any other, and then they get into the nitty gritty of the >>> forum called for in 67. In any case it is certain that the TA called >>> for the process of EC, whether we argue it is in or out of the >>> context of the IGF, that it must also be a multistakeholder process: >>> from 71: "... should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation >>> involving all stakeholders," >>> >>> avri >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon May 28 10:18:37 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 23:18:37 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <4FC381CA.9000803@apc.org> References: <4E3DE84E-EC35-405B-905C-5E9542B076A@acm.org> <4FC37B66.4060403@apc.org> <4FC381CA.9000803@apc.org> Message-ID: Anriette, thanks. Doesn't make sense to me, but nevermind :-) So what next? Enhanced cooperation on the agenda of IGF 2013? I'd support that. Adam >Hi Adam > >We actually checked with one of the authors recently... and she said >that was exactly what she remembers intending the text to say (Avri's >interpretation). > >Anriette > > >On 28/05/2012 15:35, Adam Peake wrote: >>> Agree completely with this logical sequential interpretation by Avri. >> >> >> I agree with the logic, but as mentioned, don't think the document was >> drafted with that in mind, those last hours were a mess and this was the >> text that was being worked on. But I wasn't the only one on the room >> and my memory is terrible! >> >> I read 71 and 72 as separate. If they'd intended to be linked there >> would be text saying so, there would be some connecting language >> (furthermore...), and the mandate of the IGF would include a reference >> to enhanced cooperation. The mandate's very clear, a to l. Wish I could >> remember if this was discussed in Tunis. >> >> And also Nitin decided it for us. Both paragraphs ask the secretary >> general to do something, Nitin as the special advisor for Internet >> governance said separate and I guess that's him speaking for the SG. So >> if they are to be linked now it would be the SG or his proxy that does it. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> On 28/05/2012 15:10, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> >>>> On 28 May 2012, at 02:23, Andrea Glorioso wrote: >>>> >>>>> Leaving aside for a moment the subsequent UNGA resolution on the >>>>> matter (but noting that even though, strictly speaking, we are not >>>>> talking about binding international law, the principle of "lex >>>>> posterior" could apply) I would be curious to know your views on >>>>> which passages of the WSIS texts could lead to such conclusion. >>>> >>>> I think I may have already sent this to this list at some point, but >>>> it bears repeating often. >>>> >>>> In terms of my personal opinion, I think the Tunis Agenda actually >>>> places responsiblity for the Enhanced Cooperation with the Forum. >>>> As I read the Tunis Agenda text, >>>> >>>> - 67 calls for a forum in a general sense, >>>> - 68 calls for the equal participation of governments, >>>> - 69 call for enhanced cooperation >>>> - 70 calls for the participation of existing IG organizations and >>>> creation of principles, >>>> - 71 calls for UNSG initiation of a multistakeholder process on >>>> enhanced cooperation with yearly status reports and >>>> - 72 defines the forum called for in 67. >>>> >>>> In other words the entire discussion is bracketed by the notion of a >>>> forum. It is called for, it is described, one task is brought out >>>> more than any other, and then they get into the nitty gritty of the >>>> forum called for in 67. In any case it is certain that the TA called >>>> for the process of EC, whether we argue it is in or out of the >>>> context of the IGF, that it must also be a multistakeholder process: >>>> from 71: "... should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation >>>> involving all stakeholders," >>>> >>>> avri >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>> www.apc.org >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> south africa >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > >-- >------------------------------------------------------ >anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >executive director, association for progressive communications >www.apc.org >po box 29755, melville 2109 >south africa >tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Mon May 28 10:37:59 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 10:37:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <4E3DE84E-EC35-405B-905C-5E9542B076A@acm.org> <4FC37B66.4060403@apc.org> <4FC381CA.9000803@apc.org> Message-ID: <28BE3422-B8D4-4C46-8310-1AF819281B8F@ella.com> Hi, Personally I think we need to keep pushing for something during IGF2012. Let's go into WCIT with the IGF having made room for the problem and having started the process. We have 5 months yet before the meeting, things can't possibly be set in stone at this point. We have a new MAG that was forced to accept a program they were not completely comfortable with, they are entitled to still be thinking about how to make IGF12 as valuable as they possibly can. (Not that I have the faintest idea of whether they would be interested in taking such action) And whether we can get it into the IGF12 agenda, which I think its the optimal solution, or not, I think the idea that Anriette mentioned on the list earlier: On 27 May 2012, at 11:22, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Avri > > We definitely must use the IGF and APC is already thinking of planning a > pre-event on this. Not finalised.. and we are talking to various > partners.. but I feel strongly we must facilitate substantive dialogue. > > The IGF was set up to facilitate such discussions. Some people tried to > prevent this from happening. I think they now realise that a) they might > have been wrong and/or b) further avoidance is not in the interest of > the IGF or of multi-stakeholder participation in IG. > > Anriette Perhaps since 71 puts the responsibility on the relevant organizations (which I take to mean the mangers of critical Internet resources) to get this underway: "Relevant organizations should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders", it won't be to hard to find a set of good sponsors for such an event. But to be clear. I would like to see both a full day pre-event discussion, and for that event to bring a report (dare i say recommendations?) to the IGF in a workshop arranged for discussion of EC and the IGF. avri On 28 May 2012, at 10:18, Adam Peake wrote: > Anriette, thanks. > > Doesn't make sense to me, but nevermind :-) > > So what next? Enhanced cooperation on the agenda of IGF 2013? I'd > support that. > > Adam > > > >> Hi Adam >> >> We actually checked with one of the authors recently... and she said >> that was exactly what she remembers intending the text to say (Avri's >> interpretation). >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 28/05/2012 15:35, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> Agree completely with this logical sequential interpretation by Avri. >>> >>> >>> I agree with the logic, but as mentioned, don't think the document was >>> drafted with that in mind, those last hours were a mess and this was the >>> text that was being worked on. But I wasn't the only one on the room >>> and my memory is terrible! >>> >>> I read 71 and 72 as separate. If they'd intended to be linked there >>> would be text saying so, there would be some connecting language >>> (furthermore...), and the mandate of the IGF would include a reference >>> to enhanced cooperation. The mandate's very clear, a to l. Wish I could >>> remember if this was discussed in Tunis. >>> >>> And also Nitin decided it for us. Both paragraphs ask the secretary >>> general to do something, Nitin as the special advisor for Internet >>> governance said separate and I guess that's him speaking for the SG. So >>> if they are to be linked now it would be the SG or his proxy that does it. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>>> Anriette >>>> >>>> >>>> On 28/05/2012 15:10, Avri Doria wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 28 May 2012, at 02:23, Andrea Glorioso wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Leaving aside for a moment the subsequent UNGA resolution on the >>>>>> matter (but noting that even though, strictly speaking, we are not >>>>>> talking about binding international law, the principle of "lex >>>>>> posterior" could apply) I would be curious to know your views on >>>>>> which passages of the WSIS texts could lead to such conclusion. >>>>> >>>>> I think I may have already sent this to this list at some point, but >>>>> it bears repeating often. >>>>> >>>>> In terms of my personal opinion, I think the Tunis Agenda actually >>>>> places responsiblity for the Enhanced Cooperation with the Forum. >>>>> As I read the Tunis Agenda text, >>>>> >>>>> - 67 calls for a forum in a general sense, >>>>> - 68 calls for the equal participation of governments, >>>>> - 69 call for enhanced cooperation >>>>> - 70 calls for the participation of existing IG organizations and >>>>> creation of principles, >>>>> - 71 calls for UNSG initiation of a multistakeholder process on >>>>> enhanced cooperation with yearly status reports and >>>>> - 72 defines the forum called for in 67. >>>>> >>>>> In other words the entire discussion is bracketed by the notion of a >>>>> forum. It is called for, it is described, one task is brought out >>>>> more than any other, and then they get into the nitty gritty of the >>>>> forum called for in 67. In any case it is certain that the TA called >>>>> for the process of EC, whether we argue it is in or out of the >>>>> context of the IGF, that it must also be a multistakeholder process: >>>>> from 71: "... should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation >>>>> involving all stakeholders," >>>>> >>>>> avri >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>> www.apc.org >>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>> south africa >>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Mon May 28 11:12:37 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 17:12:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <28BE3422-B8D4-4C46-8310-1AF819281B8F@ella.com> References: <4E3DE84E-EC35-405B-905C-5E9542B076A@acm.org> <4FC37B66.4060403@apc.org> <4FC381CA.9000803@apc.org> <28BE3422-B8D4-4C46-8310-1AF819281B8F@ella.com> Message-ID: <4FC395E5.90603@apc.org> Yes... let's do the pre-event in Baku. APC is willing to lead on this but we are talking to others to co-convene. And then let's get the 2013 IGF to feature various aspects of EC much more prominently. IGF 2013 will be hosted in a developing country (Indonesia) and it is therefore likely to have far greater developing country government participation (at least from Asian and African countries). Also by then quite a lot would have happened at CSTD/ECOSOC/UNGA level (and WCIT) as well as inside some of the existing institutions. E.g. the assessments, report cards, mapping and other suggestions made on the 18th of May. Anriette On 28/05/2012 16:37, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Personally I think we need to keep pushing for something during IGF2012. > > Let's go into WCIT with the IGF having made room for the problem and having started the process. We have 5 months yet before the meeting, things can't possibly be set in stone at this point. We have a new MAG that was forced to accept a program they were not completely comfortable with, they are entitled to still be thinking about how to make IGF12 as valuable as they possibly can. (Not that I have the faintest idea of whether they would be interested in taking such action) > > And whether we can get it into the IGF12 agenda, which I think its the optimal solution, or not, I think the idea that Anriette mentioned on the list earlier: > > > On 27 May 2012, at 11:22, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> Dear Avri >> >> We definitely must use the IGF and APC is already thinking of planning a >> pre-event on this. Not finalised.. and we are talking to various >> partners.. but I feel strongly we must facilitate substantive dialogue. >> >> The IGF was set up to facilitate such discussions. Some people tried to >> prevent this from happening. I think they now realise that a) they might >> have been wrong and/or b) further avoidance is not in the interest of >> the IGF or of multi-stakeholder participation in IG. >> >> Anriette > > Perhaps since 71 puts the responsibility on the relevant organizations (which I take to mean the mangers of critical Internet resources) to get this underway: "Relevant organizations should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders", it won't be to hard to find a set of good sponsors for such an event. > > But to be clear. I would like to see both a full day pre-event discussion, and for that event to bring a report (dare i say recommendations?) to the IGF in a workshop arranged for discussion of EC and the IGF. > > avri > > > > On 28 May 2012, at 10:18, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Anriette, thanks. >> >> Doesn't make sense to me, but nevermind :-) >> >> So what next? Enhanced cooperation on the agenda of IGF 2013? I'd >> support that. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >>> Hi Adam >>> >>> We actually checked with one of the authors recently... and she said >>> that was exactly what she remembers intending the text to say (Avri's >>> interpretation). >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> On 28/05/2012 15:35, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>> Agree completely with this logical sequential interpretation by Avri. >>>> >>>> >>>> I agree with the logic, but as mentioned, don't think the document was >>>> drafted with that in mind, those last hours were a mess and this was the >>>> text that was being worked on. But I wasn't the only one on the room >>>> and my memory is terrible! >>>> >>>> I read 71 and 72 as separate. If they'd intended to be linked there >>>> would be text saying so, there would be some connecting language >>>> (furthermore...), and the mandate of the IGF would include a reference >>>> to enhanced cooperation. The mandate's very clear, a to l. Wish I could >>>> remember if this was discussed in Tunis. >>>> >>>> And also Nitin decided it for us. Both paragraphs ask the secretary >>>> general to do something, Nitin as the special advisor for Internet >>>> governance said separate and I guess that's him speaking for the SG. So >>>> if they are to be linked now it would be the SG or his proxy that does it. >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Anriette >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 28/05/2012 15:10, Avri Doria wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 28 May 2012, at 02:23, Andrea Glorioso wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Leaving aside for a moment the subsequent UNGA resolution on the >>>>>>> matter (but noting that even though, strictly speaking, we are not >>>>>>> talking about binding international law, the principle of "lex >>>>>>> posterior" could apply) I would be curious to know your views on >>>>>>> which passages of the WSIS texts could lead to such conclusion. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think I may have already sent this to this list at some point, but >>>>>> it bears repeating often. >>>>>> >>>>>> In terms of my personal opinion, I think the Tunis Agenda actually >>>>>> places responsiblity for the Enhanced Cooperation with the Forum. >>>>>> As I read the Tunis Agenda text, >>>>>> >>>>>> - 67 calls for a forum in a general sense, >>>>>> - 68 calls for the equal participation of governments, >>>>>> - 69 call for enhanced cooperation >>>>>> - 70 calls for the participation of existing IG organizations and >>>>>> creation of principles, >>>>>> - 71 calls for UNSG initiation of a multistakeholder process on >>>>>> enhanced cooperation with yearly status reports and >>>>>> - 72 defines the forum called for in 67. >>>>>> >>>>>> In other words the entire discussion is bracketed by the notion of a >>>>>> forum. It is called for, it is described, one task is brought out >>>>>> more than any other, and then they get into the nitty gritty of the >>>>>> forum called for in 67. In any case it is certain that the TA called >>>>>> for the process of EC, whether we argue it is in or out of the >>>>>> context of the IGF, that it must also be a multistakeholder process: >>>>>> from 71: "... should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation >>>>>> involving all stakeholders," >>>>>> >>>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>>> www.apc.org >>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>>> south africa >>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>> www.apc.org >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> south africa >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Mon May 28 11:21:29 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 11:21:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <4FC395E5.90603@apc.org> 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> Message-ID: <60B40984-73B9-4788-B616-EEB5E144CED5@ella.com> Dear MAG member, why no support for at least a workshop at IGF12? avri On 28 May 2012, at 11:12, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Yes... let's do the pre-event in Baku. APC is willing to lead on this > but we are talking to others to co-convene. > > And then let's get the 2013 IGF to feature various aspects of EC much > more prominently. IGF 2013 will be hosted in a developing country > (Indonesia) and it is therefore likely to have far greater developing > country government participation (at least from Asian and African > countries). > > Also by then quite a lot would have happened at CSTD/ECOSOC/UNGA level > (and WCIT) as well as inside some of the existing institutions. E.g. the > assessments, report cards, mapping and other suggestions made on the > 18th of May. > > Anriette > > > On 28/05/2012 16:37, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Personally I think we need to keep pushing for something during IGF2012. >> >> Let's go into WCIT with the IGF having made room for the problem and having started the process. We have 5 months yet before the meeting, things can't possibly be set in stone at this point. We have a new MAG that was forced to accept a program they were not completely comfortable with, they are entitled to still be thinking about how to make IGF12 as valuable as they possibly can. (Not that I have the faintest idea of whether they would be interested in taking such action) >> >> And whether we can get it into the IGF12 agenda, which I think its the optimal solution, or not, I think the idea that Anriette mentioned on the list earlier: >> >> >> On 27 May 2012, at 11:22, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> Dear Avri >>> >>> We definitely must use the IGF and APC is already thinking of planning a >>> pre-event on this. Not finalised.. and we are talking to various >>> partners.. but I feel strongly we must facilitate substantive dialogue. >>> >>> The IGF was set up to facilitate such discussions. Some people tried to >>> prevent this from happening. I think they now realise that a) they might >>> have been wrong and/or b) further avoidance is not in the interest of >>> the IGF or of multi-stakeholder participation in IG. >>> >>> Anriette >> >> Perhaps since 71 puts the responsibility on the relevant organizations (which I take to mean the mangers of critical Internet resources) to get this underway: "Relevant organizations should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders", it won't be to hard to find a set of good sponsors for such an event. >> >> But to be clear. I would like to see both a full day pre-event discussion, and for that event to bring a report (dare i say recommendations?) to the IGF in a workshop arranged for discussion of EC and the IGF. >> >> avri >> >> >> >> On 28 May 2012, at 10:18, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> Anriette, thanks. >>> >>> Doesn't make sense to me, but nevermind :-) >>> >>> So what next? Enhanced cooperation on the agenda of IGF 2013? I'd >>> support that. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hi Adam >>>> >>>> We actually checked with one of the authors recently... and she said >>>> that was exactly what she remembers intending the text to say (Avri's >>>> interpretation). >>>> >>>> Anriette >>>> >>>> >>>> On 28/05/2012 15:35, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>>> Agree completely with this logical sequential interpretation by Avri. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I agree with the logic, but as mentioned, don't think the document was >>>>> drafted with that in mind, those last hours were a mess and this was the >>>>> text that was being worked on. But I wasn't the only one on the room >>>>> and my memory is terrible! >>>>> >>>>> I read 71 and 72 as separate. If they'd intended to be linked there >>>>> would be text saying so, there would be some connecting language >>>>> (furthermore...), and the mandate of the IGF would include a reference >>>>> to enhanced cooperation. The mandate's very clear, a to l. Wish I could >>>>> remember if this was discussed in Tunis. >>>>> >>>>> And also Nitin decided it for us. Both paragraphs ask the secretary >>>>> general to do something, Nitin as the special advisor for Internet >>>>> governance said separate and I guess that's him speaking for the SG. So >>>>> if they are to be linked now it would be the SG or his proxy that does it. >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Anriette >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 28/05/2012 15:10, Avri Doria wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 28 May 2012, at 02:23, Andrea Glorioso wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Leaving aside for a moment the subsequent UNGA resolution on the >>>>>>>> matter (but noting that even though, strictly speaking, we are not >>>>>>>> talking about binding international law, the principle of "lex >>>>>>>> posterior" could apply) I would be curious to know your views on >>>>>>>> which passages of the WSIS texts could lead to such conclusion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think I may have already sent this to this list at some point, but >>>>>>> it bears repeating often. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In terms of my personal opinion, I think the Tunis Agenda actually >>>>>>> places responsiblity for the Enhanced Cooperation with the Forum. >>>>>>> As I read the Tunis Agenda text, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - 67 calls for a forum in a general sense, >>>>>>> - 68 calls for the equal participation of governments, >>>>>>> - 69 call for enhanced cooperation >>>>>>> - 70 calls for the participation of existing IG organizations and >>>>>>> creation of principles, >>>>>>> - 71 calls for UNSG initiation of a multistakeholder process on >>>>>>> enhanced cooperation with yearly status reports and >>>>>>> - 72 defines the forum called for in 67. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In other words the entire discussion is bracketed by the notion of a >>>>>>> forum. It is called for, it is described, one task is brought out >>>>>>> more than any other, and then they get into the nitty gritty of the >>>>>>> forum called for in 67. In any case it is certain that the TA called >>>>>>> for the process of EC, whether we argue it is in or out of the >>>>>>> context of the IGF, that it must also be a multistakeholder process: >>>>>>> from 71: "... should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation >>>>>>> involving all stakeholders," >>>>>>> >>>>>>> avri >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>>>> www.apc.org >>>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>>>> south africa >>>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>> www.apc.org >>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>> south africa >>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon May 28 11:37:41 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 15:37:41 +0000 Subject: [governance] US hearing on International Proposals to Regulate the Internet In-Reply-To: <4FC33CB9.8030906@apc.org> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD94@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FC33CB9.8030906@apc.org> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D42F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> I was at the Google Internet at Liberty conference in Washington DC last week, which had a surprising number of international participants. ITU and WCIT was a major topic there, including a debate with an ITU rep. The discussions there prompted me to write this analysis: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/05/24/threat-analysis-of-itus-wcit-part-1-historical-context/ The US hearing would be of course about WCIT, not ICANN and DNS, IP addresses. As you can tell from my blog post, I find it a bit difficult to understand the level of mobilization going on here. > -----Original Message----- > > My interpretation of the ITU's comments on the 18th was as follows: > > 'If governments want more oversight and EC in IG, come to the ITU, we > can give it to them' (paraphrased and interpreted) > > It might be worth discussing which aspects of internet technical > governance overlaps with the work of the ITU. Can someone post on this? > There must be some elements emerging from the convergence between > telecoms and IP that the ITU must address? > > As for the transparency. Definitely Wolfgang.. ITRs should not be > renegotiated behind closed doors. Therefore the letter that several CSOs > sent to Mr. Toure on 17 May. > > Anriette > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: AW: [governance] US hearing on International Proposals to > Regulate the Internet > Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 10:35:37 +0200 > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Anriette Esterhuysen , > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Hello > > my understanding is that the US Hearing is aimed less on ICANN and CIR > oversight und more on ITU, WCIT and ITR. David Gross, who was the head > of the US governmental delegation during WSIS II and in Tunis, raised > this issue, by ringing the alarm bells, a couple of months ago. > http://www.whoswholegal.com/news/features/article/29378/the-2012-world- > conference-international-telecommunications-brewing-storm-potential-un- > regulation-internet/ > > > I participated in the WCIT consultations during the recent WSIS Forum in > Room 16 in the ILO Building where ITU´s Alexander Ntoko tried to water > down the growing political debate about the renewal of the ITRs from > 1988 which is the subject of the "World Conference on International > Telecommunication" (WCIT), scheduled for Dubai, December 2012. The > debate was partly bizarr. We discussed documents which the majority of > the people in the room (around 150) didn´t know. The governmental > representative from Iran said that "Internet Governance is not on the > agenda of the Dubai conference". But in the next statement he said that > IPv6 is part of the agenda and that today "the Internet is everyhwere". > An even more irritating position was taken by the rep from the UAE, the > host of the WCIT. I felt that we are back in 2002, during PrepCom1, when > CS (together with the PS) was moved out of the room. The UAE rep argued > that the governments represent their people and there is no need to give > access to documents to non-member states of the ITU. As a private > company you can join ITU as a sector member, have to pay a high entrance > fee and get access to the documents. If a CS organisations wants to have > the documents they should contact their governments, was the > recommendnation. As you know, all WCIT conference documents are not > accessible. You have to have a TIED account to open the documents and > this is reserved to member states only. > > The problem with ITR is that the old treaty was drafted by the WATTC in > Melbourne 1988 when the Internet was not an issue. It is understandable > that such a treaty needs a renewal,. The question is HOW? The ITR are > seen as an umbrella treaty for all kinds of transborder > telecommunication. It needs ratification and is legally binding. The > WCIT Prep Committee had several meetings, the final one will be in June > 2012 just at the eve of the ICANN meeting in Prague. It is "behind > closed doors". A key problem is that the short text of the ITR > regulations include a lot of "definitions". By extending the scope of > the "defined categories" for international telecommunication the risk is > high that you extend ITRs to the Internet. With other words, if you do > not like the existing Internet mechanisms, there is no need to attack > them directly, it is much easier to undermine them by introducing an > addtional regulatiry layer (in a legally binding form). With the ITR you > give governments a legal incentive to "re-nationalize" the Internet and > you open the door for a split into a "governmental led part of the > Internet" (under the ITU) and a "multistakeholder led part of the > Internet" (under ICANN). > > The ITU-ICANN relationship is still unsettled and full of mistrust, The > ITU (and ICANN) didn´t do anything to implement the ITU resolution from > 2010 (Guadalajara) which called for new forms of collaboration. Did the > ITU made any serious statement in the UNCSTD consultatitons on "enhanced > cooperation"? In Geneva last week it was announced that the ITU will > come to the ICANN meeting in Prague. So lets wait an see what they have > to say. > > > Here is a para. from my intervention in Geneva:: > > "EU Commissioner Nelly Kroes, in a speech recently in Berlin, called the > protest of tens of thousands of people against ACTA a "wake up call for > Brussels". The EU obviously starts to realize that in a multistakeholder > Internet environment one can no longer negotiate issues of general > interests, which affect two billions of Internet users, by governments > only behind closed doors. Madame Kroes declared in Berlin that ACTA in > its present form can not survive. The ITU should learn from this. If you > negotiate the ITRs behind closed doors, we will probably see in 2013 > another wave of public protest around the world. Two years ago, nobody > knew what ACTA means. Today it is a symbol for a wrong approach to > manage global issues related to the Internet. Today nobody knows what > ITR means. Tomorrow it could become a symbol for a wrong approach to > regulate the Internet. Again: If you want to have a sustainable renewal > of the ITRs, open the doors to the ITR negotiations. Otherwise the year > 2013 could see a "wake up call for Geneva". > > > Wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Anriette Esterhuysen > Gesendet: Mo 28.05.2012 09:21 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: Re: [governance] US hearing on International Proposals to > Regulate the Internet > > > > Thanks for posting this, Jeremy. > Not very promising. And I wonder which proposals they are going to > discuss. Personally I don't think that any proposals to date, not CIRP > or IBSA or IT for Change or others made on Sunday qualify as proposals > for 'regulating the internet'. > > Perhaps the Saudi Arabia comments are closest to this direction. > > Countries who proposed UN oversight on the 18th, such as South Africa > and Iran always qualified that they are arguing for intergovernmental > oversight of internet public policy and that this role should not > include technical management of the internet. It is in fact the 'public > policy oversight' that I am concerned about, particularly as they are > proposing to locate this in the ITU. > > The distorted FCC reaction to talk of the ITU taking over and > 'regulating' the internet only sets serious discussion about > international cooperation, and rooting internet policy in existing > international agreements, back. > > It has also been clear from following this process that governments that > were open to non-ITU options are increasingly going for a pro-ITU option > because their concerns are not taken seriously in other spaces. > > Anriette > > > > On 28/05/2012 04:56, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > Speaking of inclusive and multi-stakeholder debates on Internet > > governance reform, this will not be happening on 31 May at the US > > House Committee on Energy and Commerce, when there will be a hearing > > on "International Proposals to Regulate the Internet" with the > > following > > (closed) list of witnesses: > > > > The Honorable Robert McDowell > > Commissioner > > Federal Communications Commission > > > > The Honorable David A. Gross > > Former U.S. Coordinator > > International Communications and Information Policy > > > > Ms. Sally Shipman Wentworth > > Senior Manager, Public Policy > > Internet Society > > > > http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=954 > > 3 > > > > The event will be streamed at http://energycommerce.house.gov/ and it > > may be worth at least following and tweeting about it (there is a > > tweet box on the front page of the site). > > > > As an aside, the Energy and Commerce Committee site is full of > > partisan slurs again "Obamacare", environmentalists, anti-nuclear > > activists and the like. > > > > We can expect the depth of intellectual debate at this hearing to rise > > to the level of "America invented the Internet, we don't want no UN > > bureaucrats from Iran or China meddling with it!". > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 > 1692 ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 28 12:05:58 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 17:05:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] which list: cpsr or igcaucus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 18:54:31 on Mon, 28 May 2012, Adam Peake writes >We seem to have the same threads running on two lists > >governance at lists.cpsr.org > >and > >governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >and just to be helpful, they have the same subject line tag [governance]. > >Could we agree on one list? It would certainly help. I generally reply to whichever list the earlier posting was made (because it's dreadfully bad nettiquette to x-post something from one list to another). Very occasionally I'll email the worst offenders and warn them they've gone off piste. But it doesn't seem to have helped much :( Perhaps people could be more careful when starting new threads. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon May 28 12:09:25 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 09:09:25 -0700 Subject: [governance] Thinking about models for EC Message-ID: <4E98B888103F45BEAC63D8AF5D464199@UserVAIO> Further to the back forth with Avri on models for EC -- to IETF or not to IETF, to OGP or not to OGP... Something a bit in the middle might be interesting to try out on a prototyping basis at the IGF... Say around Net Neutrality... to see what the outcome might be . This below has a lot of the bottom up features of the IETF without a lot of the unnecessary process baggage and much of the flexibility and speed towards decision making/outcomes of the OGP approach... (I still prefer the OGP approach, with reservations but perhaps it is useful to get out of the somewhat formulaic approaches being argued around in this space... My overall concern however, remains (with this approach as with others) to ensure some degree of broader base of accountability beyond the simple incantation of "multi-stakeholderism"... But this may be a way to begin to move forward, if haltingly... in a situation where the foirmal processes seem to be blocked by opposing positions and where the default i.e. to do nothing is untenable since it is to opt for trends and existing decision processes of which an increasing number particularly (but not exclusively) in the Developing world are deeply critical. "The hackday approach to prototyping social solutions is emerging all over the shop. Sometimes they're bottom up, like the upcoming Digital Health Hack, or top down, like the Government Digital Service's homeless hackday, or coming sideways out of a traditional NGO, like the first RNIB Hackathon. Projects arising from such hackdays follow the path of the lean startup. They aim to get a minimum viable something-or-other out into the world, to test it against real needs. Like the web they're in permanent beta - never finished, always adapting. Practitioners are, like AppsforGood, following the pedagogy of Paulo Freire by critically engaging with transforming their reality." http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture-professionals-network/culture-professional s-blog/2012/may/28/prototyping-replaces-policy-arts-culture -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 28 12:10:37 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 17:10:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] which list: cpsr or igcaucus In-Reply-To: <200AF330-EFF2-49AC-BC18-178C98F12FA2@ciroap.org> References: <200AF330-EFF2-49AC-BC18-178C98F12FA2@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <9k02L4c9N6wPFAyT@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <200AF330-EFF2-49AC-BC18-178C98F12FA2 at ciroap.org>, at 19:47:04 on Mon, 28 May 2012, Jeremy Malcolm writes >I'm not sure how lists.cpsr.org because active again, because one of my >last acts when establishing the new list was to change it into >moderated mode, so that no posts could get through without approval. With great respect, you are one of the offenders when it comes to starting new threads on the wrong/old list: To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] US hearing on International Proposals to Regulate the Internet From: Jeremy Malcolm Date: 28 May 2012 03:56:31 -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon May 28 12:38:54 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 16:38:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] US hearing on International Proposals to Regulate the Internet In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D42F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD94@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FC33CB9.8030906@apc.org>,<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D42F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E8817@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> To support Milton's blogpost and main point: ipso facto, if ITU's International Telecommunications Regulations (note the 'R' word) are the subject to talks to extend them to the Internet; ie WCIT - then the hearing on 'international proposals to regulate the Internet' has a perfectly reasonable title. It's also no surprise the House committee will hold a hearing on that topic and invite the usual suspects of an FCC Commissioner, Ambassador Gross, and ISOC to discuss. And finally, as Milton noted, the ITU has always been trying to get in the international Internet regulation game, after unsuccessfully attempting to squash the Net like a bug, back at the dawn of Internet time. The level of mobilization of business is unsurprising to me, since as Parminder notes, the Internet is among other things, big business these days. 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: Monday, May 28, 2012 11:37 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] US hearing on International Proposals to Regulate the Internet I was at the Google Internet at Liberty conference in Washington DC last week, which had a surprising number of international participants. ITU and WCIT was a major topic there, including a debate with an ITU rep. The discussions there prompted me to write this analysis: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/05/24/threat-analysis-of-itus-wcit-part-1-historical-context/ The US hearing would be of course about WCIT, not ICANN and DNS, IP addresses. As you can tell from my blog post, I find it a bit difficult to understand the level of mobilization going on here. > -----Original Message----- > > My interpretation of the ITU's comments on the 18th was as follows: > > 'If governments want more oversight and EC in IG, come to the ITU, we > can give it to them' (paraphrased and interpreted) > > It might be worth discussing which aspects of internet technical > governance overlaps with the work of the ITU. Can someone post on this? > There must be some elements emerging from the convergence between > telecoms and IP that the ITU must address? > > As for the transparency. Definitely Wolfgang.. ITRs should not be > renegotiated behind closed doors. Therefore the letter that several CSOs > sent to Mr. Toure on 17 May. > > Anriette > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: AW: [governance] US hearing on International Proposals to > Regulate the Internet > Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 10:35:37 +0200 > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Anriette Esterhuysen , > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Hello > > my understanding is that the US Hearing is aimed less on ICANN and CIR > oversight und more on ITU, WCIT and ITR. David Gross, who was the head > of the US governmental delegation during WSIS II and in Tunis, raised > this issue, by ringing the alarm bells, a couple of months ago. > http://www.whoswholegal.com/news/features/article/29378/the-2012-world- > conference-international-telecommunications-brewing-storm-potential-un- > regulation-internet/ > > > I participated in the WCIT consultations during the recent WSIS Forum in > Room 16 in the ILO Building where ITU´s Alexander Ntoko tried to water > down the growing political debate about the renewal of the ITRs from > 1988 which is the subject of the "World Conference on International > Telecommunication" (WCIT), scheduled for Dubai, December 2012. The > debate was partly bizarr. We discussed documents which the majority of > the people in the room (around 150) didn´t know. The governmental > representative from Iran said that "Internet Governance is not on the > agenda of the Dubai conference". But in the next statement he said that > IPv6 is part of the agenda and that today "the Internet is everyhwere". > An even more irritating position was taken by the rep from the UAE, the > host of the WCIT. I felt that we are back in 2002, during PrepCom1, when > CS (together with the PS) was moved out of the room. The UAE rep argued > that the governments represent their people and there is no need to give > access to documents to non-member states of the ITU. As a private > company you can join ITU as a sector member, have to pay a high entrance > fee and get access to the documents. If a CS organisations wants to have > the documents they should contact their governments, was the > recommendnation. As you know, all WCIT conference documents are not > accessible. You have to have a TIED account to open the documents and > this is reserved to member states only. > > The problem with ITR is that the old treaty was drafted by the WATTC in > Melbourne 1988 when the Internet was not an issue. It is understandable > that such a treaty needs a renewal,. The question is HOW? The ITR are > seen as an umbrella treaty for all kinds of transborder > telecommunication. It needs ratification and is legally binding. The > WCIT Prep Committee had several meetings, the final one will be in June > 2012 just at the eve of the ICANN meeting in Prague. It is "behind > closed doors". A key problem is that the short text of the ITR > regulations include a lot of "definitions". By extending the scope of > the "defined categories" for international telecommunication the risk is > high that you extend ITRs to the Internet. With other words, if you do > not like the existing Internet mechanisms, there is no need to attack > them directly, it is much easier to undermine them by introducing an > addtional regulatiry layer (in a legally binding form). With the ITR you > give governments a legal incentive to "re-nationalize" the Internet and > you open the door for a split into a "governmental led part of the > Internet" (under the ITU) and a "multistakeholder led part of the > Internet" (under ICANN). > > The ITU-ICANN relationship is still unsettled and full of mistrust, The > ITU (and ICANN) didn´t do anything to implement the ITU resolution from > 2010 (Guadalajara) which called for new forms of collaboration. Did the > ITU made any serious statement in the UNCSTD consultatitons on "enhanced > cooperation"? In Geneva last week it was announced that the ITU will > come to the ICANN meeting in Prague. So lets wait an see what they have > to say. > > > Here is a para. from my intervention in Geneva:: > > "EU Commissioner Nelly Kroes, in a speech recently in Berlin, called the > protest of tens of thousands of people against ACTA a "wake up call for > Brussels". The EU obviously starts to realize that in a multistakeholder > Internet environment one can no longer negotiate issues of general > interests, which affect two billions of Internet users, by governments > only behind closed doors. Madame Kroes declared in Berlin that ACTA in > its present form can not survive. The ITU should learn from this. If you > negotiate the ITRs behind closed doors, we will probably see in 2013 > another wave of public protest around the world. Two years ago, nobody > knew what ACTA means. Today it is a symbol for a wrong approach to > manage global issues related to the Internet. Today nobody knows what > ITR means. Tomorrow it could become a symbol for a wrong approach to > regulate the Internet. Again: If you want to have a sustainable renewal > of the ITRs, open the doors to the ITR negotiations. Otherwise the year > 2013 could see a "wake up call for Geneva". > > > Wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Anriette Esterhuysen > Gesendet: Mo 28.05.2012 09:21 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: Re: [governance] US hearing on International Proposals to > Regulate the Internet > > > > Thanks for posting this, Jeremy. > Not very promising. And I wonder which proposals they are going to > discuss. Personally I don't think that any proposals to date, not CIRP > or IBSA or IT for Change or others made on Sunday qualify as proposals > for 'regulating the internet'. > > Perhaps the Saudi Arabia comments are closest to this direction. > > Countries who proposed UN oversight on the 18th, such as South Africa > and Iran always qualified that they are arguing for intergovernmental > oversight of internet public policy and that this role should not > include technical management of the internet. It is in fact the 'public > policy oversight' that I am concerned about, particularly as they are > proposing to locate this in the ITU. > > The distorted FCC reaction to talk of the ITU taking over and > 'regulating' the internet only sets serious discussion about > international cooperation, and rooting internet policy in existing > international agreements, back. > > It has also been clear from following this process that governments that > were open to non-ITU options are increasingly going for a pro-ITU option > because their concerns are not taken seriously in other spaces. > > Anriette > > > > On 28/05/2012 04:56, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > Speaking of inclusive and multi-stakeholder debates on Internet > > governance reform, this will not be happening on 31 May at the US > > House Committee on Energy and Commerce, when there will be a hearing > > on "International Proposals to Regulate the Internet" with the > > following > > (closed) list of witnesses: > > > > The Honorable Robert McDowell > > Commissioner > > Federal Communications Commission > > > > The Honorable David A. Gross > > Former U.S. Coordinator > > International Communications and Information Policy > > > > Ms. Sally Shipman Wentworth > > Senior Manager, Public Policy > > Internet Society > > > > http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=954 > > 3 > > > > The event will be streamed at http://energycommerce.house.gov/ and it > > may be worth at least following and tweeting about it (there is a > > tweet box on the front page of the site). > > > > As an aside, the Energy and Commerce Committee site is full of > > partisan slurs again "Obamacare", environmentalists, anti-nuclear > > activists and the like. > > > > We can expect the depth of intellectual debate at this hearing to rise > > to the level of "America invented the Internet, we don't want no UN > > bureaucrats from Iran or China meddling with it!". > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 > 1692 ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 28 13:01:57 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 17:01:57 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] re House to examine plan for United Nations to regulate the Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E882D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> And here's how the hearing is being viewed by veteran netheads; and how the WCIT proposals are playing on the Hill. Personally, I'd suggest this is classic ITU geopolitical ineptness, to have set itself up as a bipartisan punching bag/bogeyman just in time for US presidential and congressional electioneering. Now, all Congressmen and President Obama can claim that they too are starring in the forthcoming 'Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter' flick, as the 'UN regulates the net' meme rises from the (un-)dead yet again. Brilliant. Maybe in 2013 0r 2014 something substantive might happen around global Internet governance. For now my advice is: enjoy the popcorn, and the show. Lee ________________________________ From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 11:46 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] re House to examine plan for United Nations to regulate the Internet Yup several times djf ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Doug Humphrey > Date: Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:45 AM Subject: Re: [IP] House to examine plan for United Nations to regulate the Internet To: "dave at farber.net" > Cc: ip > Revenge of the Telco Zombies.... Didn't we kill this thing once already? (...getting off couch and taking sword off the wall....) Once more, with feeling.... Doug Sent from my iPhone (doug joins the modern world) On May 26, 2012, at 11:04 AM, Dave Farber > wrote: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Richard Forno" > Date: May 26, 2012 10:33 AM Subject: House to examine plan for United Nations to regulate the Internet To: "Infowarrior List" > Cc: "Dave Farber" > House to examine plan for United Nations to regulate the Internet By Brendan Sasso - 05/26/12 08:10 AM ET http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/229653-house-to-examine-plan-to-let-un-regulate-internet House lawmakers will consider an international proposal next week to give the United Nations more control over the Internet. The proposal is backed by China, Russia, Brazil, India and other UN members, and would give the UN’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU) more control over the governance of the Internet. It’s an unpopular idea with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in Congress, and officials with the Obama administration have also criticized it. “We're quite concerned,” Larry Strickling, the head of the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration, said n an interview with The Hill earlier this year. He said the measure would expose the Internet to “top-down regulation where's it's really the governments that are at the table but the rest of the stakeholders aren't.” At a hearing earlier this month, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) also criticized the proposal. He said China and Russia are "not exactly bastions of internet freedom." "Any place that bans certain terms from search should not be a leader in international Internet regulatory frameworks," he said, adding that he will keep a close eye on the process. Yet the proposal could come up for a vote at a UN conference in Dubai in December. Next week’s hearing is expected to bring more attention in the U.S. to the measure, which would give the UN more control over cybersecurity, data privacy, technical standards and the Web’s address system. It would also allow foreign government-owned Internet providers to charge extra for international traffic and allow for more price controls. The House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Communications and Technology will hold the hearing and hear testimony from Robert McDowell, a Republican commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC); David Gross, a former State Department official; and Sally Shipman Wentworth, the senior manager of public policy for the nonprofit Internet Society. The Internet is currently governed under a “multi-stakeholder” approach that gives power to a host of nonprofits, rather than governments. Strickling said that system brings more ideas and flexibility to Internet policymaking. “We lose that when we turn this over to a group of just governments,” Strickling said. In an op-ed earlier this year in The Wall Street Journal, McDowell warned that “a top-down, centralized, international regulatory overlay is antithetical to the architecture of the Net.” “Productivity, rising living standards and the spread of freedom everywhere, but especially in the developing world, would grind to a halt as engineering and business decisions become politically paralyzed within a global regulatory body,” McDowell wrote. He said some governments feel excluded from Internet policymaking and want more control over the process. “And let's face it, strong-arm regimes are threatened by popular outcries for political freedom that are empowered by unfettered Internet connectivity,” McDowell wrote. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. Archives [X] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now [X] 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Mon May 28 15:26:04 2012 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 21:26:04 +0200 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: <20120523074349.DE4223CD@quill.bollow.ch> <20120523093930.158AB3CD@quill.bollow.ch> <20120523174635.5721D3CD@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20120528192604.GA22928@sources.org> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 10:03:58AM +0200, Andrea Glorioso wrote a message of 345 lines which said: > Secondly, I disagree with your evaluation of the criteria being > proposed, one of which is the "rate of adoption of IETF standards", > if I may simplify. This is a rather objective criterion, which is > very different from the criterion "rate of adoption of IPv6" (which > I agree would be a clearly biased one). I note there is at least one > person in the discussion, i.e. McTim, who doesn't seem to agree that > "adoption of standards" should be a measure of success of a > standards-setting organisation. Regarding evaluation, IETF itself wrote a document about "What Makes For a Successful Protocol?" . It addresses all these questions and much more. Its main conclusion is that the technical quality of the protocol is one of the less important factors. [Those who what a summary and read french can see .] -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Mon May 28 20:15:28 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 09:15:28 +0900 Subject: [governance] which list: cpsr or igcaucus In-Reply-To: References: <200AF330-EFF2-49AC-BC18-178C98F12FA2@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I only post this to the official list. Maybe at one day we better all unsubscribe from the old list hosted by CPSR, unless we can stop it as a whole. I did not reactivate the old list, though I have accidentally posted thee several times. Izumi 2012年5月28日月曜日 Jeremy Malcolm jeremy at ciroap.org: > On 28/05/2012, at 7:47 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > I'm not sure how lists.cpsr.org because active again, because one of my > last acts when establishing the new list was to change it into moderated > mode, so that no posts could get through without approval. Unless Sala or > Izumi have deliberately reverted that change, I'll put it back in that mode. > > > Uh no I won't, because I no longer seem to have access to do so. Someone > called "Al Whaley", who presumably opened up the old list again, is now its > owner. In any case, nobody should be using that list anymore, everyone > should be using governance at lists.igcaucus.org 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org');>. > > -- > > *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 > > > -- >> 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 iza at anr.org Mon May 28 21:59:10 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 10:59:10 +0900 Subject: [governance] My memo from Tunis Nov 2003 - Prepcom 3 bis negotiations Message-ID: Hi, here attached is the note I took during the Prepcom 3 bis held in Tunis in November 2003. The final part is not there - but some process before that are captured. In my memory, around 8:30 pm or so, the main part of the language of all remaining para were agreed, but then there still remained not-so substantive parts, which took another 90 min or so, thereby ending the meeting was almost 10 pm. And yes, all sides, US, European Commission, UK, China, et al all said it was their victory. My view is close to what Adam think that EC and IGF are two distinct or separate things, yet, I also am aware that the language of these paras were so vaguely written so that all parties who have different positions could still agree on. I vaguely remember that Janis Karklins and ICANN GAC Vice Chair that time were discussing on how to explain this "Enhanced Cooperation" section since they were made intentionally vague, at the next ICANN meeting. So, as is shown on this list, the interpretations of how EC and IGF relate can be very different by different people, and there is no single truth drawn from reading the Tunis Agenda. That will give, in my view, good reason to have discussion on this at IGF. izumi -------------------- WSIS PrepCom3 Nov 13 12:50 China Ambassador WSIS is now world focus. Follow-up activity should be multilateral, All stakeholders be involved in Internet governance in real and meaningful way What we need are actions and arrangements, rather than empty talk There is no such a thing as talking for talking Government, private sector and civil society should have a division of labor, Playing different role Future activities should include: IP address allocation, root zone document, root server emerging WSIS is convened according to the UN resolution, and is international conference in the framework of UN In the past year we have had in-depth comprehensive discussion in that context. In the follow-up should be carried out under the UN framework as well. We should have any reason to be afraid of UN framework, we don’t understand why. That’s my basic standpoint of China delegation We are aware that others do not share the same view and we are ready to cooperate. Saudi Arabia Arab Group For oversight, Option 1 is the minimum acceptable. Ghana Africa – Coordinated under UN – ITU, UNESCO, and UNDP US Correct the situation of Uganda, Urugay,… Statement: Security and stability is of paramount importance. Present structure is vital – Internet – for medium for global Free from governmental oversight and control Success – in decentralized nature, at outer edge for innovation Burdening oversight is out – works so well around the globe Private sector innovation and investment Compelling argument against overburdening new inter-governmental oversight – We call upon colleagues in this room to join us to work together to bring the benefit of information society for all Chair – you made the fair In the mean time we try to fix the problem – not to lose time Argentina Not to replace existing body Multilateral mechanisms, Iran Stability and security is referred – we share the same concern, it is crucial principle to be preserved and maintained, but only one of the principles leaders agreed. By highlighting this principle, we should not sacrifice other principles. It is important to provide all governments especially from developing countries to have realy say on public policy issues on Internet governance. Create a space for these governments – We do not see the hierarchical approach for Geneva principles Geneva Principles should be the final approach, Australia Barbados Australia Chair 9 proposals were sent – almost all calling for new inter-governmental mechanism no decision making? Different positions on oversight of ICANN 1 ?? 2 A new model for international cooperation – focus on main principles, by governments 3 Another group – 4 models – world council on Internet is most appropriate 4 IGC for global policy and oversight Summarize the sense of the debate today China – defined the parameters for the debate There are two groups who support the status quo 1 – if you take ?? action without thorough consideration with all linkages, you will endanger the security and stability – very clear and strong, let’s maintain the status quo that is working fine, why do you interfere that? Innovations at edges 2 – let’s work towards the status quo – in this present setting – strong words, there will be another forum or international organization let we shell this issue and decide later – that will disappoint governments and civil society let’s go back to WGIG report Forum proposal enjoyed wide support When it comes to the cluster of oversight? – role – positions differ We won’t have any voting here, we will work on consensus So if we have split, if there is no consent – most rational – we will not be able to develop the language The effort here is to convince others. African group talked about progressive approach. At PrepCom we had “evolutionary approach” ^- challenge is that how we do that? Forum – does it create dialogue and action? Uruguay- let’s synthesize One group – we need new organization for oversight, others say not needed We need to come to conclusion At the end of the day, you have to come to agreement, in written text SubComA adjourned. Canada – room Hammamet 7:30- Nov 14, 1000 – on Para 4 and 5 Chair- read Vint Cerf’s letter to GAC Chair: Uruguay Time to agree Singapore Alternative language to ccTLD – limit other governments How much GAC can change – Singapore to participate ICANN Vancouver meeting Change from within to answer to Iran’s question Chair: Forum – sharp divergence – 1600 – to meet Chair will prepare a paper – basis for further work 1 working group will remain intact – subject to Canada- produce a text by 1900 today Nov 14 1600 Informal presentation by Paul Twomy and Sharil Tarmizi Chair’s new paper DT/15/ Rev.1 Iran Saudi Arabia US We don’t think no need for “new” multi-lateral mechanism. Continue the evolutionary process. Generic domain names = ? China To US – on 67 Greece Proposed to host the first meeting of Forum. Chair, Brazil, you also want to host, or you want to support the proposal. Brazil They can also host the first meeting of the oversight mechanism. Chair, You need to first create it. Venezuela Australia Proposed – Internet Dialogue Forum ISOC to be involved as host organization We should invite ISOC to give its view. China US Forum – reserve until 62, 70-75 package be resolved Must be flexible to its agenda Concern – role of UN SG, institution of UN As it is undertaking significant review on “UN reform” Under the auspices of UN – be regarded as part of UN reform Funding concern – what is the source of funding? Chair’s office to explore ISOC Australia and Canada- ISOC be the convener or facilitator We have highest regard - bring expert opinion of ISOC Appreciation to Russia – ITU taking on additional burden, to them, their willingness and practicality – but concern for ITU Bulgaria ISOC has 75 chapters – it’s not one office in Geneva or Virginia Chair For forum, if we keep it lean, and membership small, Brazil Concern with Canada and Australia Canada - Preamble and Implementation Sidi Busaid 19:30 –21:00 Singapore – para 76 and 77 Dogga Mexico 78 82 Tozeur Nov15 A new proposal by ?? 75C We ask the Sec Gen of UN to initiate and continue a process towards enhanced cooperation which will start by the end of the first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders [within their respective roles], will proceed as quickly as possible, consistent with legal process and will be responding to t innovation. Alt: Such cooperation, international management of the Internet would address international Internet public Policy- setting issues. US Alternative: Relevant organizations should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The same relevant organizations shall be requested to provide annual performance report. BREAK 79 Chair – proposed a language US We see - Bureau – limited, Forum not limited But your revision – if IGF is by invitation only Greece Chair – another proposal Closed 67 (chair’s proposal) We are convinced that there is a need to initiate and reinforce, as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and multilateral process, with the participation of governments, private sector, civil society, and international organizations in their respective roles. This process could envisage creation of a suitable framework or mechanisms, [where justified], thus spurring the ongoing and active evolution of the current arrangement in order to synergies the efforts in this regard. US – insisted and threatened to go back to negotiation Iran, Saudi – not accepted Chair – I wish you, Iran and US, to have warm relationship. 1930 We need 90 minutes to fix remaining paras Karklins Head of delegations – 5pm – agreed, to conclude negotiations by 10 pm today Plenary – to be started Agreed on 21 paras, 4 paras in brackets SubcomA – to resume – shortly Para 75 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Tue May 29 01:57:40 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 14:57:40 +0900 Subject: [governance] which list: cpsr or igcaucus In-Reply-To: References: <200AF330-EFF2-49AC-BC18-178C98F12FA2@ciroap.org> Message-ID: We got reply from Al Whaley via Hans Klein, and he will coop with us to fix the problem, ie, closing down the CPSR list and only keep the archive. izumi 2012/5/29 Izumi AIZU : > I only post this to the official list. > Maybe at one day we better all unsubscribe from the old list hosted by CPSR, > unless we can stop it as a whole. I did not reactivate the old list, though > I have accidentally posted thee several times. > > Izumi > > 2012年5月28日月曜日 Jeremy Malcolm jeremy at ciroap.org: > >> On 28/05/2012, at 7:47 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> I'm not sure how lists.cpsr.org because active again, because one of my >> last acts when establishing the new list was to change it into moderated >> mode, so that no posts could get through without approval. Unless Sala or >> Izumi have deliberately reverted that change, I'll put it back in that mode. >> >> >> Uh no I won't, because I no longer seem to have access to do so. Someone >> called "Al Whaley", who presumably opened up the old list again, is now its >> owner. In any case, nobody should be using that list anymore, everyone >> should be using governance at lists.igcaucus.org. >> >> -- >> >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Tue May 29 03:36:39 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 09:36:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] Iceland and social media In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9D149E54-13C9-4261-8D9F-B693E1770B8F@uzh.ch> Hi Andrea On May 28, 2012, at 2:26 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > Or am I the only one who thinks Iceland's use of the Internet for political purposes would deserve a more thoughtful discussion than the soundbites of the past months? Nope, I'm game. What's the view of the EC and its Member States on the notion of Iceland serving as a haven for FoE etc? When I was there for their IGF I gathered there was rather active 'consultation' with aggrieved Governments in the neighborhood and beyond taking place that would likely impact their way forward. What's the status of Enhanced Cooperation in this context? 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Tue May 29 04:07:52 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 10:07:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] which list: cpsr or igcaucus In-Reply-To: <9k02L4c9N6wPFAyT@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <200AF330-EFF2-49AC-BC18-178C98F12FA2@ciroap.org> <9k02L4c9N6wPFAyT@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <2e35ff7cbe674c114282544d0fe48a29@ciroap.org> On Mon, 28 May 2012 17:10:37 +0100, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at > 19:47:04 on Mon, 28 May 2012, Jeremy Malcolm writes >> I'm not sure how lists.cpsr.org because active again, because one of my last acts when establishing the new list was to change it into moderated mode, so that no posts could get through without approval. > With great respect, you are one of the offenders when it comes to starting new threads on the wrong/old list: To: governance at lists.cpsr.org [3] Subject: [governance] US hearing on International Proposals to Regulate the Internet From: Jeremy Malcolm Date: 28 May 2012 03:56:31 Yes, I know - sorry! - but what I meant was, the way I left it, any email sent to the old list by mistake would have been rejected, and suddenly that was no longer so. Anyhow, it is all being sorted now thanks to the good folks at CPSR. -- 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 [5] Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational [6] Read our email confidentiality notice [7]. Don't print this email unless necessary. Links: ------ [1] mailto:200AF330-EFF2-49AC-BC18-178C98F12FA2 at ciroap.org [2] mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org [3] mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org [4] mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org [5] http://twitter.com/Consumers_Int [6] http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational [7] http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 29 04:16:10 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 10:16:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <60B40984-73B9-4788-B616-EEB5E144CED5@ella.com> 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> Message-ID: Hi On May 28, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Dear MAG member, > > why no support for at least a workshop at IGF12? No such workshop was proposed, so there was no occasion for MAG members to express support for one. Are you suggesting that although the application window is long closed and notices to proposers have gone out, we should circle back and propose one ourselves and demand that the MAG exceptionally consider it? > > avri > > On 28 May 2012, at 11:12, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> Yes... let's do the pre-event in Baku. APC is willing to lead on this >> but we are talking to others to co-convene. As discussed in Geneva, I agree there should be a pre-event (more substantial and high profile than a workshop) organized by the three stakeholder groups and any governments that would also support an peer-level multistakeholder dialogue in which Governments don't get to hog 85% of the airtime making prepared speeches as happened at the CSTD event (and would happen in any intergovernmental-based working group, council, committee, task force, etc). Structured collective discussion, preferably informed by a brief document that maps out top-level themes and some specific discussion questions/options under each. Ideally, we could try to quickly get beyond more lengthy deconstructions of The Tao of the Tunis Agenda and the search for The One True Meaning of EC and focus on such items as a) in what specific issue areas do people believe something important is not being done or is being done badly, and b) what institutional mechanisms if any (centralized/decentralized, omnibus/issue-specific, etc) or enhancements to extant arrangements might be useful in helping the international community to address said problems. Timing is a real problem. Unless we're prepared to ask people to add an extra day to their trip, this would have to be on Monday 5th, competing not only with GigaNet, ISOC, etc, but also the Ministerial, which the Government reps will inevitably feel compelled to attend if able. If we can't draw them into a discussion with the stakeholders, the exercise would be of considerably less value than one might hope. We'd need to decide what to do on this soon, before people start making plane reservations. >> >> And then let's get the 2013 IGF to feature various aspects of EC much >> more prominently. IGF 2013 will be hosted in a developing country >> (Indonesia) and it is therefore likely to have far greater developing >> country government participation (at least from Asian and African >> countries). >> >> Also by then quite a lot would have happened at CSTD/ECOSOC/UNGA level >> (and WCIT) as well as inside some of the existing institutions. E.g. the >> assessments, report cards, mapping and other suggestions made on the >> 18th of May. The main session on CIR is likely to devote a good chunk of time to WCIT. Whether this could be broadened to include the EC discussion per se, and whether that'd even be advisable given that 'public policy responsibilities' are broader than CIR i.e. usage-related issues, is unclear. Perhaps some of this could fit under Taking Stock, which has been rather substantially reconfigured this year to look at the wider environment, e.g. the various principles and frameworks proposals…? Best, Bill >> >> >> On 28/05/2012 16:37, Avri Doria wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Personally I think we need to keep pushing for something during IGF2012. >>> >>> Let's go into WCIT with the IGF having made room for the problem and having started the process. We have 5 months yet before the meeting, things can't possibly be set in stone at this point. We have a new MAG that was forced to accept a program they were not completely comfortable with, they are entitled to still be thinking about how to make IGF12 as valuable as they possibly can. (Not that I have the faintest idea of whether they would be interested in taking such action) >>> >>> And whether we can get it into the IGF12 agenda, which I think its the optimal solution, or not, I think the idea that Anriette mentioned on the list earlier: >>> >>> >>> On 27 May 2012, at 11:22, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Avri >>>> >>>> We definitely must use the IGF and APC is already thinking of planning a >>>> pre-event on this. Not finalised.. and we are talking to various >>>> partners.. but I feel strongly we must facilitate substantive dialogue. >>>> >>>> The IGF was set up to facilitate such discussions. Some people tried to >>>> prevent this from happening. I think they now realise that a) they might >>>> have been wrong and/or b) further avoidance is not in the interest of >>>> the IGF or of multi-stakeholder participation in IG. >>>> >>>> Anriette >>> >>> Perhaps since 71 puts the responsibility on the relevant organizations (which I take to mean the mangers of critical Internet resources) to get this underway: "Relevant organizations should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders", it won't be to hard to find a set of good sponsors for such an event. >>> >>> But to be clear. I would like to see both a full day pre-event discussion, and for that event to bring a report (dare i say recommendations?) to the IGF in a workshop arranged for discussion of EC and the IGF. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> On 28 May 2012, at 10:18, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>>> Anriette, thanks. >>>> >>>> Doesn't make sense to me, but nevermind :-) >>>> >>>> So what next? Enhanced cooperation on the agenda of IGF 2013? I'd >>>> support that. >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi Adam >>>>> >>>>> We actually checked with one of the authors recently... and she said >>>>> that was exactly what she remembers intending the text to say (Avri's >>>>> interpretation). >>>>> >>>>> Anriette >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 28/05/2012 15:35, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>>>> Agree completely with this logical sequential interpretation by Avri. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree with the logic, but as mentioned, don't think the document was >>>>>> drafted with that in mind, those last hours were a mess and this was the >>>>>> text that was being worked on. But I wasn't the only one on the room >>>>>> and my memory is terrible! >>>>>> >>>>>> I read 71 and 72 as separate. If they'd intended to be linked there >>>>>> would be text saying so, there would be some connecting language >>>>>> (furthermore...), and the mandate of the IGF would include a reference >>>>>> to enhanced cooperation. The mandate's very clear, a to l. Wish I could >>>>>> remember if this was discussed in Tunis. >>>>>> >>>>>> And also Nitin decided it for us. Both paragraphs ask the secretary >>>>>> general to do something, Nitin as the special advisor for Internet >>>>>> governance said separate and I guess that's him speaking for the SG. So >>>>>> if they are to be linked now it would be the SG or his proxy that does it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Adam >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Anriette >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 28/05/2012 15:10, Avri Doria wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 28 May 2012, at 02:23, Andrea Glorioso wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Leaving aside for a moment the subsequent UNGA resolution on the >>>>>>>>> matter (but noting that even though, strictly speaking, we are not >>>>>>>>> talking about binding international law, the principle of "lex >>>>>>>>> posterior" could apply) I would be curious to know your views on >>>>>>>>> which passages of the WSIS texts could lead to such conclusion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think I may have already sent this to this list at some point, but >>>>>>>> it bears repeating often. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In terms of my personal opinion, I think the Tunis Agenda actually >>>>>>>> places responsiblity for the Enhanced Cooperation with the Forum. >>>>>>>> As I read the Tunis Agenda text, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - 67 calls for a forum in a general sense, >>>>>>>> - 68 calls for the equal participation of governments, >>>>>>>> - 69 call for enhanced cooperation >>>>>>>> - 70 calls for the participation of existing IG organizations and >>>>>>>> creation of principles, >>>>>>>> - 71 calls for UNSG initiation of a multistakeholder process on >>>>>>>> enhanced cooperation with yearly status reports and >>>>>>>> - 72 defines the forum called for in 67. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In other words the entire discussion is bracketed by the notion of a >>>>>>>> forum. It is called for, it is described, one task is brought out >>>>>>>> more than any other, and then they get into the nitty gritty of the >>>>>>>> forum called for in 67. In any case it is certain that the TA called >>>>>>>> for the process of EC, whether we argue it is in or out of the >>>>>>>> context of the IGF, that it must also be a multistakeholder process: >>>>>>>> from 71: "... should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation >>>>>>>> involving all stakeholders," >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> avri >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>>>>> www.apc.org >>>>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>>>>> south africa >>>>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>>> www.apc.org >>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>>> south africa >>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Tue May 29 04:39:03 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 10:39:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] My memo from Tunis Nov 2003 - Prepcom 3 bis negotiations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FC48B27.2080704@apc.org> Thanks Izumi.. and yesterday I had a note from someone who was in the negotations and he also remembered that EC and IGF were seen as two processes, related, but separate - i.o.w. agreeting with your and Adam's recollections. But I don't think this conflicts with my and Avri's interpretation which is that the IGF was meant to be a forum where EC is discussed. The IGF was not meant to be a substitute of EC, nor a policy-making space, but a space for dialogue about internet public policy issues and participation, and this includes EC. Anriette On 29/05/2012 03:59, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Hi, > here attached is the note I took during the Prepcom 3 bis held in > Tunis in November 2003. > The final part is not there - but some process before that are captured. > > In my memory, around 8:30 pm or so, the main part of the language of > all remaining para were agreed, but then there still remained not-so > substantive parts, which took another 90 min or so, thereby ending the > meeting was almost 10 pm. > > And yes, all sides, US, European Commission, UK, China, et al all said > it was their victory. > > My view is close to what Adam think that EC and IGF are two distinct > or separate things, yet, I also am aware that the language of these > paras were so vaguely written so that all parties who have different > positions could still agree on. > > I vaguely remember that Janis Karklins and ICANN GAC Vice Chair that > time were discussing on how to explain this "Enhanced Cooperation" > section since they were made intentionally vague, at the next ICANN > meeting. > > So, as is shown on this list, the interpretations of how EC and IGF > relate can be very different by different people, and there is no > single truth drawn from reading the Tunis Agenda. > > That will give, in my view, good reason to have discussion on this at IGF. > > izumi > > -------------------- > > WSIS PrepCom3 > Nov 13 > 12:50 > > China Ambassador > WSIS is now world focus. > > Follow-up activity should be multilateral, > All stakeholders be involved in Internet governance in real and meaningful way > What we need are actions and arrangements, rather than empty talk > There is no such a thing as talking for talking > Government, private sector and civil society should have a division of labor, > Playing different role > Future activities should include: > IP address allocation, root zone document, root server emerging > > WSIS is convened according to the UN resolution, and is international > conference in the framework of UN > In the past year we have had in-depth comprehensive discussion in that context. > In the follow-up should be carried out under the UN framework as well. > > We should have any reason to be afraid of UN framework, we don’t understand why. > That’s my basic standpoint of China delegation > We are aware that others do not share the same view and we are ready > to cooperate. > > Saudi Arabia > Arab Group > For oversight, Option 1 is the minimum acceptable. > > Ghana > Africa – > Coordinated under UN – ITU, UNESCO, and UNDP > > US > Correct the situation of Uganda, Urugay,… > > Statement: > Security and stability is of paramount importance. > Present structure is vital – > Internet – for medium for global > Free from governmental oversight and control > Success – in decentralized nature, at outer edge for innovation > Burdening oversight is out – works so well around the globe > Private sector innovation and investment > Compelling argument against overburdening new inter-governmental oversight – > We call upon colleagues in this room to join us to work together to > bring the benefit of information society for all > > Chair – you made the fair > In the mean time we try to fix the problem – not to lose time > > Argentina > Not to replace existing body > Multilateral mechanisms, > > Iran > Stability and security is referred – we share the same concern, it is > crucial principle to be preserved and maintained, but only one of the > principles leaders agreed. > By highlighting this principle, we should not sacrifice other principles. > It is important to provide all governments especially from developing > countries to have realy say on public policy issues on Internet > governance. > Create a space for these governments – > We do not see the hierarchical approach for Geneva principles > Geneva Principles should be the final approach, > > > Australia > > > Barbados > > Australia > > > Chair > 9 proposals were sent – almost all calling for new inter-governmental mechanism > no decision making? > Different positions on oversight of ICANN > > 1 ?? > 2 A new model for international cooperation – focus on main > principles, by governments > 3 Another group – 4 models – world council on Internet is most appropriate > 4 IGC for global policy and oversight > > Summarize the sense of the debate today > China – defined the parameters for the debate > There are two groups who support the status quo > 1 – if you take ?? action without thorough consideration with all > linkages, you will endanger the security and stability – very clear > and strong, let’s maintain the status quo that is working fine, why do > you interfere that? > Innovations at edges > 2 – let’s work towards the status quo – in this present setting – > strong words, there will be another forum or international > organization > > let we shell this issue and decide later – that will disappoint > governments and civil society > let’s go back to WGIG report > > Forum proposal enjoyed wide support > When it comes to the cluster of oversight? – role – positions differ > > We won’t have any voting here, we will work on consensus > So if we have split, if there is no consent – most rational – we will > not be able to develop the language > The effort here is to convince others. > African group talked about progressive approach. At PrepCom we had > “evolutionary approach” ^- challenge is that how we do that? > > Forum – does it create dialogue and action? > > Uruguay- let’s synthesize > > One group – we need new organization for oversight, others say not needed > We need to come to conclusion > At the end of the day, you have to come to agreement, in written text > > SubComA adjourned. > > Canada – room Hammamet > 7:30- > > Nov 14, 1000 – on Para 4 and 5 > > Chair- read Vint Cerf’s letter to GAC Chair: > Uruguay > Time to agree > Singapore > Alternative language to ccTLD – limit other governments > How much GAC can change – > Singapore to participate ICANN Vancouver meeting > Change from within to answer to Iran’s question > > Chair: > > Forum – sharp divergence – > 1600 – to meet > Chair will prepare a paper – basis for further work > 1 working group will remain intact – subject to Canada- > produce a text by 1900 today > > > Nov 14 > 1600 > Informal presentation by Paul Twomy and Sharil Tarmizi > > Chair’s new paper DT/15/ Rev.1 > > Iran > Saudi Arabia > > US > We don’t think no need for “new” multi-lateral mechanism. > Continue the evolutionary process. > Generic domain names = ? > > China > To US – on 67 > > Greece > Proposed to host the first meeting of Forum. > > Chair, Brazil, you also want to host, or you want to support the proposal. > > Brazil > They can also host the first meeting of the oversight mechanism. > > Chair, > You need to first create it. > > Venezuela > > Australia > Proposed – Internet Dialogue Forum > ISOC to be involved as host organization > We should invite ISOC to give its view. > > China > > US > Forum – reserve until 62, 70-75 package be resolved > Must be flexible to its agenda > Concern – role of UN SG, institution of UN > As it is undertaking significant review on “UN reform” > Under the auspices of UN – be regarded as part of UN reform > Funding concern – what is the source of funding? > Chair’s office to explore ISOC > Australia and Canada- ISOC be the convener or facilitator > We have highest regard - bring expert opinion of ISOC > Appreciation to Russia – ITU taking on additional burden, to them, > their willingness and practicality – but concern for ITU > > Bulgaria > ISOC has 75 chapters – it’s not one office in Geneva or Virginia > > Chair > For forum, if we keep it lean, and membership small, > > Brazil > Concern with Canada and Australia > > Canada - Preamble and Implementation > Sidi Busaid 19:30 –21:00 > Singapore – para 76 and 77 > Dogga > Mexico 78 82 > Tozeur > > Nov15 > A new proposal by ?? > 75C We ask the Sec Gen of UN to initiate and continue a process > towards enhanced cooperation which will start by the end of the first > quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders [within their > respective roles], will proceed as quickly as possible, consistent > with legal process and will be responding to t innovation. > > Alt: Such cooperation, international management of the Internet would > address international Internet public Policy- setting issues. > > US Alternative: Relevant organizations should commence a process > towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders proceeding as > quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The same relevant > organizations shall be requested to provide annual performance report. > > > BREAK > > 79 > Chair – proposed a language > > US > We see - Bureau – limited, Forum not limited > But your revision – if IGF is by invitation only > > Greece > > Chair – another proposal > > Closed > > 67 (chair’s proposal) We are convinced that there is a need to > initiate and reinforce, as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and > multilateral process, with the participation of governments, private > sector, civil society, and international organizations in their > respective roles. This process could envisage creation of a suitable > framework or mechanisms, [where justified], thus spurring the ongoing > and active evolution of the current arrangement in order to synergies > the efforts in this regard. > > US – insisted and threatened to go back to negotiation > Iran, Saudi – not accepted > > Chair – I wish you, Iran and US, to have warm relationship. > > 1930 > We need 90 minutes to fix remaining paras > > Karklins > Head of delegations – 5pm – agreed, to conclude negotiations by 10 pm today > > Plenary – to be started > Agreed on 21 paras, 4 paras in brackets > > SubcomA – to resume – shortly > Para 75 > > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue May 29 04:45:27 2012 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 10:45:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD96@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4FC31C98.3080800@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD96@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Wolfgang points to a useful angle: - nobody should argue that the IGF *IS* enhanced cooperation - but the IGF is clearly part of the *PROCESS* towards enhanced cooperation (ie a place where what EC should be can be discussed) Is anybody proposing a workshop on Enhanced Cooperation in Baku? If not why? Or alternatively, why not set up a pre- or parallel event? The recent Geneva discussions were worthless: a mere repetition of divergent interpretations. More substantive discussions are needed. What role can IGC play in making the debate more useful? B. On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:04 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > Here is the background for the IGF/EC confusion: > > It started within the WGIG (2004) where we had a mandate to define > Internet Governance. After agreeing on the basics of the definition we soon > realized that to "implement the definition" we have to take into > consideration various functions. We ended up with a "forum function" (for > policy development) and on "oversight function" (for decision making, > mainly related to ICANN). The IGF was the proposal for the forum function. > The "four models" for the oversight function (Status Quo-, Status Quo, > Status Quo+, Status Quo++). With other words: We had consensus on the forum > function but no consensus on the oversight function. > > The compromise in Tunis was to move from a "new cooperation MODEL" (as > proposed by the EU/ this was status quo+ and included the establishment of > an intergovernmental council for the level of "principle") to a "PROCESS of > enhanced cooperation" (which postponed the decision on a new model). With > other words, Tunis agreed on a "wait and see" approach for the "oversight > function". > > It was very clear - and this was accepted already during the IGF 2007 in > Rio by the MAG - that a "process" needs discussion, needs a forum. Insofar > today IGF and EC are indeed interconencted as elements of a global Internet > PDP. But they remain different with regard to decision making and > institutionalization (oversight function). > > In my eyes, the multistakeholder review process, established under the > AOC, is the most adequate oversight mechanism for ICANN. However the first > round of the four reviews (not yet completed) have documented also some > weaknesses in the process. This has to be improved. Energy should be > invested to make the second round of reviews - which starts end of > 2013/early 2014 - stronger, more efficient and more public. The innovation > of the ICANNs AOC Review Mechanism (AREM) is, that this process is both > multistakeholder and decentralized with a strong role for governments (also > for governments from developing countries). > > BTW, I could imagine also an IGF Review Mechanism to make IGF Improvement > on onging process. > > Anyhow, the future is open. > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm > Gesendet: Mo 28.05.2012 08:35 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Andrea Glorioso > Betreff: Re: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation > > > On 28/05/12 14:23, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > both during the WSIS week in Geneva and recently on this mailing > list I had the occasion to hear/read a number of persons claiming (rather > forcefully) that the conclusions of the WSIS "clearly" meant the IGF to be > the or at least an instrument to implement Enhanced Cooperation. > > Leaving aside for a moment the subsequent UNGA resolution on the > matter (but noting that even though, strictly speaking, we are not talking > about binding international law, the principle of "lex posterior" could > apply) I would be curious to know your views on which passages of the WSIS > texts could lead to such conclusion. > > > Lazily, just copying and pasting from page 518 of my 2008 book on the IGF ( > http://books.google.com.my/books?id=G8ETBPD6jHIC): > > "...there is no clear division between the role of the IGF and the process > of enhanced cooperation in the Tunis Agenda; rather the former is treated > as an integral component of the latter.[341] What can be taken from this is > that whilst governments will continue to maintain sovereignty over the > authoritative statement of public policy principles in international and > domestic law, those principles are to be developed in a multi-stakeholder > forum, the IGF (from where they may equally find implementation through > other, non-legal mechanisms of governance)." > > [341] See WSIS, Tunis Agenda for the Information Society (as in n. 5 on > page 2), paras 67-72, in > which the middle paragraphs on enhanced cooperation are sandwiched by > those calling for the > establishment of the IGF. > > > -- > > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Follow @ConsumersInt > > Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice < > http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 qshatti at gmail.com Tue May 29 05:25:33 2012 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 12:25:33 +0300 Subject: [governance] which list: cpsr or igcaucus In-Reply-To: <2e35ff7cbe674c114282544d0fe48a29@ciroap.org> References: <200AF330-EFF2-49AC-BC18-178C98F12FA2@ciroap.org> <9k02L4c9N6wPFAyT@internetpolicyagency.com> <2e35ff7cbe674c114282544d0fe48a29@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear All: So my understanding from this thread that if we sent something to the governance list (lists.igcaucus.org), it will not be publicized immediately but rather the coordinators will assume the role of moderators and look at what we have sent then decide if it is appropriated to be publicized on the list or not. After that it forward it to the list. I would like to know if this is correct from the moderators. Regards, Qusai AlShatti On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > ** > > On Mon, 28 May 2012 17:10:37 +0100, Roland Perry wrote: > > In message <200AF330-EFF2-49AC-BC18-178C98F12FA2 at ciroap.org>, at > 19:47:04 on Mon, 28 May 2012, Jeremy Malcolm writes > > I'm not sure how lists.cpsr.org because active again, because one of my > last acts when establishing the new list was to change it into > moderated mode, so that no posts could get through without approval. > > > With great respect, you are one of the offenders when it comes to > starting new threads on the wrong/old list: > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] US hearing on International Proposals to Regulate > the Internet > From: Jeremy Malcolm > Date: 28 May 2012 03:56:31 > > Yes, I know - sorry! - but what I meant was, the way I left it, any > email sent to the old list by mistake would have been rejected, and > suddenly that was no longer so. Anyhow, it is all being sorted now thanks > to the good folks at CPSR. > > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Follow @ConsumersInt > > Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue May 29 05:19:19 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 11:19:19 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] My memo from Tunis Nov 2003 - Prepcom 3 bis negotiations References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDAD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thanks Izumi for your memory. Here is my memory. http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/21/21418/1.html. The link goes to my article I wrote just after the night of the "Battle of Tunis". Unfortunately it is in German, but the English translation is rather okay. As I said in my previous mail, WGIG treated IGF and EC (forum function and oversight function) as two processes but both were inter-connected via the IG definition. However today it makes no big sense to find the "reading at the wall" by looking backwards. What we need is a "new approach", rooted in the Tunis Deal but taking into consideration that the environment both for the IGF and the EC has changed in the last seven years and a new Internet Governance Ecosystem has emerged. In 2005 Google was small and there was no Facebook, no YouTube, no Twitter, no cloud computing, no ACTA, no IOT, no smartphones, no filter bubbles, no iDNs, no new gTLDs, no Arab spring and the number of anycast root servers as well as Internet Exchange Points were low. In 2005 we had 900 million Interner users, now we have 2.5 billion. In 2005 the number of Internet users in China crossed the 100 million line. Now it is nearly 600 million. In 2005 the mobile Internet was more a theoretical option. Now the Internet goes more and more mobil. In 2005 there was no digital undersea cable around Africa. Now the infrastructure is there. Today, the managenment of so-called critical internet ressources (CIR) is embedded into this new environment and it is difficult to see that an institutionalized "new cooperation model" as an intergovernmental oversight mechanism for ICANN would be helpful to manage all the new challenges related to issues as freedom of expression, privacy, consumer protection, access, capacity building, infrastructure development, broadband, fight against cybercrime, personal identity management, intellectual property etc. The risk for an open, free, global and secure Internet comes today with efforts of re-nationalisation, re-centralization and re-regulation with new barriers and restrictions supported by political and commercial interests in both developed and developing countries. There is a need to push the restart button. IMHO, before proposing new policies and institutions one have to clarify 1. the issues and 2. the principles. What we need here and now is a draft for a "CS Internet Agenda 2020" and the start of a discussion towards a "Multistakeholder Framework of Principles" (or Commitments). The drafting of the Civil Society WSIS Declaration (Geneva, December 2003) was a good experience how CS defined issues and proposed policies for a global process. http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/civil-society-declaration.pdf. Wouldn´t it make sense to use the IGF in Baku to start a project Geneva 10+ with the aim, to draft a "CS Internet Declaration" for presentation at the IGF 2013 in Indonesia? This would help to organize and streamline CS activities also for the WSIS 10+ process, organized (more or less top down) by the ITU and the other IGOs. If APC would take the lead (by organizing a pre-conference in Baku), this would be perfect. It could be followed by extensive (moderated) online discussions in a number of working groups (as it was done by the "Content and Themes Team" during WSIS I), using the annual IGF consultations (in Geneva), the 2013 WSIS Forum (probably in Paris) and the regional IGFs in 2013 as platforms to work on such a document and to finalize the draft in November 2013 in Indonesia as an input document from Civil Society for the WSIS 10+ process. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU Gesendet: Di 29.05.2012 03:59 An: governance Betreff: [governance] My memo from Tunis Nov 2003 - Prepcom 3 bis negotiations Hi, here attached is the note I took during the Prepcom 3 bis held in Tunis in November 2003. The final part is not there - but some process before that are captured. In my memory, around 8:30 pm or so, the main part of the language of all remaining para were agreed, but then there still remained not-so substantive parts, which took another 90 min or so, thereby ending the meeting was almost 10 pm. And yes, all sides, US, European Commission, UK, China, et al all said it was their victory. My view is close to what Adam think that EC and IGF are two distinct or separate things, yet, I also am aware that the language of these paras were so vaguely written so that all parties who have different positions could still agree on. I vaguely remember that Janis Karklins and ICANN GAC Vice Chair that time were discussing on how to explain this "Enhanced Cooperation" section since they were made intentionally vague, at the next ICANN meeting. So, as is shown on this list, the interpretations of how EC and IGF relate can be very different by different people, and there is no single truth drawn from reading the Tunis Agenda. That will give, in my view, good reason to have discussion on this at IGF. izumi -------------------- WSIS PrepCom3 Nov 13 12:50 China Ambassador WSIS is now world focus. Follow-up activity should be multilateral, All stakeholders be involved in Internet governance in real and meaningful way What we need are actions and arrangements, rather than empty talk There is no such a thing as talking for talking Government, private sector and civil society should have a division of labor, Playing different role Future activities should include: IP address allocation, root zone document, root server emerging WSIS is convened according to the UN resolution, and is international conference in the framework of UN In the past year we have had in-depth comprehensive discussion in that context. In the follow-up should be carried out under the UN framework as well. We should have any reason to be afraid of UN framework, we don't understand why. That's my basic standpoint of China delegation We are aware that others do not share the same view and we are ready to cooperate. Saudi Arabia Arab Group For oversight, Option 1 is the minimum acceptable. Ghana Africa - Coordinated under UN - ITU, UNESCO, and UNDP US Correct the situation of Uganda, Urugay,... Statement: Security and stability is of paramount importance. Present structure is vital - Internet - for medium for global Free from governmental oversight and control Success - in decentralized nature, at outer edge for innovation Burdening oversight is out - works so well around the globe Private sector innovation and investment Compelling argument against overburdening new inter-governmental oversight - We call upon colleagues in this room to join us to work together to bring the benefit of information society for all Chair - you made the fair In the mean time we try to fix the problem - not to lose time Argentina Not to replace existing body Multilateral mechanisms, Iran Stability and security is referred - we share the same concern, it is crucial principle to be preserved and maintained, but only one of the principles leaders agreed. By highlighting this principle, we should not sacrifice other principles. It is important to provide all governments especially from developing countries to have realy say on public policy issues on Internet governance. Create a space for these governments - We do not see the hierarchical approach for Geneva principles Geneva Principles should be the final approach, Australia Barbados Australia Chair 9 proposals were sent - almost all calling for new inter-governmental mechanism no decision making? Different positions on oversight of ICANN 1 ?? 2 A new model for international cooperation - focus on main principles, by governments 3 Another group - 4 models - world council on Internet is most appropriate 4 IGC for global policy and oversight Summarize the sense of the debate today China - defined the parameters for the debate There are two groups who support the status quo 1 - if you take ?? action without thorough consideration with all linkages, you will endanger the security and stability - very clear and strong, let's maintain the status quo that is working fine, why do you interfere that? Innovations at edges 2 - let's work towards the status quo - in this present setting - strong words, there will be another forum or international organization let we shell this issue and decide later - that will disappoint governments and civil society let's go back to WGIG report Forum proposal enjoyed wide support When it comes to the cluster of oversight? - role - positions differ We won't have any voting here, we will work on consensus So if we have split, if there is no consent - most rational - we will not be able to develop the language The effort here is to convince others. African group talked about progressive approach. At PrepCom we had "evolutionary approach" ^- challenge is that how we do that? Forum - does it create dialogue and action? Uruguay- let's synthesize One group - we need new organization for oversight, others say not needed We need to come to conclusion At the end of the day, you have to come to agreement, in written text SubComA adjourned. Canada - room Hammamet 7:30- Nov 14, 1000 - on Para 4 and 5 Chair- read Vint Cerf's letter to GAC Chair: Uruguay Time to agree Singapore Alternative language to ccTLD - limit other governments How much GAC can change - Singapore to participate ICANN Vancouver meeting Change from within to answer to Iran's question Chair: Forum - sharp divergence - 1600 - to meet Chair will prepare a paper - basis for further work 1 working group will remain intact - subject to Canada- produce a text by 1900 today Nov 14 1600 Informal presentation by Paul Twomy and Sharil Tarmizi Chair's new paper DT/15/ Rev.1 Iran Saudi Arabia US We don't think no need for "new" multi-lateral mechanism. Continue the evolutionary process. Generic domain names = ? China To US - on 67 Greece Proposed to host the first meeting of Forum. Chair, Brazil, you also want to host, or you want to support the proposal. Brazil They can also host the first meeting of the oversight mechanism. Chair, You need to first create it. Venezuela Australia Proposed - Internet Dialogue Forum ISOC to be involved as host organization We should invite ISOC to give its view. China US Forum - reserve until 62, 70-75 package be resolved Must be flexible to its agenda Concern - role of UN SG, institution of UN As it is undertaking significant review on "UN reform" Under the auspices of UN - be regarded as part of UN reform Funding concern - what is the source of funding? Chair's office to explore ISOC Australia and Canada- ISOC be the convener or facilitator We have highest regard - bring expert opinion of ISOC Appreciation to Russia - ITU taking on additional burden, to them, their willingness and practicality - but concern for ITU Bulgaria ISOC has 75 chapters - it's not one office in Geneva or Virginia Chair For forum, if we keep it lean, and membership small, Brazil Concern with Canada and Australia Canada - Preamble and Implementation Sidi Busaid 19:30 -21:00 Singapore - para 76 and 77 Dogga Mexico 78 82 Tozeur Nov15 A new proposal by ?? 75C We ask the Sec Gen of UN to initiate and continue a process towards enhanced cooperation which will start by the end of the first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders [within their respective roles], will proceed as quickly as possible, consistent with legal process and will be responding to t innovation. Alt: Such cooperation, international management of the Internet would address international Internet public Policy- setting issues. US Alternative: Relevant organizations should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The same relevant organizations shall be requested to provide annual performance report. BREAK 79 Chair - proposed a language US We see - Bureau - limited, Forum not limited But your revision - if IGF is by invitation only Greece Chair - another proposal Closed 67 (chair's proposal) We are convinced that there is a need to initiate and reinforce, as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and multilateral process, with the participation of governments, private sector, civil society, and international organizations in their respective roles. This process could envisage creation of a suitable framework or mechanisms, [where justified], thus spurring the ongoing and active evolution of the current arrangement in order to synergies the efforts in this regard. US - insisted and threatened to go back to negotiation Iran, Saudi - not accepted Chair - I wish you, Iran and US, to have warm relationship. 1930 We need 90 minutes to fix remaining paras Karklins Head of delegations - 5pm - agreed, to conclude negotiations by 10 pm today Plenary - to be started Agreed on 21 paras, 4 paras in brackets SubcomA - to resume - shortly Para 75 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 29 05:22:36 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 12:22:36 +0300 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <4FBEDFAA.9070206@ITforChange.net> References: <4FBEDFAA.9070206@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <4FC4955C.90908@gmail.com> Guru The questions you pose are important and not adequately addressed under this header, especially as regards principled positions. There is adequate attention paid to reform (which is essentially about "effectiveness") but less about principled (or dare I say it on this list "radical") positions. International law, or governance, is both about effectiveness AND legitimacy. Without this parallax view, these discussions become mired in convolutions as the subject matter (and/or goal) is not clearly articulated - i.e. terrain specificity. It is NOT possible to argue or intimate that ICANN is legitimate, even though some try to do so. It may be effective, like IETF, but legitimacy will always be elusive, given current arrangements. Inadequacies abound about the lack of legitimacy, gTlds, intellectual property and also the thwarting of the will of many poor countries to have some legitimate control over CIR. Unless one has ideological (or pay check) blinkers this ought to be a moot point. For many on this list, it is not, and will not in the foreseeable future. On reform, there are many avenues to follow, often dictated by the realm of possibility that is severely constrained given current predilections. And more attention needs to be given to these elements from a principled stance as Gurstein has ventured. What I would really like to hear more about is the problem of marrying the technical with the non-technical as there is a dialectical relationship between the two (tech is tech, but tech is also law as Lessig puts it). But the debate would need to move away from the pedestrian one, "if it aint broke don't fix it" or "where is your alternative" as if these cannot be created, as if ICANN et al have not reinvented themselves to make themselves seem more legitimate dolling out dosh and following the Iraq & Afghanistan pacification strategy post invasion. There are improvements that need to be made, but I am not sure the imagination has been sufficiently decolonised (in general) to even pursue some of the inquiries you pose and perhaps some more reality is needed on these matters... On 2012/05/25 04:26 AM, Guru गुरु wrote: > > ask ourselves how we can make the current IG more democratic. > > Who pays the price for the current IG regimes and lack of its > accountability to the "global society"? Conversely, who does it > benefit disproportionately? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 29 05:56:27 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 15:26:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to statements and recordings In-Reply-To: <3A35B60F-77FA-4848-A7F7-FBEA10395135@ella.com> References: <4FC213EF.2070102@apc.org> <8CF0A288D496BC8-B24-477CD@webmail-m072.sysops.aol.com> <4FC2498D.20405@itforchange.net> <3A35B60F-77FA-4848-A7F7-FBEA10395135@ella.com> Message-ID: <4FC49D4B.9060301@itforchange.net> On Sunday 27 May 2012 09:14 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > >> Wanting to globalize economic-ally and socially, without doing so politically, is ... vain fantasy of an anarchist ... >> > If by anarchist;s fantasy you mean: > > The long range goal of those who beleive in bottom-up multistakeholder participatory democracy. > > we can talk. > Always happy to talk :). As with Michael, your new formulation enthuses me, and I am ready to explore its implications. But as Michael says, we will need to be able to show what it means in its final formulation, what it means in the present context, what will be the expected trajectory from the present to the ideal, what are our political strategies and tactics (I am reminded I addressed almost exactly the same questions to Wolfgang a few days back). There are pressing human concerns - of life and death - that are involved here, and we need to actually 'do' what is best to be done.... For instance, what does one mean when one says that government reps, civil society reps and business (well. almost always big business) reps should be considered on the same/ equal footing for all purposes. How do decisions ever get taken in such a context? And if decision do not get taken does it not perpetrate status quo, and work against our collective notions (in the CS) of a better and fairer society. Even if a consensus is always needed - which means big business too should also agree every time - what kind of decisions will ever get taken. Even otherwise, do you really think that in the decision making process - I am not speaking of pre-decision making processes - a gov rep should have exactly the same footing as whoever else happens to be able to get entry into the room... There are simple direct questions of clear immediate, as well as long term structural, relevance. We need to be able to develop a clear stance on such issues if we are to be taken with any seriousness in the political circles. I also will never agree to consider a rep of a company - representing narrow private interests - to be on equal/ same footing as a civil society rep, who is supposed to represent wider public interest (even if often/ sometimes of a sectional variety). No civil society actor, among those whom we work here in India, and that includes grassroots level ones, will accept such 'equal footing'. It is simply out of question! Also, we cannot accept to take a 'formal' stand that government reps are ok to represent the interest of government as different from that of people. They may do so very often in practice, but this is something that we will never accept formally as normative. We struggle so much, internally, in our respective countries, to make sure that our supposedly democratic government represents the aspiration and interests of the people. Such struggles are made meaningless if we accede to such a formal position. (this is why I have always linked the question of multistakeholderism to the issue of democracy.) In any case, if we take the 'equal footing' formula to its practical application level, as I was discussing earlier, how does it actual work. Can everyone who walks into the room have an equal role in decision making. You know this can never work and any such process will be easily captured. Then, as the only alternative, should there be a kind of committee that takes decion on behalf of all those outside. This brings us back to the original problem. Why not 'equal footing' relationship between those out of the committee/ room and those inside? Finally, we will have to have some kind of representative governance structure that will be subject to same accountability and representativity questions as governments are today, and of course any such structure contravenes 'equal footing' doctrine for a very large majority. So, I will like to know, what exactly is meant by the 'equal/ same footing' doctrine of multistakeholderism'. In my view there are both practical problems and logical fallacies involved in this. (On the other hand, we do know what is meant by equality of all people, as enshrined in our constitutions, and as worked, rather imperfectly, into our governance system. We should always keep trying to improve these systems, and make them more democratic, bringing them as close as possible to the ideal of equality of all people. ) Different kind of social actors have different roles in governance systems, and these differences should be acknowledged. There is of course 'equal footing' for all in an open consultative process, a 'town hall' situation, but it cannot extent to throughout the governance system. This is simply a recipe for governance paralysis, which the 'most powerful' want in any case. We cannot afford to play into their hands. There is no doubt that governance systems today are immensely challenged vis a vis both their performance and representativity. And we need change. This is especially true for the global governance system which faces unprecedented contexts and challenges. However, any blueprint for change must, inter alia, be based on careful assessment of the different roles of different actors on the political stage. Multistakeholderism was always a good word here in the South, till it has started to be used as a cover for corporatism in global and national politics. We must therefore lay out our understanding of the different status and role of different actors if we are to make progress in the direction that you implore us to. > I think your mistake is in not recognizing that achieving multistakeholder participatory democracy is a political goal. > As per above, I do think it is a worthy political goal to explore, if we can converge our understanding of what really is meant here. parminder > avri > > On 27 May 2012, at 11:34, parminder wrote: > > >> On Sunday 27 May 2012 07:32 PM, Koven Ronald wrote: >> >>> Bravo, Anriette. >>> >>> I heartily agree that another summit now would at best be a pointless waste of time, energy and resources and at worst >>> >> At least for the most powerful, this is for the same reason as UNCTAD was sought, last month, to be disallowed to continue with some of its most important mandates, like analysing and giving recommendations regarding the global financial system. This was becuase the powerful wanted such key matter of global governance to be left to the forums controlled by them - IMF, G8 and such. The same powerful forces want Internet policies to continue to be developed unilaterally, or at clubs of rich countries like the OECD, and therefore the resistance to a WSIS like summit. Think where would we be without the original WSIS - the IGF, even the IGC, all the present global discussions ....... >> >> >>> -- given the present global lineup and climate -- harmful for the future of an unfettered cyberspace. >>> >> Yes, we want an unfettered cyberspace (based btw on human rights discussed and decided at the UN). At the same time, we also want a fair and just Internet, which helps support global economic, social, cultural and political flows towards greater democracy, equity and social justice. All of these requires greater political work at the global level. >> >> Wanting to globalize economic-ally and socially, without doing so politically, is either the vain fantasy of an anarchist, or the design of the more powerful for an unfettered run on global resources. >> >> parminder >> >> >> >>> Bests, Rony Koven >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Anriette Esterhuysen >>> To: governance >>> Sent: Sun, May 27, 2012 1:46 pm >>> Subject: [governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to statements and recordings >>> >>> Dear IGC list >>> >>> Attached is the resolution related to WSIS follow-up adopted during last >>> week's meeting of the CSTD. >>> >>> The resolution is rather minimalist, and represents the fact that there >>> was very little consensus among CSTD members on: >>> >>> - enhanced cooperation in internet governance >>> - WSIS + 10 >>> >>> On the former there is not much more to be said. What is quite sad is >>> that several countries made a huge fuss about the report from the Chair >>> (a very patient and able Mr. de la Pena, vice minister of ICTs from the >>> Philippines) on the meeting of 18 May in Geneva. His report was a very >>> short summary of all the views presented. I certainly felt it was >>> accurate and easy to read. It did not go into detail.. but that was not >>> the point of a chair's report. Particularly not when all the statements >>> are available on the CSTD website, as well as a transcript. >>> >>> But, as this report is forwarded to the GA it is political and subject >>> for negotations. >>> >>> On WSIS +10 it is disappointing that a very good panel discussion on >>> this process during the CSTD (that included inputs from UNESCO, ITU, and >>> others) is not reflected. E.g. David Souter made the point that >>> assessing WSIS +10 outcomes and progress should not just focus on >>> statistics and ICT access measures. It should focus on human >>> development, and on the broader outcomes of the massive ICT/information >>> society related changes of the last 10 years. He also pointed out that >>> the assessment should not just be left to governments, but that business >>> and civil society should be encouraged to assess changes/impacts from >>> their perspective. >>> >>> Good comments from the floor, e.g. one from Brazil saying we should >>> consider the impact of the Summit itself, also did not make it to the >>> resolution. >>> >>> The differences of views on how WSIS +10 should take place is relevant >>> for civil society. Parminder and I talked about this a bit in Geneva, >>> and we don't quite agree. >>> >>> Some governments, Iran, South Africa, Saudi Arabia among others feel >>> very strongly that we need another Summit. They said that only >>> governments can assess progress on achieving outcomes. They believe >>> there should be a multi-stakeholder prep process, but that the final >>> assessment should be negotiated between States. >>> >>> Parminder shares the view that there should be another Summit, but his >>> reasons are more nuanced and complex than that of the governments. He >>> can explain them himself. >>> >>> My view is that another Summit is not a good idea. While I like the >>> idea of civil society having a platform to reconvene, I doubt that the >>> resources needed for a fully participative and regionally distributed >>> preparatory process will be available. >>> >>> I am also not convinced that even if available, it would be the best way >>> of spending money and time. >>> >>> But my main concern is that I think it will result in negotiated >>> outcomes which will not be in the public interest. >>> >>> I have been looking at the Geneva Declaration and the Tunis Agenda a lot >>> recently. They are messy documents, with view very firmly stated goals. >>> But they are full of good ideas, openness to doing things in a different >>> way. People-centred development and human rights are concepts scattered >>> throughout. >>> >>> I doubt very, very much that in a new text we would get references to >>> 'open source and licensing'. Take this text for example: >>> >>> " 27. Access to information and knowledge can be promoted by increasing >>> awareness among all stakeholders of the possibilities offered by >>> different software models, including proprietary, open-source and free >>> software, in order to increase competition, access by users, diversity >>> of choice, and to enable all users to develop solutions which best meet >>> their requirements. Affordable access to software should be considered >>> as an important component of a truly inclusive Information Society. >>> >>> 28. We strive to promote universal access with equal opportunities for >>> all to scientific knowledge and the creation and dissemination of >>> scientific and technical information, including open access initiatives >>> for scientific publishing." >>> >>> If this was negotiated today, it would look different, or more likely, >>> be negotiated into oblivion as governments bargained with one another >>> over security, oversight over ICANN and IANA, commercial interests of >>> the companies they are close to. >>> >>> Rather than another Summit I think that as civil society we should focus >>> our efforts on identifying key issues that can be addressed and forming >>> partnerships that can achieve this in as short a space of time as >>> possible. For example, internationalisation of ICANN and IANA that gives >>> governments equal participation without giving any single one of them >>> control. And, another example is for us to use existing international >>> and regional bodies mandated to protect freedom of expression and >>> privacy rights to challenge governments and companies who violate these >>> rights. >>> >>> The concerns expressed on this list about monopolies/distortion of power >>> and companies having the influence to shape policies in their own >>> interests also represent struggles we can take on now. We don't need new >>> intergovernmental processes to do so. The examples of SOPA and ACTA >>> being sent back to the drawing board illustrate this clearly. >>> >>> We spend time arguing about new UN bodies or not when we should be >>> spending this time collaborating across countries, regions and policy >>> spaces to achieve greater 'net neutrality' and more consumer choice and >>> rights protection. >>> >>> This is all work that can be done NOW. >>> >>> Every time I listen to governments arguing with one another about the >>> IGF, EC, etc. I am more convinced that intergovernmental oversight of >>> internet public policy at this moment in time will do more harm than good. >>> >>> If - as someone from the academic community suggested to me last week - >>> in the longer term there will have to be an international agreement of >>> some kind (a convention, or treaty) on internet governance, the more >>> precedent we have been able to set in terms of protecting freedom of >>> expression and association on the internet, and the broader the public >>> interest, the better. It will make it more likely that that agreement >>> will be based on rights that have been won than on lowest common >>> denominator interests among sparring governments. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> >>> Translate this email: >>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 29 06:12:55 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 11:12:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <4FC31C98.3080800@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCD96@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: In message , at 10:45:27 on Tue, 29 May 2012, Bertrand de La Chapelle writes >Wolfgang points to a useful angle: > >- nobody should argue that the IGF IS enhanced cooperation >- but the IGF is clearly part of the PROCESS towards enhanced >cooperation (ie a place where what EC should be can be discussed I would hope that by now it should be a place where EC can be conducted. After all, it's two years since this set of reports, which were about EC that had already taken place elsewhere in the ecosystem since 2004: -- 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 karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int Tue May 29 06:46:39 2012 From: karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int (karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 12:46:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] The game seems to have already started a long time ... Message-ID: <20120529124639.95029a25f7ctbnkf@mail1.itu.ch> Dear all, Have you seen this online regarding Flame virus? It looks like the third http://www.wired.com/beyond_the_beyond/2012/05/flame-a-cyberweapon-that-makes-stuxnet-look-cheap/ http://www.canberratimes.com.au/it-pro/security-it/there-was-stuxnet-duqu-now-flame-is-spreading-20120529-1zfub.html What do you think about in the end user side as many people who will sufer with such information are citizens. Sorry for cross posting ATTOUMANI MOHAMED Karim, Comoros representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN Ingénieur Télécoms en Transmission, Réseaux et Commutation Chef du Département Études et Projets, Autorité Nationale de Régulation des TIC (ANRTIC) - Union des Comores, (+269) 334 37 06 (Mobile Moroni) - ID Skype: attoukarim -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 29 06:47:01 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 19:47:01 +0900 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <4FC4955C.90908@gmail.com> References: <4FBEDFAA.9070206@ITforChange.net> <4FC4955C.90908@gmail.com> Message-ID: Riaz, hi. Copied from another list: > >ICANN's Fellowship programme has now opened >for applications for travel funding to the Toronto >meeting: >Applications are welcome until 8 July. > Try it? Though fellowships tend to slightly favor applicants from the region where the meeting's being held. Adam On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Guru > > The questions you pose are important and not adequately addressed under this > header, especially as regards principled positions. There is adequate > attention paid to reform (which is essentially about "effectiveness") but > less about principled (or dare I say it on this list "radical") positions. > International law, or governance, is both about effectiveness AND > legitimacy. Without this parallax view, these discussions become mired in > convolutions as the subject matter (and/or goal) is not clearly articulated > - i.e. terrain specificity. > > It is NOT possible to argue or intimate that ICANN is legitimate, even > though some try to do so. It may be effective, like IETF, but legitimacy > will always be elusive, given current arrangements. Inadequacies abound > about the lack of legitimacy, gTlds, intellectual property and also the > thwarting of the will of many poor countries to have some legitimate control > over CIR. Unless one has ideological (or pay check) blinkers this ought to > be a moot point. For many on this list, it is not, and will not in the > foreseeable future. > > On reform, there are many avenues to follow, often dictated by the realm of > possibility that is severely constrained given current predilections. And > more attention needs to be given to these elements from a principled stance > as Gurstein has ventured. What I would really like to hear more about is the > problem of marrying the technical with the non-technical as there is a > dialectical relationship between the two (tech is tech, but tech is also law > as Lessig puts it). But the debate would need to move away from the > pedestrian one, "if it aint broke don't fix it" or "where is your > alternative" as if these cannot be created, as if ICANN et al have not > reinvented themselves to make themselves seem more legitimate dolling out > dosh and following the Iraq & Afghanistan pacification strategy post > invasion. > > There are improvements that need to be made, but I am not sure the > imagination has been sufficiently decolonised (in general) to even pursue > some of the inquiries you pose and perhaps some more reality is needed on > these matters... > > > On 2012/05/25 04:26 AM, Guru गुरु wrote: > > >   ask ourselves how we can make the current IG more democratic. > > > > > > Who pays the price for the current IG regimes and lack of its accountability > to the "global society"? Conversely, who does it benefit disproportionately? > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Tue May 29 06:49:45 2012 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 17:49:45 +0700 Subject: [governance] URGENT - anybody in Bangkok tomorrow? In-Reply-To: <4FC4A6A0.7010904@isoc-kh.org> References: <4FC4A6A0.7010904@isoc-kh.org> Message-ID: <4FC4A9C9.6090104@gmx.net> Dear Colleagues, this came in just now, late for an urgent court date tomorrow. It relates to a case of freedom of expression and, in this case, specifically to a "crime" related to "transitory liability" of Chiranuch Premchaiporn - whether or not the provider of an Internet service is legally liable for what users do with this service. As this Urgent Appeal states: "Her alleged crime, to underscore the point, was that she removed the comments [not written by her or by staff of the Prachathai website], which consisted of allusions rather than direct references to the royal family, with insufficient rapidity." The question of "transitory liability" may not be central to Internet governance - but it is not only discussed in Thailand. I dare to share this here, as Chiranuch did participate in the *Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum *in Hongkong in June 2010, at that time already under investigation. Norbert -- Norbert Klein Website: http://www.thinking21.org Website: http://www.isoc-kh.org eMail: nhklein at gmx.net -------- Original Message -------- Subject: THAILAND: Court to read verdict in landmark freedom of expression case of Chiranuch Premchaiporn – call for observers Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 09:11:05 +0200 From: AHRC Urgent Appeals To: nhklein at gmx.net ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION -- URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME Urgent Appeal Update: AHRC-UAU-017-2012 May 29, 2012 [RE: AHRC-STM-099-2012 : THAILAND: Concerns over delayed verdict in criminal case against free media advocate] *--------------------------------------------------- *THAILAND: Court to read verdict in landmark freedom of expression case of Chiranuch Premchaiporn – call for observers ISSUES: Freedom of expression , Human rights defenders ------------------------------------------- Dear friends, * On 30 May 2012, at 10 am in the Criminal Court in Bangkok, the verdict in the case of Chiranuch Premchaiporn, charged with ten counts of allegedly violating the 2007 Computer Crimes Act in Black Case No. 1667/2553, will be read. The reading, which had been scheduled for one month ago, was unexpectedly postponed. The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) urges all concerned persons to attend the court as observers, and calls on other interested persons to follow the case closely. UPDATED INFORMATION:* The formal proceedings against Chiranuch Premchaiporn, the 44-year-old webmaster Prachatai, an independent online news site, began on 3 March 2009, when the Criminal Court issued a warrant for her arrest. On 5 March 2009, a warrant to search the Prachatai office was issued and the next day police from the Crime Suppression Division raided the office and arrested Chiranuch in response to one complaint of her alleged violation of the vaguely worded, anti-democratic Computer Crimes Act (CCA), which an unelected legislature operating under a military-appointed government passed in 2007. The police released Chiranuch later that evening, but the next month nine further complaints were brought against her. On 31 March 2010, the Office of the Attorney General proceeded with the prosecution and she was arrested and held at the Criminal Court before again being released on bail. Reading the above account, we might infer that Chiranuch had published some highly inflammatory, dangerous or secret material on the Prachatai site that warranted the heavy involvement of specialist police and state prosecutors and a series of events involving a raid and detention. In fact, her crime was to have not done something: to have failed to remove 10 comments alleged to be injurious to the monarchy from the Prachatai webboard quickly enough. Her alleged crime, to underscore the point, was that she removed the comments, which consisted of allusions rather than direct references to the royal family, with insufficient rapidity. Examination of the specific provisions of the 2007 Computer Crimes Act under which these bizarre allegations were brought does not help us to clarify the thinking of those responsible for the prosecution of Chiranuch Premchaiporn. Under section 14 of the CCA, anyone can be jailed for five years if found to have imported to a computer "false computer data in a manner that it is likely to damage the country's security or cause a public panic… any computer data related with an offence against the Kingdom's security under the Criminal Code". Under its section 15, the service provider found to have consented to the use of the computer for this purpose is equally liable as the person committing the offence, which in the case of Chiranuch is the crime of lese majesty, as stipulated in section 112 of the Criminal Code, that, "Whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished (with) imprisonment of three to fifteen years." The broad, vague provisions of the CCA, and the imprecise way in which it can be linked with equally vague provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with national security, post clear and direct threats to the rights of citizens in Thailand. The very basis of the allegations against Chiranuch Premchaiporn -- that not removing comments deemed to defame, insult, or threaten the monarchy, itself an allegation that is unclear, is a threat to national security -- threatens to make a mockery of the Court and the meaning of justice in Thailand. The trial hearings occurred in February and September 2011, and February 2012, and summaries by Freedom Against Censorship-Thailand are available on the campaign webpage that the AHRC has set up for Chiranuch. As these show, much of the testimony turned on the interpretation of how the comments that she removed tardily, in the opinion of the police and prosecutor, constitute criminal content in the meaning of the law. Whether or not a written comment on a webpage or link to an image or video is "likely to damage the country's security or cause a public panic" is necessarily fraught with difficulty, even more so as the Computer Crimes Act does not specify what might constitute a likelihood to damage the country's security or create a public panic, or even define "security" or "public panic". What any of these terms mean, it seems, comes down to the opinion of the judge in the individual case. No standards exist to which we can refer. What is clear, however, are the effects of this legislation and the absence of clear standards contained. Chiranuch Premchaiporn, a long-standing human rights defender and media activist, has been forced to endure three years of harassment and fear by the Thai state security and legal apparatus. In addition, during a critical period in Thailand’s modern history, the Prachatai webboard, a crucial site of discussion and debate, was forced to shut down, for fear that both users and more of its staff members could face additional prosecution. *The hearings in Chiranuch's case ended in February 2012 and the reading of the verdict was set for 30 April 2012. However, 20 minutes before the proceedings were to begin*, court staff notified Chiranuch and her lawyers that the decision would be delayed for an additional month. The rather dubious reason given by the court for the delay was that the judges had too many documents to read, and was unable to complete preparing the verdict in time for the scheduled date. *In a previous statement released at the time of the postponement (AHRC-STM-099-2012 ), the AHRC noted that* both the delay to this case and the explanation for the delay were sources of serious concern. Whether caused by the court's inefficiency, overwork of the judges, or a more specious strategy to subject Chiranuch Premchaiporn to additional harassment and suffering. On the eve of the re-scheduled reading of the verdict in this case, the Asian Human Rights Commission calls on the Criminal Court to ensure that no further delays are caused in the reading of this verdict, and that the trial be conducted openly, honestly and justly. In particular, given the unclarities and lacunae in the Computer Crimes Act, the onus is on the judges to act in the service of justice. The AHRC urges all those persons and organisations concerned with human rights and freedom of expression in Thailand to return to the Criminal Court on 30 May 2012 for the re-scheduled reading of the decision to observe action in either the service of justice, or to witness its foreclosure. (Visit the AHRC webpage on Chiranuch Premchaiporn at: http://www.humanrights.asia/campaigns/chiranuch-prachatai.) Thank you. Urgent Appeals Programme Asian Human Rights Commission (ua at ahrc.asia ) *Visit our new website with more features at www.humanrights.asia .* */You can make a difference./ Please support our work and make a donation here . * ----------------------------- Asian Human Rights Commission #701A Westley Square, 48 Hoi Yuen Road, Kwun Tong, Kowloon, Hongkong S.A.R. Tel: +(852) 2698-6339 Fax: +(852) 2698-6367 Web: humanrights.asia twitter/youtube/facebook: humanrightsasia /Please consider the environment before printing this email./ powered by phplist v 2.10.17, © phpList ltd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 29 07:26:30 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 16:56:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD meeting on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Message-ID: <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> On Thursday 24 May 2012 02:06 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > Dear Parminder: > Congrats on a very sober statement, especially with the consideration to separate the technical governance from the social/economic policy sides. It is hardly possible for any disagreement with your identification of the major bugbear issue; true internationalisation of oversight of CIRs. In this context, I note your recognition of the weaknesses of of the oversight model represented by the CIRP proposal. This is goodwill in action which hopefully, spurs development of a more inclusive approach. > Dear Carlton, Thanks for your kind words, and the discriminating analysis. It will be worthwhile, as you suggest, if we can further explore what the valid concerns and fears of different sides are, in order to work towards common positions on appropriate models for global internet governance. We can start with the separation of technical governance side from social-cultural side of IG. (we know they are also linked but the separation here is only for considering different institutional models). If we, for the present, discuss just the technical governance side, as you acknowledge, 'internationalisation of oversight' is the most contentious issue, and a legitimate concern of non-US governments. Can we try to propose a model of internationalising CIR oversight? (In one of her recent emails, Anriette also refers to this as an important issue of contention). 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. 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. We need to come out with a nuanced and comprehensive civil society position on CIR management/ tech standards development which, to make an opening proposition, may consist of the following elements (1) Shifting oversight of CIRs from US gov to an international body, that is outside the UN, and is composed of a globally representative membership, representing global public interest. While different possibilities and innovations can be tried, we also need to be pragmatic, and maintain enough historical continuities vis a vis existing principles of global governance systems. Just as a suggestion; we may think of say 20 members, from different regions, that are rotated by country, but within their country have good techno-social standing. While they would have to have certain good/ clear relationship with the concerend governments, their national process of selection/ nomination can constitutionally be made broader, perhaps roping in technical institutions in high standing, nationally. .... I am almost thinking this up as I type.... (This could a good initial attempt to capture the representativity of a 'new global public', but within pragmatic possibilities). In any case, 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. We can stick close to the model of how US exercises oversight at present. (2) ICANN, should of course, itself become an international body constituted under international law, and enter into a host country agreement with the host country. In fact, such is the extent of the Internet power concentrated in the US that ICANN should ideally be hosted in some other country. However, if that will make this proposition that much more difficult, we may let US be the host. (3) I am for an oversight body, as above, different from and above the ICANN board as its operational decision making body for many reasons that I can discuss separately. (4) ICANN, and perhaps also technical standards development bodies, need to come up with clear improvements, vis a vis capture by big business, conflict of interest issues, transparency, accountablity, and even democratic representativity of 'global public'. We can discuss this separately, there being much to discuss here. I also very much agree with the question raised by Anriette my question on what > internet issues the ITU needs to consider? Other than telecoms > infrastructure, broadband and so on? Taking an attitude of "ITU should disappear from the front of my eyes" wont be very useful. Lets also analyse and lay out those technical and policy issues that may legitimately remain ITU's remit, for instance, the kind of things Anriette refers to... If we indeed make a clear and thorough proposal of how we see the whole thing and what the needed directions of change are, we, as in civil society, would have fulfilled an important role in the current deadlock. This I think is one of the primary and most important roles of civil society in the present context. We should step back from institutional affinities and politics (yes, also from ICANNism :) ) and offer a dispassionate analysis, and forward looking concrete proposals. warm regards, parminder > Warm regards, > - Carlton > ________________________________________ > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 11:30 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] CSTD meeting on enhanced cooperation > > Dear All > > I made the following statement at the opening panel of the discussion on enhanced cooperation at CSTD's substantive session (this is different from, and in a way continuation of, the meeting of May 18th) > > I have tried to see if the discussion on (1) technical governance side and (2) social/ economic policy side of global Internet governance can be separated, to the extent possible, as one way to make progress. I have also tried to list the major concerns of various actors in these two areas of global governance. I also suggest that a UN CIRP like body should perhaps exclude CIR oversight from its purview. Accordingly, for internationalising CIR management a separate arrangement may be considered. > > Parminder > > CSTD Session on Enhanced Cooperation > > on Public Policy Issues Pertaining to the Internet > > May 22, Geneva > > > Comments at the opening panel by Parminder Jeet Singh, Executive Director, IT for Change > > I must first of all thank the chair for a very balanced report on the special meeting on 'enhanced cooperation on public policy issues pertaining to the Internet' held on May 18th. I think that the meeting was an important and a positive step forward. We got a lot of good ideas which can serve as the basis for moving forward on this very important but long neglected mandate from the WSIS. > > What I heard from the meeting, and also note from the chair's report, is that many governments as well as other stakeholders have deep concerns both regarding the fact that there continues to be very substantial gaps in global public policy making, and in democratizing its processes, as well as the fact that an important and express mandate from the WSIS remains completely unaddressed. Others in the room were of the view that this may be an exaggerated view. However, at this stage, it is enough that many governments and other stakeholders do have deep concerns and they must be provided a formal space to express and discuss them. > > In this regard, the idea of a CSTD working group was proposed by many participants. I think it is a very good proposition. We heard in the last session how the CSTD working group on improvements to the IGF worked so well, and was able to produce such good results. There is no reason why a similar process should not be tried out for resolving the issue of 'enhanced cooperation'. > > At the same time as we agree to the next step for a formal space for dialogue on 'enhanced cooperation', we must also start discussing the most contested issues and area which have caused such deep political divisions. We should earnestly listen to and address the concerns of different parties. At the May 18th meeting, I heard views that could roughly be polarized into camps – those who were more or less satisfied with the status quo, and those who wanted a new mechanism to deal with public policy issues pertaining to the Internet. The latter view, perhaps, has been most concretely captured by India's proposal of a UN Committee on Internet-Related Policies (CIRP). I will very briefly try to – just in an illustrative way - touch upon what concerns and what fears inform these two somewhat opposing positions, and how we could perhaps address them, and move forward taking all such concerns and fears into account. > > Need for institutional developments on the technical governance side > Before we start discussing the very complex area of global Internet governance, it is important to develop some overall sections and categories. Global Internet governance can be seen in two relatively distinct though related parts – technical governance and, what may be called as, larger public policy issues of a social, economic, cultural and political nature. These two areas of IG are rather different in the nature of the 'problem', the ecology of actors and, thus, the appropriate responses to the problem, including, very significantly, in the present context, the role of different stakeholders. However, one often sees that discussions about IG, especially when done in a politically surcharged atmosphere, often gets confused about what part of the global Internet governance system (or the absence of it) was being spoken about. Concerns coming from one side of this two-way division of IG space – technical and non-technical -– are answered by views and facts about the other side. India's CIRP proposal also got caught in this very unfortunate somewhat misguided cross-fire. While CIRP is mostly about larger public policy issues – the kind of work done by OECD's Committee for Information, Computer and Communication Policies (ICCP) – almost all the responses to it came from the side of, and concerning, Internet's technical governance. More about it later. > > Technical governance – or perhaps, 'technical management' is a better term here – of the Internet can be said to include the management of Internet's name and number resources, and the processes of development of technical standards, the kind of work which, respectively, ICANN and IETF does. Internet's technical governance is uniquely a very distributed system, which is relatively open and transparent, and also includes innovative bottom up processes. Such a distributed technical management of the Internet's core systems and standards has helped develop the Internet in a kind of creative tension with the nationally bound, hierarchical social order of the industrial age. This creative tension has an important role in the kind of social, economic, cultural and political impact that the Internet makes, the details of which I will not be able to go here. As one could would judge, I strongly support retention and strengthening of the current distributed model of technical governance in its general and essential characteristics. Although one must add here, that, it needs considerable improvements, which can be done in an evolutionary manner. It has not adapted itself enough with the Internet related developments of the past decade, and is often very prone to capture by big business. I also do not see opposition from too many quarters to this distributed system of technical governance, as such. In fact, Tunis Agenda too has some approving language about how this disturbed system has been managed. > > The real problem with technical governance of the Internet relates to its unilateral oversight by one government, the US, which is quite untenable and unacceptable to almost all non-US governments and many other stakeholders. It is this key problem on the technical governance side that we must address. In fact, those most interested in safeguarding the current distributed architecture of technical governance of the Internet must be most pro-active in addressing this 'oversight issue'. Only by making a satisfactory resolution of the key oversight issue can we protect this distributed architecture. Otherwise, those unhappy with the status quo – for very valid reasons – will seek the solution in a manner that shifts the very architecture of the technical governance of the Internet, towards a top-down, cumbersome bureaucratic processes based governance, which we know is just not suitable for the Internet. This is one of the most important point to understand and appreciate by defendants of the distributed model – including the technical community. > > ICANN just cannot remain a US Non-profit, subject to all kinds of US law, small and big, as any US based entity is. ICANN controls too important and critical a global infrastructure for such an arrangement to be acceptable to the global community. The best intentions of the US Department of Commerce, the oversight body for the ICANN, cannot shield ICANN from the application of the US law. Till now, it is simply good luck, and perhaps some careful management by the executive part of the US government, that nothing has happened to expose this very deep inconsistency between ICANN's role and its legal structure and obligations, but one can be sure that something will happen, perhaps sooner that later. It would of little use to be very surprised when such a thing happens, and then look for ways around it. ICANN instituted the .xxx domain space over the objections of many governments. Here, I am not commenting on the merits of that decision or the processes followed for it. However, what is interesting is that ICANN has been taken to the court (of course, US court) by some US companies on grounds of anti-competitive behavior in setting up .xxx domain space. The very fact that a US court has accepted this case makes it at least possible that the ICANN decision on .xxx will be struck down, in which case ICANN will have no option other than to withdraw this domain space. Such a step would of course make a mockery of the global governance body status of ICANN. > > Non US governments have very valid security and other public policy concerns vis a vis US oversight of the critical Internet resources (CIRs), and these must be addressed. These cannot be taken lightly, or dismissed as efforts for taking control of the Internet. US has asserted its security concerns vis a vis the root of the Internet, by ensuring that ICANN's security staff is selected only with US government's permission. In this light, how can the security concerns of other governments vis a vis the root of the Internet be misplaced! It is quite ironical that when US exercises oversight, it is considered not a significant issue at all, but when exactly the same oversight – with exactly the same role and powers – is sought to be put under an international body, the alarm of governmental control is raised! > > At the same, we must also address the concerns of those who are wary of internationalising the oversight of CIRs. They are most afraid of a very bureaucratic process exercising excessive and undue control over technical governance system, which many claim the US has refrained from doing till now. It may not be the right arrangement to have 50 or 100 governments use the typical UN processes to try to do oversight of CIRs. In this regard, India's CIRP proposal may therefore need to be re-worked by removing the CIR oversight function of the proposed CIRP. Other more innovative methods for internationalizing CIR oversight can be found. I will not be able to go into the details here, but if we earmark this as the key problem, and list the various concerns around it, I am sure a mutually satisfactory solution can be found. > > At the very least, ICANN has to become an international body, subject to international law, with a host country agreement (shielding it from local laws vis a vis its global role and operation) has to be put into place. Next, we need to agree to a very light international oversight body, which may consist of such members as best represent global public interest, and which has a very minimal, and circumscribed, role with a clearly laid of process and procedure for exercising it. The members may have to be county-based representatives, with some clear relationship with governments, but perhaps coming from technical-academic side, with a broader national process of their selection (just an idea!). (Membership of some global technical bodies may provide some good leads in this regard.)Again, I will leave out the details, and different sets of possibilities, but I am very positive that something can be worked out in this direction. > > Mechanism for enhanced cooperation on social and economic policy issues > The other side of global governance is what may be called as the larger public policy issues concerning social, economic, cultural and political matters vis a vis the global Internet. These issues are in fact much much more important that those related to technical governance of the Internet, but get almost completely neglected in global discussions. There are three ways such social policy issues get decided today. First is the manner in which global Internet monopoly companies like Google and Facebook just decide important policy matters and the world gets subject to them. Second, and related, is the way these global monopolies incorporate the law and policy preferences of the country where they are registered – mostly the US – in their architecture and practices and once again the rest of world is the hapless consumer of such policies, without taking any part in making them. Thirdly, are the various plurilateral initiatives which are very active in making Internet policies that have default global application. One of the main sites of such policy making is the OECD's Committee on Computer, Information and Communication Policy (CCICP) referred to earlier, which is OECD's Internet policy making mechanism. Council of Europe (CoE) is also very active in this area. OECD recently came up with 'Principles for Internet Policy Making', which OECD now wants non OECD countries also to accept. One can see no reason why all countries should not be a part of developing such principles in the first place. This is a simple and straight-forward demand for democratic global governance of the Internet, and we are sure everyone will be better off for it. OECD has also developed guidelines for Internet intermediaries, and CoE has been working on guidelines for search engines and social network sites. > > > It is somewhat surprising that many stakeholders of the very same countries that are involved with OECD's and CoE's cross-border Internet policy mechanisms are found raising the question; whether there are at all any significant global pubic policy issues pertaining to the Internet that needs to be addressed globally, and are not being so addressed at present. To anyone asking me this question, I simply re fer them to the very busy and full calender of events, and their agenda, of these plurilateral Internet policy making bodies. India's proposed UN CIRP should principally be doing this kind of policy work, and perhaps leave out the CIR oversight function to a different, more innovative, international body or mechanism. > > The above few points on the possible ways forward are only illustrative to show that there are real concerns as well as real fears of different stakeholders, and that these can indeed be addressed. Progress on shaping new institutions that are adequate to the task and mandate of 'enhanced cooperation on public policy issues pertaining the Internet' may not be as difficult as it may appear at first sight. Internet is now a central force shaping the social dynamics, architecture and structures of the emerging information society. If we have to ensure and maximize the democratic and egalitarian potential of the Internet, we must take charge of shaping the architecture and processes of the Internet in global public interest. In this regard, I refer to the press release issued by the UN Special Rapporteur on Cultural rights, Farida Shaheed, and Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Frank La Rue, which was issued in the context of the May 18 meeting on 'enhanced cooperation'. It observes that “it is crucial to address who and what shapes the Internet today” and goes on to highlight the “urgency to arrive at a global consensus on Internet governance and architecture”. That is the real task of 'enhanced cooperation'. > > > Thanks you, Chairman. > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 29 07:40:58 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 07:40:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: 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> Message-ID: <463E2160-45C0-42EE-AE0F-810B41F955F1@acm.org> Hi, I am hoping that the MAG members look at the CSTD meeting and the aftereffects and decides, that this is needed and thus do something. The workshops the MAG had to choose between where the ones that the previous lame duck MAG invited. the main sessions are the ones that same MAG defined. At that point there was a blindness as to whether EC could be discussed. Now, after the CSTD show that blindness should be lifting. Now there is hopefully a different view. Beleive me, had they asked for workshops on EC, there would have been some. The MAG is in charge. It can do what it thinks is right. And it can define any meeting or type of meeting it thinks will move things forward. I believe that the IGF12 will be remiss if it does not have a major session on EC and how the IGF can move the topic forward. As a civil society particpant, I am aksing the civil society MAG members whether you think this is something that should happen? If not, why not? I guess you explained why you think it is a bad idea. If, however, other MAG members think it is something that does make sense, then why not bring it up and help it happen? BTW, I see no problem with the pre-session competing with Giganet. There are people enough for both things. I think the crowd that cares about EC is very different than the crowd that cares about academic papers on IG. And we were told quite specifically by the hosts that their Ministerial had NOTHING to do with the IGF, so it makes no sense to let that stand in the way of anything. avri On 29 May 2012, at 04:16, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On May 28, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Dear MAG member, >> >> why no support for at least a workshop at IGF12? > > No such workshop was proposed, so there was no occasion for MAG members to express support for one. Are you suggesting that although the application window is long closed and notices to proposers have gone out, we should circle back and propose one ourselves and demand that the MAG exceptionally consider it? >> >> avri >> >> On 28 May 2012, at 11:12, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> Yes... let's do the pre-event in Baku. APC is willing to lead on this >>> but we are talking to others to co-convene. > > As discussed in Geneva, I agree there should be a pre-event (more substantial and high profile than a workshop) organized by the three stakeholder groups and any governments that would also support an peer-level multistakeholder dialogue in which Governments don't get to hog 85% of the airtime making prepared speeches as happened at the CSTD event (and would happen in any intergovernmental-based working group, council, committee, task force, etc). Structured collective discussion, preferably informed by a brief document that maps out top-level themes and some specific discussion questions/options under each. Ideally, we could try to quickly get beyond more lengthy deconstructions of The Tao of the Tunis Agenda and the search for The One True Meaning of EC and focus on such items as a) in what specific issue areas do people believe something important is not being done or is being done badly, and b) what institutional mechanisms if any (centralized/decentralized, omnibus/issue-specific, etc) or enhancements to extant arrangements might be useful in helping the international community to address said problems. > > Timing is a real problem. Unless we're prepared to ask people to add an extra day to their trip, this would have to be on Monday 5th, competing not only with GigaNet, ISOC, etc, but also the Ministerial, which the Government reps will inevitably feel compelled to attend if able. If we can't draw them into a discussion with the stakeholders, the exercise would be of considerably less value than one might hope. We'd need to decide what to do on this soon, before people start making plane reservations. > >>> >>> And then let's get the 2013 IGF to feature various aspects of EC much >>> more prominently. IGF 2013 will be hosted in a developing country >>> (Indonesia) and it is therefore likely to have far greater developing >>> country government participation (at least from Asian and African >>> countries). >>> >>> Also by then quite a lot would have happened at CSTD/ECOSOC/UNGA level >>> (and WCIT) as well as inside some of the existing institutions. E.g. the >>> assessments, report cards, mapping and other suggestions made on the >>> 18th of May. > > The main session on CIR is likely to devote a good chunk of time to WCIT. Whether this could be broadened to include the EC discussion per se, and whether that'd even be advisable given that 'public policy responsibilities' are broader than CIR i.e. usage-related issues, is unclear. Perhaps some of this could fit under Taking Stock, which has been rather substantially reconfigured this year to look at the wider environment, e.g. the various principles and frameworks proposals…? > > Best, > > Bill > >>> >>> >>> On 28/05/2012 16:37, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Personally I think we need to keep pushing for something during IGF2012. >>>> >>>> Let's go into WCIT with the IGF having made room for the problem and having started the process. We have 5 months yet before the meeting, things can't possibly be set in stone at this point. We have a new MAG that was forced to accept a program they were not completely comfortable with, they are entitled to still be thinking about how to make IGF12 as valuable as they possibly can. (Not that I have the faintest idea of whether they would be interested in taking such action) >>>> >>>> And whether we can get it into the IGF12 agenda, which I think its the optimal solution, or not, I think the idea that Anriette mentioned on the list earlier: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 27 May 2012, at 11:22, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Avri >>>>> >>>>> We definitely must use the IGF and APC is already thinking of planning a >>>>> pre-event on this. Not finalised.. and we are talking to various >>>>> partners.. but I feel strongly we must facilitate substantive dialogue. >>>>> >>>>> The IGF was set up to facilitate such discussions. Some people tried to >>>>> prevent this from happening. I think they now realise that a) they might >>>>> have been wrong and/or b) further avoidance is not in the interest of >>>>> the IGF or of multi-stakeholder participation in IG. >>>>> >>>>> Anriette >>>> >>>> Perhaps since 71 puts the responsibility on the relevant organizations (which I take to mean the mangers of critical Internet resources) to get this underway: "Relevant organizations should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders", it won't be to hard to find a set of good sponsors for such an event. >>>> >>>> But to be clear. I would like to see both a full day pre-event discussion, and for that event to bring a report (dare i say recommendations?) to the IGF in a workshop arranged for discussion of EC and the IGF. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 28 May 2012, at 10:18, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anriette, thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Doesn't make sense to me, but nevermind :-) >>>>> >>>>> So what next? Enhanced cooperation on the agenda of IGF 2013? I'd >>>>> support that. >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Adam >>>>>> >>>>>> We actually checked with one of the authors recently... and she said >>>>>> that was exactly what she remembers intending the text to say (Avri's >>>>>> interpretation). >>>>>> >>>>>> Anriette >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 28/05/2012 15:35, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>>>>> Agree completely with this logical sequential interpretation by Avri. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree with the logic, but as mentioned, don't think the document was >>>>>>> drafted with that in mind, those last hours were a mess and this was the >>>>>>> text that was being worked on. But I wasn't the only one on the room >>>>>>> and my memory is terrible! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I read 71 and 72 as separate. If they'd intended to be linked there >>>>>>> would be text saying so, there would be some connecting language >>>>>>> (furthermore...), and the mandate of the IGF would include a reference >>>>>>> to enhanced cooperation. The mandate's very clear, a to l. Wish I could >>>>>>> remember if this was discussed in Tunis. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And also Nitin decided it for us. Both paragraphs ask the secretary >>>>>>> general to do something, Nitin as the special advisor for Internet >>>>>>> governance said separate and I guess that's him speaking for the SG. So >>>>>>> if they are to be linked now it would be the SG or his proxy that does it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Adam >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anriette >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 28/05/2012 15:10, Avri Doria wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 28 May 2012, at 02:23, Andrea Glorioso wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Leaving aside for a moment the subsequent UNGA resolution on the >>>>>>>>>> matter (but noting that even though, strictly speaking, we are not >>>>>>>>>> talking about binding international law, the principle of "lex >>>>>>>>>> posterior" could apply) I would be curious to know your views on >>>>>>>>>> which passages of the WSIS texts could lead to such conclusion. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think I may have already sent this to this list at some point, but >>>>>>>>> it bears repeating often. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In terms of my personal opinion, I think the Tunis Agenda actually >>>>>>>>> places responsiblity for the Enhanced Cooperation with the Forum. >>>>>>>>> As I read the Tunis Agenda text, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - 67 calls for a forum in a general sense, >>>>>>>>> - 68 calls for the equal participation of governments, >>>>>>>>> - 69 call for enhanced cooperation >>>>>>>>> - 70 calls for the participation of existing IG organizations and >>>>>>>>> creation of principles, >>>>>>>>> - 71 calls for UNSG initiation of a multistakeholder process on >>>>>>>>> enhanced cooperation with yearly status reports and >>>>>>>>> - 72 defines the forum called for in 67. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In other words the entire discussion is bracketed by the notion of a >>>>>>>>> forum. It is called for, it is described, one task is brought out >>>>>>>>> more than any other, and then they get into the nitty gritty of the >>>>>>>>> forum called for in 67. In any case it is certain that the TA called >>>>>>>>> for the process of EC, whether we argue it is in or out of the >>>>>>>>> context of the IGF, that it must also be a multistakeholder process: >>>>>>>>> from 71: "... should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation >>>>>>>>> involving all stakeholders," >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> avri >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>>>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>>>>>> www.apc.org >>>>>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>>>>>> south africa >>>>>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>>>> www.apc.org >>>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>>>> south africa >>>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>> www.apc.org >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> south africa >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find 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 May 29 07:57:33 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 23:57:33 +1200 Subject: [governance] URGENT - anybody in Bangkok tomorrow? In-Reply-To: <4FC4A9C9.6090104@gmx.net> References: <4FC4A6A0.7010904@isoc-kh.org> <4FC4A9C9.6090104@gmx.net> Message-ID: Dear Norbert, This is terrible news and not a good precedent and could prove viral especially in countries that have rule of law issues. Hopefully her lawyers can file a Motion to suggestion is to judically review the Computer Crimes Act (CCA), since it was passed by an unelected legislature operating under a military-appointed government passed in 2007 and another to temporarily stay the prosecution whilst the legality of the provision is being debated. This will give Human Rights Organizations and civil society to file amicus briefs. It may be useful to consider whether it is worthwhile filing an amicus brief in this instance??? For the Attorney General to prosecute Chiranuch Premchaiporn on someone's whim reeks nothing short of malicious prosecution. It will be great to know the outcome of the matter. Kind Regards, Sala On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Norbert Klein wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > this came in just now, late for an urgent court date tomorrow. > > It relates to a case of freedom of expression and, in this case, > specifically to a "crime" related to "transitory liability" of Chiranuch > Premchaiporn - whether or not the provider of an Internet service is > legally liable for what users do with this service. As this Urgent Appeal > states: "Her alleged crime, to underscore the point, was that she removed > the comments [not written by her or by staff of the Prachathai website], > which consisted of allusions rather than direct references to the royal > family, with insufficient rapidity." > > The question of "transitory liability" may not be central to Internet > governance - but it is not only discussed in Thailand. I dare to share this > here, as Chiranuch did participate in the *Asia Pacific Regional Internet > Governance Forum *in Hongkong in June 2010, at that time already under > investigation. > > > Norbert > -- > Norbert Klein > > Website: http://www.thinking21.org > Website: http://www.isoc-kh.org > eMail: nhklein at gmx.net > > > > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: THAILAND: Court to read > verdict in landmark freedom of expression case of Chiranuch Premchaiporn – > call for observers Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 09:11:05 +0200 From: AHRC > Urgent Appeals To: > nhklein at gmx.net > > > > > ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION -- URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME > > Urgent Appeal Update: AHRC-UAU-017-2012 > > May 29, 2012 > > [RE: AHRC-STM-099-2012: > THAILAND: Concerns over delayed verdict in criminal case against free media > advocate] > *--------------------------------------------------- > *THAILAND: Court to read verdict in landmark freedom of expression case > of Chiranuch Premchaiporn – call for observers > > ISSUES: Freedom of expression, > Human rights defenders > ------------------------------------------- > > Dear friends, > * > On 30 May 2012, at 10 am in the Criminal Court in Bangkok, the verdict in > the case of Chiranuch Premchaiporn, charged with ten counts of allegedly > violating the 2007 Computer Crimes Act in Black Case No. 1667/2553, will be > read. The reading, which had been scheduled for one month ago, was > unexpectedly postponed. The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) urges all > concerned persons to attend the court as observers, and calls on other > interested persons to follow the case closely. > > UPDATED INFORMATION:* > > The formal > proceedings against Chiranuch Premchaiporn, the 44-year-old webmaster > Prachatai, an independent online news site, began on 3 March 2009, when the > Criminal Court issued a warrant for her arrest. On 5 March 2009, a warrant > to search the Prachatai office was issued and the next day police from the > Crime Suppression Division raided the office and arrested Chiranuch in > response to one complaint of her alleged violation of the vaguely worded, > anti-democratic Computer Crimes Act (CCA), which an unelected legislature > operating under a military-appointed government passed in 2007. The police > released Chiranuch later that evening, but the next month nine further > complaints were brought against her. On 31 March 2010, the Office of the > Attorney General proceeded with the prosecution and she was arrested and > held at the Criminal Court before again being released on bail. > > Reading the above account, we might infer that Chiranuch had published > some highly inflammatory, dangerous or secret material on the Prachatai > site that warranted the heavy involvement of specialist police and state > prosecutors and a series of events involving a raid and detention. In fact, > her crime was to have not done something: to have failed to remove 10 > comments alleged to be injurious to the monarchy from the Prachatai > webboard quickly enough. Her alleged crime, to underscore the point, was > that she removed the comments, which consisted of allusions rather than > direct references to the royal family, with insufficient rapidity. > > Examination of the specific provisions of the 2007 Computer Crimes Act > under which these bizarre allegations were brought does not help us to > clarify the thinking of those responsible for the prosecution of Chiranuch > Premchaiporn. Under section 14 of the CCA, anyone can be jailed for five > years if found to have imported to a computer "false computer data in a > manner that it is likely to damage the country's security or cause a public > panic… any computer data related with an offence against the Kingdom's > security under the Criminal Code". Under its section 15, the service > provider found to have consented to the use of the computer for this > purpose is equally liable as the person committing the offence, which in > the case of Chiranuch is the crime of lese majesty, as stipulated in > section 112 of the Criminal Code, that, "Whoever defames, insults or > threatens the King, Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be > punished (with) imprisonment of three to fifteen years." The broad, vague > provisions of the CCA, and the imprecise way in which it can be linked with > equally vague provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with national > security, post clear and direct threats to the rights of citizens in > Thailand. The very basis of the allegations against Chiranuch Premchaiporn > -- that not removing comments deemed to defame, insult, or threaten the > monarchy, itself an allegation that is unclear, is a threat to national > security -- threatens to make a mockery of the Court and the meaning of > justice in Thailand. > > The trial hearings occurred in February and September 2011, and February > 2012, and summaries by Freedom Against Censorship-Thailand are available on > the campaign webpage that the AHRC has set up for Chiranuch. As these show, > much of the testimony turned on the interpretation of how the comments that > she removed tardily, in the opinion of the police and prosecutor, > constitute criminal content in the meaning of the law. Whether or not a > written comment on a webpage or link to an image or video is "likely to > damage the country's security or cause a public panic" is necessarily > fraught with difficulty, even more so as the Computer Crimes Act does not > specify what might constitute a likelihood to damage the country's security > or create a public panic, or even define "security" or "public panic". What > any of these terms mean, it seems, comes down to the opinion of the judge > in the individual case. No standards exist to which we can refer. What is > clear, however, are the effects of this legislation and the absence of > clear standards contained. Chiranuch Premchaiporn, a long-standing human > rights defender and media activist, has been forced to endure three years > of harassment and fear by the Thai state security and legal apparatus. In > addition, during a critical period in Thailand’s modern history, the > Prachatai webboard, a crucial site of discussion and debate, was forced to > shut down, for fear that both users and more of its staff members could > face additional prosecution. > > *The hearings in Chiranuch's case ended in February 2012 and the reading > of the verdict was set for 30 April 2012. However, 20 minutes before the > proceedings were to begin*, court staff notified Chiranuch and her > lawyers that the decision would be delayed for an additional month. The > rather dubious reason given by the court for the delay was that the judges > had too many documents to read, and was unable to complete preparing the > verdict in time for the scheduled date. *In a previous statement released > at the time of the postponement (AHRC-STM-099-2012), > the AHRC noted that* both the delay to this case and the explanation for > the delay were sources of serious concern. Whether caused by the court's > inefficiency, overwork of the judges, or a more specious strategy to > subject Chiranuch Premchaiporn to additional harassment and suffering. > > On the eve of the re-scheduled reading of the verdict in this case, the > Asian Human Rights Commission calls on the Criminal Court to ensure that no > further delays are caused in the reading of this verdict, and that the > trial be conducted openly, honestly and justly. In particular, given the > unclarities and lacunae in the Computer Crimes Act, the onus is on the > judges to act in the service of justice. > The AHRC urges all those persons and organisations concerned with human > rights and freedom of expression in Thailand to return to the Criminal > Court on 30 May 2012 for the re-scheduled reading of the decision to > observe action in either the service of justice, or to witness its > foreclosure. > > (Visit the AHRC webpage on Chiranuch Premchaiporn at: > http://www.humanrights.asia/campaigns/chiranuch-prachatai.) > > > Thank you. > > Urgent Appeals Programme > Asian Human Rights Commission (ua at ahrc.asia) > > > *Visit our new website with more features at www.humanrights.asia.* > > *You can make a difference. Please support our work and make a donation > here . * > > ----------------------------- > > Asian Human Rights Commission > #701A Westley Square, > 48 Hoi Yuen Road, Kwun Tong, Kowloon, > Hongkong S.A.R. > Tel: +(852) 2698-6339 > Fax: +(852) 2698-6367 > Web: humanrights.asia > twitter/youtube/facebook: humanrightsasia > > *Please consider the environment before printing this email.* > powered by phplist v 2.10.17, © phpList ltd > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue May 29 07:59:21 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 23:59:21 +1200 Subject: [governance] URGENT - anybody in Bangkok tomorrow? In-Reply-To: References: <4FC4A6A0.7010904@isoc-kh.org> <4FC4A9C9.6090104@gmx.net> Message-ID: On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Norbert, > > This is terrible news and not a good precedent and could prove viral > especially in countries that have rule of law issues. > > Hopefully her lawyers can file a Motion to suggestion is to judically > review the Computer Crimes Act (CCA), since it was passed by an unelected > legislature operating under a military-appointed government passed in 2007 > and another to temporarily stay the prosecution whilst the legality of the > provision is being debated. This will give Human Rights Organizations and > civil society to file amicus briefs. > > Oops this was supposed to read " Hopefully her lawyers can file a motion to judicially review.....(delete "to suggestion") > It may be useful to consider whether it is worthwhile filing an amicus > brief in this instance??? > > For the Attorney General to prosecute Chiranuch Premchaiporn on someone's > whim reeks nothing short of malicious prosecution. It will be great to know > the outcome of the matter. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Norbert Klein wrote: > >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> this came in just now, late for an urgent court date tomorrow. >> >> It relates to a case of freedom of expression and, in this case, >> specifically to a "crime" related to "transitory liability" of Chiranuch >> Premchaiporn - whether or not the provider of an Internet service is >> legally liable for what users do with this service. As this Urgent Appeal >> states: "Her alleged crime, to underscore the point, was that she removed >> the comments [not written by her or by staff of the Prachathai website], >> which consisted of allusions rather than direct references to the royal >> family, with insufficient rapidity." >> >> The question of "transitory liability" may not be central to Internet >> governance - but it is not only discussed in Thailand. I dare to share this >> here, as Chiranuch did participate in the *Asia Pacific Regional >> Internet Governance Forum *in Hongkong in June 2010, at that time >> already under investigation. >> >> >> Norbert >> -- >> Norbert Klein >> >> Website: http://www.thinking21.org >> Website: http://www.isoc-kh.org >> eMail: nhklein at gmx.net >> >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: THAILAND: Court to read >> verdict in landmark freedom of expression case of Chiranuch Premchaiporn – >> call for observers Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 09:11:05 +0200 From: AHRC >> Urgent Appeals To: >> nhklein at gmx.net >> >> >> >> >> ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION -- URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME >> >> Urgent Appeal Update: AHRC-UAU-017-2012 >> >> May 29, 2012 >> >> [RE: AHRC-STM-099-2012: >> THAILAND: Concerns over delayed verdict in criminal case against free media >> advocate] >> *--------------------------------------------------- >> *THAILAND: Court to read verdict in landmark freedom of expression case >> of Chiranuch Premchaiporn – call for observers >> >> ISSUES: Freedom of expression, >> Human rights defenders >> ------------------------------------------- >> >> Dear friends, >> * >> On 30 May 2012, at 10 am in the Criminal Court in Bangkok, the verdict in >> the case of Chiranuch Premchaiporn, charged with ten counts of allegedly >> violating the 2007 Computer Crimes Act in Black Case No. 1667/2553, will be >> read. The reading, which had been scheduled for one month ago, was >> unexpectedly postponed. The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) urges all >> concerned persons to attend the court as observers, and calls on other >> interested persons to follow the case closely. >> >> UPDATED INFORMATION:* >> >> The formal >> proceedings against Chiranuch Premchaiporn, the 44-year-old webmaster >> Prachatai, an independent online news site, began on 3 March 2009, when the >> Criminal Court issued a warrant for her arrest. On 5 March 2009, a warrant >> to search the Prachatai office was issued and the next day police from the >> Crime Suppression Division raided the office and arrested Chiranuch in >> response to one complaint of her alleged violation of the vaguely worded, >> anti-democratic Computer Crimes Act (CCA), which an unelected legislature >> operating under a military-appointed government passed in 2007. The police >> released Chiranuch later that evening, but the next month nine further >> complaints were brought against her. On 31 March 2010, the Office of the >> Attorney General proceeded with the prosecution and she was arrested and >> held at the Criminal Court before again being released on bail. >> >> Reading the above account, we might infer that Chiranuch had published >> some highly inflammatory, dangerous or secret material on the Prachatai >> site that warranted the heavy involvement of specialist police and state >> prosecutors and a series of events involving a raid and detention. In fact, >> her crime was to have not done something: to have failed to remove 10 >> comments alleged to be injurious to the monarchy from the Prachatai >> webboard quickly enough. Her alleged crime, to underscore the point, was >> that she removed the comments, which consisted of allusions rather than >> direct references to the royal family, with insufficient rapidity. >> >> Examination of the specific provisions of the 2007 Computer Crimes Act >> under which these bizarre allegations were brought does not help us to >> clarify the thinking of those responsible for the prosecution of Chiranuch >> Premchaiporn. Under section 14 of the CCA, anyone can be jailed for five >> years if found to have imported to a computer "false computer data in a >> manner that it is likely to damage the country's security or cause a public >> panic… any computer data related with an offence against the Kingdom's >> security under the Criminal Code". Under its section 15, the service >> provider found to have consented to the use of the computer for this >> purpose is equally liable as the person committing the offence, which in >> the case of Chiranuch is the crime of lese majesty, as stipulated in >> section 112 of the Criminal Code, that, "Whoever defames, insults or >> threatens the King, Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be >> punished (with) imprisonment of three to fifteen years." The broad, vague >> provisions of the CCA, and the imprecise way in which it can be linked with >> equally vague provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with national >> security, post clear and direct threats to the rights of citizens in >> Thailand. The very basis of the allegations against Chiranuch Premchaiporn >> -- that not removing comments deemed to defame, insult, or threaten the >> monarchy, itself an allegation that is unclear, is a threat to national >> security -- threatens to make a mockery of the Court and the meaning of >> justice in Thailand. >> >> The trial hearings occurred in February and September 2011, and February >> 2012, and summaries by Freedom Against Censorship-Thailand are available on >> the campaign webpage that the AHRC has set up for Chiranuch. As these show, >> much of the testimony turned on the interpretation of how the comments that >> she removed tardily, in the opinion of the police and prosecutor, >> constitute criminal content in the meaning of the law. Whether or not a >> written comment on a webpage or link to an image or video is "likely to >> damage the country's security or cause a public panic" is necessarily >> fraught with difficulty, even more so as the Computer Crimes Act does not >> specify what might constitute a likelihood to damage the country's security >> or create a public panic, or even define "security" or "public panic". What >> any of these terms mean, it seems, comes down to the opinion of the judge >> in the individual case. No standards exist to which we can refer. What is >> clear, however, are the effects of this legislation and the absence of >> clear standards contained. Chiranuch Premchaiporn, a long-standing human >> rights defender and media activist, has been forced to endure three years >> of harassment and fear by the Thai state security and legal apparatus. In >> addition, during a critical period in Thailand’s modern history, the >> Prachatai webboard, a crucial site of discussion and debate, was forced to >> shut down, for fear that both users and more of its staff members could >> face additional prosecution. >> >> *The hearings in Chiranuch's case ended in February 2012 and the reading >> of the verdict was set for 30 April 2012. However, 20 minutes before the >> proceedings were to begin*, court staff notified Chiranuch and her >> lawyers that the decision would be delayed for an additional month. The >> rather dubious reason given by the court for the delay was that the judges >> had too many documents to read, and was unable to complete preparing the >> verdict in time for the scheduled date. *In a previous statement >> released at the time of the postponement (AHRC-STM-099-2012), >> the AHRC noted that* both the delay to this case and the explanation for >> the delay were sources of serious concern. Whether caused by the court's >> inefficiency, overwork of the judges, or a more specious strategy to >> subject Chiranuch Premchaiporn to additional harassment and suffering. >> >> On the eve of the re-scheduled reading of the verdict in this case, the >> Asian Human Rights Commission calls on the Criminal Court to ensure that no >> further delays are caused in the reading of this verdict, and that the >> trial be conducted openly, honestly and justly. In particular, given the >> unclarities and lacunae in the Computer Crimes Act, the onus is on the >> judges to act in the service of justice. >> The AHRC urges all those persons and organisations concerned with human >> rights and freedom of expression in Thailand to return to the Criminal >> Court on 30 May 2012 for the re-scheduled reading of the decision to >> observe action in either the service of justice, or to witness its >> foreclosure. >> >> (Visit the AHRC webpage on Chiranuch Premchaiporn at: >> http://www.humanrights.asia/campaigns/chiranuch-prachatai.) >> >> >> Thank you. >> >> Urgent Appeals Programme >> Asian Human Rights Commission (ua at ahrc.asia) >> >> >> *Visit our new website with more features at www.humanrights.asia.* >> >> *You can make a difference. Please support our work and make a donation >> here . * >> >> ----------------------------- >> >> Asian Human Rights Commission >> #701A Westley Square, >> 48 Hoi Yuen Road, Kwun Tong, Kowloon, >> Hongkong S.A.R. >> Tel: +(852) 2698-6339 >> Fax: +(852) 2698-6367 >> Web: humanrights.asia >> twitter/youtube/facebook: humanrightsasia >> >> *Please consider the environment before printing this email.* >> powered by phplist v 2.10.17, © phpList ltd >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue May 29 08:10:57 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 14:10:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] China, US & Human Rights References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDB3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-05/25/content_15391595.htm 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 iza at anr.org Tue May 29 08:25:44 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 21:25:44 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <60B40984-73B9-4788-B616-EEB5E144CED5@ella.com> 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> Message-ID: Hi, Sorry for this late response. I thought I had sent this 12 hours ago, but it was not. In any case, I do support a workshop on EC at next IGF. But as Bill puts, I just am not sure how we can organize one under the official program since proposals are all sort of closed by now. Maybe one possible way is to use the one IGC submitted and accepted on the theme of IGF improvement, or "#85 Quo vadis IGF- evolution of IGF" . Yet that requires the consensus of all co-sponsors. That may be difficult and may not be the best way forward as mixing IGF improvement and EC. What do you guys think? If agree, I can ask them. This is designated as Feeder Workshop, so summary of the discussion will be transmitted to the Main session on Taking Stock and the Way Forward. I also strongly support and appreciate Anritte's and APC's initiative for one day pre-event though we may have clash with other CS related meetings. Third option is, to organize an Open Forum, I guess. It only says "All major organisations dealing with Internet Governance related issues are invited to submit proposals for Open Forum, using this form . The deadline for submission is *30 June 2012*." Though the weight is somewhat light, we can still do within the IGF program. izumi 2012年5月29日火曜日 Avri Doria avri at ella.com: > Dear MAG member, > > why no support for at least a workshop at IGF12? > > avri > > On 28 May 2012, at 11:12, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > > Yes... let's do the pre-event in Baku. APC is willing to lead on this > > but we are talking to others to co-convene. > > > > And then let's get the 2013 IGF to feature various aspects of EC much > > more prominently. IGF 2013 will be hosted in a developing country > > (Indonesia) and it is therefore likely to have far greater developing > > country government participation (at least from Asian and African > > countries). > > > > Also by then quite a lot would have happened at CSTD/ECOSOC/UNGA level > > (and WCIT) as well as inside some of the existing institutions. E.g. the > > assessments, report cards, mapping and other suggestions made on the > > 18th of May. > > > > Anriette > > > > > > On 28/05/2012 16:37, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Personally I think we need to keep pushing for something during IGF2012. > >> > >> Let's go into WCIT with the IGF having made room for the problem and > having started the process. We have 5 months yet before the meeting, > things can't possibly be set in stone at this point. We have a new MAG > that was forced to accept a program they were not completely comfortable > with, they are entitled to still be thinking about how to make IGF12 as > valuable as they possibly can. (Not that I have the faintest idea of > whether they would be interested in taking such action) > >> > >> And whether we can get it into the IGF12 agenda, which I think its the > optimal solution, or not, I think the idea that Anriette mentioned on the > list earlier: > >> > >> > >> On 27 May 2012, at 11:22, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> > >>> Dear Avri > >>> > >>> We definitely must use the IGF and APC is already thinking of planning > a > >>> pre-event on this. Not finalised.. and we are talking to various > >>> partners.. but I feel strongly we must facilitate substantive dialogue. > >>> > >>> The IGF was set up to facilitate such discussions. Some people tried to > >>> prevent this from happening. I think they now realise that a) they > might > >>> have been wrong and/or b) further avoidance is not in the interest of > >>> the IGF or of multi-stakeholder participation in IG. > >>> > >>> Anriette > >> > >> Perhaps since 71 puts the responsibility on the relevant organizations > (which I take to mean the mangers of critical Internet resources) to get > this underway: "Relevant organizations should commence a process towards > enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders", it won't be to hard to > find a set of good sponsors for such an event. > >> > >> But to be clear. I would like to see both a full day pre-event > discussion, and for that event to bring a report (dare i say > recommendations?) to the IGF in a workshop arranged for discussion of EC > and the IGF. > >> > >> 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue May 29 08:54:08 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 13:54:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <463E2160-45C0-42EE-AE0F-810B41F955F1@acm.org> 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> Message-ID: In message <463E2160-45C0-42EE-AE0F-810B41F955F1 at acm.org>, at 07:40:58 on Tue, 29 May 2012, Avri Doria writes >And we were told quite specifically by the hosts that their Ministerial >had NOTHING to do with the IGF, so it makes no sense to let that stand >in the way of anything. Any diary clash that prevents an important stakeholder group from attending should be taken into consideration. It's irrelevant whether or not the clashing event is part of the same process. eg If there was a special intersessional ICANN GAC meeting that Monday, which is certainly not part of the IGF, it would be rude to arrange an event to clash with 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 nb at bollow.ch Tue May 29 10:04:30 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 16:04:30 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: (message from Izumi AIZU on Tue, 29 May 2012 21:25:44 +0900) 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> Message-ID: <20120529140430.8684E1F5A@quill.bollow.ch> Izumi AIZU wrote: > Third option is, to organize an Open Forum, I guess. It only says "All > major organisations dealing with Internet Governance related issues are > invited to submit proposals for Open > Forum, > using this form . The deadline > for submission is *30 June 2012*." I'm in support of this option. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue May 29 10:26:09 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 10:26:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to statements and recordings In-Reply-To: <4FC49D4B.9060301@itforchange.net> References: <4FC213EF.2070102@apc.org> <8CF0A288D496BC8-B24-477CD@webmail-m072.sysops.aol.com> <4FC2498D.20405@itforchange.net> <3A35B60F-77FA-4848-A7F7-FBEA10395135@ella.com> <4FC49D4B.9060301@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 5/29/12, parminder wrote: > > On Sunday 27 May 2012 09:14 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> > > I also will never agree to consider a rep of a company - representing > narrow private interests - to be on equal/ same footing as a civil > society rep, who is supposed to represent wider public interest (even if > often/ sometimes of a sectional variety). No civil society actor, among > those whom we work here in India, and that includes grassroots level > ones, will accept such 'equal footing'. It is simply out of question! So you reject out of hand the way that Internet policy making processes have worked for the last several decades? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue May 29 10:28:26 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 14:28:26 +0000 Subject: [governance] CSTD meeting on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Tue May 29 10:31:16 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 10:31:16 -0400 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <4FC4955C.90908@gmail.com> References: <4FBEDFAA.9070206@ITforChange.net> <4FC4955C.90908@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 5/29/12, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Guru > > The questions you pose are important and not adequately addressed under > this header, especially as regards principled positions. There is > adequate attention paid to reform (which is essentially about > "effectiveness") but less about principled (or dare I say it on this > list "radical") positions. International law, or governance, is both > about effectiveness AND legitimacy. Without this parallax view, these > discussions become mired in convolutions as the subject matter (and/or > goal) is not clearly articulated - i.e. terrain specificity. > > It is NOT possible to argue or intimate that ICANN is legitimate, of course it is possible. even > though some try to do so. It may be effective, like IETF, but legitimacy > will always be elusive, given current arrangements. Inadequacies abound > about the lack of legitimacy, gTlds, intellectual property and also the > thwarting of the will of many poor countries to have some legitimate > control over CIR. nation states should have zero "control" over CIRs, rich or poor! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue May 29 10:39:15 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 14:39:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: 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> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D820@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> I'd like to support and amplify Bill's comment below: Ideally, we could try to quickly get beyond more lengthy deconstructions of The Tao of the Tunis Agenda and the search for The One True Meaning of EC and focus on such items as a) in what specific issue areas do people believe something important is not being done or is being done badly, and b) what institutional mechanisms if any (centralized/decentralized, omnibus/issue-specific, etc) or enhancements to extant arrangements might be useful in helping the international community to address said problems. Amen. The debate over what EC means is striking me as increasingly irrelevant if taken literally. But of course we all know that there is an agenda underlying it, so the various parties debating whether we are or are not engaged properly in something called "Enhanced Cooperation" really need to be more explicit about what that agenda is. IT would greatly improve this debate if they would tell us what problems they are trying to solve. If it is simply U.S. control of the root, let's discuss U.S. control of the root, and not cloak it in rhetorical garbage. It also makes it easier for us to determine whether the proposed institutional mechanisms are improvements…or not. Timing is a real problem. Unless we're prepared to ask people to add an extra day to their trip, this would have to be on Monday 5th, competing not only with GigaNet, ISOC, etc, but also the Ministerial, which the Government reps will inevitably feel compelled to attend if able. Based on that alone, I would say that a pre-event should be off the table. GigaNet might be able to accommodate a multistakeholder, non-academic jointly organized panel on that topic (but I would have to get approval of its program committee). 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 avri at ella.com Tue May 29 10:39:55 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 10:39:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: 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> Message-ID: <42BAC28F-D37A-4AF2-B622-2AA4C50A934B@ella.com> On 29 May 2012, at 08:25, Izumi AIZU wrote: > But as Bill puts, I just am not sure how we can organize one under the official program since proposals are all sort of closed by now. Until the MAG puts out its final program, I think the program is open for MAG to discuss and improve it. > Maybe one possible way is to use the one IGC submitted and accepted on the theme of IGF improvement, or "#85 Quo vadis IGF- evolution of IGF" . this certainly does seem like a good topic to ad to the quo vadis topic list. " will examine the substance of the CSTD WG Report and share different views by different actors on the IGF improvements and their implementations. It will discuss the following major issues: Shaping the Outcome of IGF Meetings, Working Modalities, and Funding among others. " Certainly fits in with "among others" Especially if the pre-event occurs and has any 'outcome recommendations, thought, messages, gleanings ...' to report. > > Yet that requires the consensus of all co-sponsors. That may be difficult and may not be the best way forward as mixing IGF improvement and EC. What do you guys think? If agree, I can ask them. I support IGC as one of the sponsors, asking the other sponsors about the addition of this specifically to the agenda. > This is designated as Feeder Workshop, so summary of the discussion will be transmitted to > the Main session on Taking Stock and the Way Forward. > I like the fact that it is a feeder and can feed into the main session. I think that is we have any goal of getting the IGF to actually discuss EC (despite the various levels of TA hermeneutics) and maybe make some useful recommendations on moving forward with it, this is an opportunity that should not be missed. 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Tue May 29 10:39:58 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 16:39:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <463E2160-45C0-42EE-AE0F-810B41F955F1@acm.org> 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> Message-ID: Hi Avri On May 29, 2012, at 1:40 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > I believe that the IGF12 will be remiss if it does not have a major session on EC and how the IGF can move the topic forward. I agree, and think a pre-event (perhaps a half day?) would be better than tossing another 90 minute workshop into the mix with 100 others or whatever. > > BTW, I see no problem with the pre-session competing with Giganet. There are people enough for both things. I think the crowd that cares about EC is very different than the crowd that cares about academic papers on IG. I suspect Giga-goers would be interested in an EC event. One option might be to try something like what we did between GigaNet and APC in Nairobi, have a shared bit... > And we were told quite specifically by the hosts that their Ministerial had NOTHING to do with the IGF, so it makes no sense to let that stand in the way of anything. I know you'd prefer EC without governments, but for others that might kind of miss the point. :-) On May 29, 2012, at 2:25 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > Third option is, to organize an Open Forum, I guess. It only says "All major organisations dealing with Internet Governance related issues are invited to submit proposals for Open Forum, using this form. The deadline for submission is 30 June 2012." > Open Forums are intended as showcases for individual organizations, e.g. Meet the ITU. Wouldn't this be a rather odd and loaded context in which to have a discussion about the merits of creating a new UN body vs. enhancing cooperation among extant ones etc? 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 Tue May 29 10:46:05 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 16:46:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD: Adopted Resolution on WSIS and access to statements and recordings In-Reply-To: <4FC213EF.2070102@apc.org> References: <4FC213EF.2070102@apc.org> Message-ID: <667FAF90-7CC2-4209-9525-685B621B4D3B@uzh.ch> Hi On May 27, 2012, at 1:45 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > The resolution is rather minimalist, and represents the fact that there > was very little consensus among CSTD members on: > > - enhanced cooperation in internet governance On a related note: just got word that Mongi Hamdi is leaving the CSTD secretariat effective 1 June to serve as Chef de Cabinet to UNCTAD SG Supachai. Filling the post and ramping up the new leader might take awhile, which would have made launching a WG rather interesting…forwarding the chair's report to the GA is presumably doable, though. 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 Tue May 29 10:48:30 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 23:48:30 +0900 Subject: [governance] My memo from Tunis Nov 2003 - Prepcom 3 bis negotiations In-Reply-To: <4FC48B27.2080704@apc.org> References: <4FC48B27.2080704@apc.org> Message-ID: I quite agree that IGF and EC are separate processes does not mean we should separate everything each other, at all. First of all, I wrote Tunis 2003, but of course it was 2005, thanks to Milton! And therefore I agree that we can discuss about EC at IGF. IGF is forum for dialogue on IG public policy related matters, without restriction. Whether (current) IGF is the best place to deal with EC or not, is another issue. I said "something similar to IGF, a new WG should be established directly under UNSG". This, in reality, could mean UN DESA controls, not CSTD. izumi 2012/5/29 Anriette Esterhuysen : > Thanks Izumi.. and yesterday I had a note from someone who was in the > negotations and he also remembered that EC and IGF were seen as two > processes, related, but separate - i.o.w. agreeting with your and Adam's > recollections. > > But I don't think this conflicts with my and Avri's interpretation which > is that the IGF was meant to be a forum where EC is discussed. The IGF > was not meant to be a substitute of EC, nor a policy-making space, but a > space for dialogue about internet public policy issues and > participation, and this includes EC. > > Anriette > > > On 29/05/2012 03:59, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> Hi, >> here attached is the note I took during the Prepcom 3 bis held in >> Tunis in November 2003. >> The final part is not there - but some process before that are captured. >> >> In my memory, around 8:30 pm or so, the main part of the language of >> all remaining para were agreed,  but then there still remained not-so >> substantive parts, which took another 90 min or so, thereby ending the >> meeting was almost 10 pm. >> >> And yes, all sides, US, European Commission, UK, China, et al all said >> it was their victory. >> >> My view is close to what Adam think that EC and IGF are two distinct >> or separate things, yet, I also am aware that the language of these >> paras were so vaguely written so that all parties who have different >> positions could still agree on. >> >> I vaguely remember that Janis Karklins and ICANN GAC Vice Chair that >> time were discussing on how to explain this "Enhanced Cooperation" >> section since they were made intentionally vague, at the next ICANN >> meeting. >> >> So, as is shown on this list, the interpretations of how EC and IGF >> relate can be very different by different people, and there is no >> single truth drawn from reading the Tunis Agenda. >> >> That will give, in my view, good reason to have discussion on this at IGF. >> >> izumi -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue May 29 10:53:07 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 14:53:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: 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>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E8B98@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> If I may make a suggestion: Saturday Nov. 10th is a travel day for folks returning from IGF 2012. Rather than jam into a crowded schedule before the event, invite people to stick around after IGF 2012, for an extraordinary session on enhanced cooperation in Internet Governance. A through discussion of Parminder's views and others could be among those featured; we need some controversy to drum up interest. That session whatever it is called would of course be loosely associated with, but not sanctioned by IGF. Hence there is no need to run by the MAG except as a courtesy. It could be hosted by IGC and staffed by attending CS groups. We would of course invite the technical and business communities, governments, and international organizations, each in their respective roles ; ). But seeing as it is an unofficial event, everyone can relax since nothing official can happen. Except perhaps some endorsement of Wolfgang's Internet Declaration, and/or IRP's 10 Internet Rights and Principles. For examples of two possible outcomes. (And because of the fear/worry we might actually do/say something, we can expect a reasonably MSH attendance. Even if the event itself is explicitly CS putting its foot down and insisting we will not be left out of the discussion/definition of enhanced cooperation.) The beauty of this in my opinion is noone can object to folks getting together on a Saturday, and being extra nerdy and trying to make sense of the inscrutable. And IGC need ask noone's permission. We would need a venue and someone or some virtual committee to volunteer to pull together. Since the CSTD thing May 18 seems to be agreed to have been a waste of time, why not show folks how CS - enhances cooperation. I'm only volunteering my 2 cents, and to remotely participate from sunny Syracuse. Lee PS: The worst headline we can anticipate is 'People threaten to provide oversight to the Internet' or some such, so politically speaking I think we can get away with this. ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:54 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In message <463E2160-45C0-42EE-AE0F-810B41F955F1 at acm.org>, at 07:40:58 on Tue, 29 May 2012, Avri Doria writes >And we were told quite specifically by the hosts that their Ministerial >had NOTHING to do with the IGF, so it makes no sense to let that stand >in the way of anything. Any diary clash that prevents an important stakeholder group from attending should be taken into consideration. It's irrelevant whether or not the clashing event is part of the same process. eg If there was a special intersessional ICANN GAC meeting that Monday, which is certainly not part of the IGF, it would be rude to arrange an event to clash with 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue May 29 11:22:47 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 17:22:47 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation 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> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDBF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> 1+ wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Lee W McKnight Gesendet: Di 29.05.2012 16:53 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Roland Perry Betreff: RE: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation If I may make a suggestion: Saturday Nov. 10th is a travel day for folks returning from IGF 2012. Rather than jam into a crowded schedule before the event, invite people to stick around after IGF 2012, for an extraordinary session on enhanced cooperation in Internet Governance. A through discussion of Parminder's views and others could be among those featured; we need some controversy to drum up interest. That session whatever it is called would of course be loosely associated with, but not sanctioned by IGF. Hence there is no need to run by the MAG except as a courtesy. It could be hosted by IGC and staffed by attending CS groups. We would of course invite the technical and business communities, governments, and international organizations, each in their respective roles ; ). But seeing as it is an unofficial event, everyone can relax since nothing official can happen. Except perhaps some endorsement of Wolfgang's Internet Declaration, and/or IRP's 10 Internet Rights and Principles. For examples of two possible outcomes. (And because of the fear/worry we might actually do/say something, we can expect a reasonably MSH attendance. Even if the event itself is explicitly CS putting its foot down and insisting we will not be left out of the discussion/definition of enhanced cooperation.) The beauty of this in my opinion is noone can object to folks getting together on a Saturday, and being extra nerdy and trying to make sense of the inscrutable. And IGC need ask noone's permission. We would need a venue and someone or some virtual committee to volunteer to pull together. Since the CSTD thing May 18 seems to be agreed to have been a waste of time, why not show folks how CS - enhances cooperation. I'm only volunteering my 2 cents, and to remotely participate from sunny Syracuse. Lee PS: The worst headline we can anticipate is 'People threaten to provide oversight to the Internet' or some such, so politically speaking I think we can get away with this. ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:54 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In message <463E2160-45C0-42EE-AE0F-810B41F955F1 at acm.org>, at 07:40:58 on Tue, 29 May 2012, Avri Doria writes >And we were told quite specifically by the hosts that their Ministerial >had NOTHING to do with the IGF, so it makes no sense to let that stand >in the way of anything. Any diary clash that prevents an important stakeholder group from attending should be taken into consideration. It's irrelevant whether or not the clashing event is part of the same process. eg If there was a special intersessional ICANN GAC meeting that Monday, which is certainly not part of the IGF, it would be rude to arrange an event to clash with 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 mmarius at ict-pulse.com Tue May 29 11:25:42 2012 From: mmarius at ict-pulse.com (Michele S. Marius) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 10:25:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] Live Streaming: CTU 10th Ministerial Strategic Seminar Message-ID: <61C73936-5F8E-450D-BCF2-3DB926C3E45B@ict-pulse.com> Dear All, The 10th Ministerial Strategic Seminar, hosted by the Caribbean Telecommunications Union in Miami from 29--30 May, is being streamed live: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/ctu-seminar Should you have an opportunity, please join us. Regards, Michele Marius Email: mmarius at ict-pulse.com Blog: http://www.ict-pulse.com Twitter: @ictpulse Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ICTPulse LinkedIn: http://jm.linkedin.com/in/mariusms -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 29 11:35:47 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 08:35:47 -0700 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: McTim, 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. That might serve the interests of some quite well, but not surprisingly the folks in those countries without representation are beginning to feel somewhat aggrieved. The desire to keep governments out of technical areas is very likely a commendable one, but in that instance it behooves the supporters of that position to find some other means to ensure that those currently without a voice in those discussions are provided with a means to have such a participation. The status quo always favours the incumbent. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 7:31 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob Cc: Guru ???? Subject: Re: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) On 5/29/12, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Guru > > The questions you pose are important and not adequately addressed > under this header, especially as regards principled positions. There > is adequate attention paid to reform (which is essentially about > "effectiveness") but less about principled (or dare I say it on this > list "radical") positions. International law, or governance, is both > about effectiveness AND legitimacy. Without this parallax view, these > discussions become mired in convolutions as the subject matter (and/or > goal) is not clearly articulated - i.e. terrain specificity. > > It is NOT possible to argue or intimate that ICANN is legitimate, of course it is possible. even > though some try to do so. It may be effective, like IETF, but > legitimacy will always be elusive, given current arrangements. > Inadequacies abound about the lack of legitimacy, gTlds, intellectual > property and also the thwarting of the will of many poor countries to > have some legitimate control over CIR. nation states should have zero "control" over CIRs, rich or poor! -- 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 anriette at apc.org Tue May 29 11:39:12 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 17:39:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E8B98@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> 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> Message-ID: <4FC4EDA0.2040806@apc.org> Dear Lee The problem with this is that we are not likely to get government participation, and, I really believe that we do need to get particularly developing country government voices. If the EC meeting overlaps with the ministerial we are more likely to get gov participants. We have very good participation in the human rights pre-event we convened last year. But a post IGF civil society meeting could still be a very good idea.. to focus on the views and debates among civil society on EC. Anriette On 29/05/2012 16:53, Lee W McKnight wrote: > If I may make a suggestion: > > Saturday Nov. 10th is a travel day for folks returning from IGF 2012. Rather than jam into a crowded schedule before the event, invite people to stick around after IGF 2012, for an extraordinary session on enhanced cooperation in Internet Governance. A through discussion of Parminder's views and others could be among those featured; we need some controversy to drum up interest. > > That session whatever it is called would of course be loosely associated with, but not sanctioned by IGF. Hence there is no need to run by the MAG except as a courtesy. It could be hosted by IGC and staffed by attending CS groups. > > We would of course invite the technical and business communities, governments, and international organizations, each in their respective roles ; ). But seeing as it is an unofficial event, everyone can relax since nothing official can happen. > > Except perhaps some endorsement of Wolfgang's Internet Declaration, and/or IRP's 10 Internet Rights and Principles. For examples of two possible outcomes. (And because of the fear/worry we might actually do/say something, we can expect a reasonably MSH attendance. Even if the event itself is explicitly CS putting its foot down and insisting we will not be left out of the discussion/definition of enhanced cooperation.) > > The beauty of this in my opinion is noone can object to folks getting together on a Saturday, and being extra nerdy and trying to make sense of the inscrutable. > And IGC need ask noone's permission. We would need a venue and someone or some virtual committee to volunteer to pull together. Since the CSTD thing May 18 seems to be agreed to have been a waste of time, why not show folks how CS - enhances cooperation. > > I'm only volunteering my 2 cents, and to remotely participate from sunny Syracuse. > > Lee > > PS: The worst headline we can anticipate is 'People threaten to provide oversight to the Internet' or some such, so politically speaking I think we can get away with this. > > > > > > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:54 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation > > In message <463E2160-45C0-42EE-AE0F-810B41F955F1 at acm.org>, at 07:40:58 > on Tue, 29 May 2012, Avri Doria writes >> And we were told quite specifically by the hosts that their Ministerial >> had NOTHING to do with the IGF, so it makes no sense to let that stand >> in the way of anything. > > Any diary clash that prevents an important stakeholder group from > attending should be taken into consideration. > > It's irrelevant whether or not the clashing event is part of the same > process. eg If there was a special intersessional ICANN GAC meeting that > Monday, which is certainly not part of the IGF, it would be rude to > arrange an event to clash with it. > -- > Roland Perry > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue May 29 11:40:16 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 17:40:16 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E8B98@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> (message from Lee W McKnight on Tue, 29 May 2012 14:53:07 +0000) 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> Message-ID: <20120529154016.E4ADE1F5A@quill.bollow.ch> Lee W McKnight wrote: > Saturday Nov. 10th is a travel day for folks returning from IGF > 2012. Rather than jam into a crowded schedule before the event, > invite people to stick around after IGF 2012, for an extraordinary > session on enhanced cooperation in Internet Governance. A through > discussion of Parminder's views and others could be among those > featured; we need some controversy to drum up interest. Sounds like a great idea. We could still propose an Open Forum on the topic as well, in order to give this debate at least a bit of a footprint in the official IGF agenda. The Open Forum event could be declared to be a preparatory Open Forum for this after-meeting. Greetings, Norbert =20 > > That session whatever it is called would of course be loosely associated wi= > th, but not sanctioned by IGF. Hence there is no need to run by the MAG exc= > ept as a courtesy. It could be hosted by IGC and staffed by attending CS gr= > oups. > > We would of course invite the technical and business communities, governme= > nts, and international organizations, each in their respective roles ; ). B= > ut seeing as it is an unofficial event, everyone can relax since nothing of= > ficial can happen.=20 > > Except perhaps some endorsement of Wolfgang's Internet Declaration, and/or = > IRP's 10 Internet Rights and Principles. For examples of two possible outco= > mes. (And because of the fear/worry we might actually do/say something, we = > can expect a reasonably MSH attendance. Even if the event itself is explici= > tly CS putting its foot down and insisting we will not be left out of the d= > iscussion/definition of enhanced cooperation.) > > The beauty of this in my opinion is noone can object to folks getting toget= > her on a Saturday, and being extra nerdy and trying to make sense of the in= > scrutable.=20=20=20 > And IGC need ask noone's permission. We would need a venue and someone or s= > ome virtual committee to volunteer to pull together. Since the CSTD thing M= > ay 18 seems to be agreed to have been a waste of time, why not show folks h= > ow CS - enhances cooperation. > > I'm only volunteering my 2 cents, and to remotely participate from sunny Sy= > racuse.=20 > > Lee > > PS: The worst headline we can anticipate is 'People threaten to provide ove= > rsight to the Internet' or some such, so politically speaking I think we ca= > n get away with this. > > > > > > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcau= > cus.org] on behalf of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:54 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation > > In message <463E2160-45C0-42EE-AE0F-810B41F955F1 at acm.org>, at 07:40:58 > on Tue, 29 May 2012, Avri Doria writes > >And we were told quite specifically by the hosts that their Ministerial > >had NOTHING to do with the IGF, so it makes no sense to let that stand > >in the way of anything. > > Any diary clash that prevents an important stakeholder group from > attending should be taken into consideration. > > It's irrelevant whether or not the clashing event is part of the same > process. eg If there was a special intersessional ICANN GAC meeting that > Monday, which is certainly not part of the IGF, it would be rude to > arrange an event to clash with it. > -- > Roland Perry > > > > ------------=_1338303087-2601-8 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; name="message-footer.txt" > Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ------------=_1338303087-2601-8-- > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Tue May 29 11:40:41 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 17:40:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E8B98@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> 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> Message-ID: <4FC4EDF9.1010108@apc.org> Dear Lee The problem with this is that we are not likely to get government participation, and, I really believe that we do need to get particularly developing country government voices. If the EC meeting overlaps with the ministerial we are more likely to get gov participants. We had very good participation in the human rights pre-event we convened last year in Nairobi. But a post IGF civil society meeting could still be a good idea.. to focus on the views and debates among civil society on EC. Problem is also cost though.. and as there are already several other events the day before, it is more likely people are planning to be there already. Anriette On 29/05/2012 16:53, Lee W McKnight wrote: > If I may make a suggestion: > > Saturday Nov. 10th is a travel day for folks returning from IGF 2012. Rather than jam into a crowded schedule before the event, invite people to stick around after IGF 2012, for an extraordinary session on enhanced cooperation in Internet Governance. A through discussion of Parminder's views and others could be among those featured; we need some controversy to drum up interest. > > That session whatever it is called would of course be loosely associated with, but not sanctioned by IGF. Hence there is no need to run by the MAG except as a courtesy. It could be hosted by IGC and staffed by attending CS groups. > > We would of course invite the technical and business communities, governments, and international organizations, each in their respective roles ; ). But seeing as it is an unofficial event, everyone can relax since nothing official can happen. > > Except perhaps some endorsement of Wolfgang's Internet Declaration, and/or IRP's 10 Internet Rights and Principles. For examples of two possible outcomes. (And because of the fear/worry we might actually do/say something, we can expect a reasonably MSH attendance. Even if the event itself is explicitly CS putting its foot down and insisting we will not be left out of the discussion/definition of enhanced cooperation.) > > The beauty of this in my opinion is noone can object to folks getting together on a Saturday, and being extra nerdy and trying to make sense of the inscrutable. > And IGC need ask noone's permission. We would need a venue and someone or some virtual committee to volunteer to pull together. Since the CSTD thing May 18 seems to be agreed to have been a waste of time, why not show folks how CS - enhances cooperation. > > I'm only volunteering my 2 cents, and to remotely participate from sunny Syracuse. > > Lee > > PS: The worst headline we can anticipate is 'People threaten to provide oversight to the Internet' or some such, so politically speaking I think we can get away with this. > > > > > > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:54 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation > > In message <463E2160-45C0-42EE-AE0F-810B41F955F1 at acm.org>, at 07:40:58 > on Tue, 29 May 2012, Avri Doria writes >> And we were told quite specifically by the hosts that their Ministerial >> had NOTHING to do with the IGF, so it makes no sense to let that stand >> in the way of anything. > > Any diary clash that prevents an important stakeholder group from > attending should be taken into consideration. > > It's irrelevant whether or not the clashing event is part of the same > process. eg If there was a special intersessional ICANN GAC meeting that > Monday, which is certainly not part of the IGF, it would be rude to > arrange an event to clash with it. > -- > Roland Perry > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue May 29 11:51:23 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 17:51:23 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: (message from michael gurstein on Tue, 29 May 2012 08:35:47 -0700) References: Message-ID: <20120529155123.ED7C91F5A@quill.bollow.ch> 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? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue May 29 12:08:22 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 09:08:22 -0700 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <20120529155123.ED7C91F5A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <999E649C059F48358F587715EE298DD8@UserVAIO> 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:51 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) 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? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue May 29 12:12:43 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 16:12:43 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: 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> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D9E1@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> That is what I was proposing. I suspect Giga-goers would be interested in an EC event. One option might be to try something like what we did between GigaNet and APC in Nairobi, have a shared bit... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 29 12:19:47 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 16:19:47 +0000 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <999E649C059F48358F587715EE298DD8@UserVAIO> References: <20120529155123.ED7C91F5A@quill.bollow.ch>,<999E649C059F48358F587715EE298DD8@UserVAIO> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E8CB0@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Michael, I agree with Norbert and McTim that - some more folks - should be encouraged to participate in IETF events. I am not saying it is prerequisite for other forms of participation, but. Whether those attending should be affiliated with government or business or cs is a separate, and variable, issue. Info on fellowships for IETF attendees available from ISOC for developing expertise and experience for meaningful participation in IETF is at: http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/ietf-fellowships Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:08 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Norbert Bollow' Subject: RE: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:51 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) 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? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Tue May 29 12:22:26 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 01:22:26 +0900 Subject: [governance] which list: cpsr or igcaucus In-Reply-To: References: <200AF330-EFF2-49AC-BC18-178C98F12FA2@ciroap.org> <9k02L4c9N6wPFAyT@internetpolicyagency.com> <2e35ff7cbe674c114282544d0fe48a29@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear Qusai, Your understanding is incorrect, we have never and will never "moderate" any postings to this list, as you just saw your own post. I don't know where you got such misunderstandings, but hope to clarify. Hope this helps, Izumi 2012年5月29日火曜日 Qusai AlShatti qshatti at gmail.com: > Dear All: > So my understanding from this thread that if we sent something to the > governance list (lists.igcaucus.org), it will not be publicized > immediately but rather the coordinators will assume the role of moderators > and look at what we have sent then decide if it is appropriated to be > publicized on the list or not. After that it forward it to the list. I > would like to know if this is correct from the moderators. > > Regards, > > Qusai AlShatti > > > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > > wrote: > >> ** >> >> On Mon, 28 May 2012 17:10:37 +0100, Roland Perry wrote: >> >> In message <200AF330-EFF2-49AC-BC18-178C98F12FA2 at ciroap.org >, at >> 19:47:04 on Mon, 28 May 2012, Jeremy Malcolm > writes >> >> I'm not sure how lists.cpsr.org because active again, because one of my >> last acts when establishing the new list was to change it into >> moderated mode, so that no posts could get through without approval. >> >> >> With great respect, you are one of the offenders when it comes to >> starting new threads on the wrong/old list: >> >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] US hearing on International Proposals to Regulate >> the Internet >> From: Jeremy Malcolm > >> Date: 28 May 2012 03:56:31 >> >> Yes, I know - sorry! - but what I meant was, the way I left it, any >> email sent to the old list by mistake would have been rejected, and >> suddenly that was no longer so. Anyhow, it is all being sorted now thanks >> to the good folks at CPSR. >> >> >> -- >> >> *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 > 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org');> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue May 29 12:28:03 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 16:28:03 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <4FC4EDF9.1010108@apc.org> 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> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E8CC3@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Thanks Anriette, I thought folks were saying that the pre-event Ministerial precluded governments from participating in an advance EC event. My hunch is still a 'coalition of the willing and able' - whether willing because they wish for progress on EC, or fear it - would adjust plans and stick around for the CS-led after-event discussion. Including - some - government reps. Who tend to have more flexibility and ease in adjusting travel arrangements than broke CS types. But, if the same objective can be served within an Open Session of IGF, as Izumi suggests, that might be even better. And as noted, it was just my 2 cents, if not feasible or useful, or if advance event works...never mind. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Anriette Esterhuysen [anriette at apc.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 11:40 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation Dear Lee The problem with this is that we are not likely to get government participation, and, I really believe that we do need to get particularly developing country government voices. If the EC meeting overlaps with the ministerial we are more likely to get gov participants. We had very good participation in the human rights pre-event we convened last year in Nairobi. But a post IGF civil society meeting could still be a good idea.. to focus on the views and debates among civil society on EC. Problem is also cost though.. and as there are already several other events the day before, it is more likely people are planning to be there already. Anriette On 29/05/2012 16:53, Lee W McKnight wrote: > If I may make a suggestion: > > Saturday Nov. 10th is a travel day for folks returning from IGF 2012. Rather than jam into a crowded schedule before the event, invite people to stick around after IGF 2012, for an extraordinary session on enhanced cooperation in Internet Governance. A through discussion of Parminder's views and others could be among those featured; we need some controversy to drum up interest. > > That session whatever it is called would of course be loosely associated with, but not sanctioned by IGF. Hence there is no need to run by the MAG except as a courtesy. It could be hosted by IGC and staffed by attending CS groups. > > We would of course invite the technical and business communities, governments, and international organizations, each in their respective roles ; ). But seeing as it is an unofficial event, everyone can relax since nothing official can happen. > > Except perhaps some endorsement of Wolfgang's Internet Declaration, and/or IRP's 10 Internet Rights and Principles. For examples of two possible outcomes. (And because of the fear/worry we might actually do/say something, we can expect a reasonably MSH attendance. Even if the event itself is explicitly CS putting its foot down and insisting we will not be left out of the discussion/definition of enhanced cooperation.) > > The beauty of this in my opinion is noone can object to folks getting together on a Saturday, and being extra nerdy and trying to make sense of the inscrutable. > And IGC need ask noone's permission. We would need a venue and someone or some virtual committee to volunteer to pull together. Since the CSTD thing May 18 seems to be agreed to have been a waste of time, why not show folks how CS - enhances cooperation. > > I'm only volunteering my 2 cents, and to remotely participate from sunny Syracuse. > > Lee > > PS: The worst headline we can anticipate is 'People threaten to provide oversight to the Internet' or some such, so politically speaking I think we can get away with this. > > > > > > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:54 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation > > In message <463E2160-45C0-42EE-AE0F-810B41F955F1 at acm.org>, at 07:40:58 > on Tue, 29 May 2012, Avri Doria writes >> And we were told quite specifically by the hosts that their Ministerial >> had NOTHING to do with the IGF, so it makes no sense to let that stand >> in the way of anything. > > Any diary clash that prevents an important stakeholder group from > attending should be taken into consideration. > > It's irrelevant whether or not the clashing event is part of the same > process. eg If there was a special intersessional ICANN GAC meeting that > Monday, which is certainly not part of the IGF, it would be rude to > arrange an event to clash with it. > -- > Roland Perry > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Tue May 29 12:32:14 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 18:32:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D9E1@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> 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> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D9E1@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FC4FA0E.9050702@apc.org> Yes... that would be ideal. On 29/05/2012 18:12, Milton L Mueller wrote: > That is what I was proposing. > > > > I suspect Giga-goers would be interested in an EC event. One option > might be to try something like what we did between GigaNet and APC in > Nairobi, have a shared bit... > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Tue May 29 12:33:37 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 12:33:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] which list: cpsr or igcaucus In-Reply-To: References: <200AF330-EFF2-49AC-BC18-178C98F12FA2@ciroap.org> <9k02L4c9N6wPFAyT@internetpolicyagency.com> <2e35ff7cbe674c114282544d0fe48a29@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <658A156F-207E-4E1F-99E3-F7E3D07DB76B@acm.org> Hi, I think the confusion has to with the current list where no moderation occurs and the old 'dead' list which seems to been resurrected by persons unknown. Since the list is an unused, that is the list the coordinators etc, are moderating and if they see anything that belongs on the live list instead of the dead list, they forward it on. Or at least that is what I understood to be happening, which seemed totally appropriate to me. avri On 29 May 2012, at 12:22, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear Qusai, > Your understanding is incorrect, we have never and will never "moderate" any postings > to this list, as you just saw your own post. > > I don't know where you got such misunderstandings, but hope to clarify. > > Hope this helps, > > Izumi > > > > 2012年5月29日火曜日 Qusai AlShatti qshatti at gmail.com: > Dear All: > So my understanding from this thread that if we sent something to the governance list (lists.igcaucus.org), it will not be publicized immediately but rather the coordinators will assume the role of moderators and look at what we have sent then decide if it is appropriated to be publicized on the list or not. After that it forward it to the list. I would like to know if this is correct from the moderators. > > Regards, > > Qusai AlShatti > > > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On Mon, 28 May 2012 17:10:37 +0100, Roland Perry wrote: > >> In message <200AF330-EFF2-49AC-BC18-178C98F12FA2 at ciroap.org >> >, at >> 19:47:04 on Mon, 28 May 2012, Jeremy Malcolm < >> jeremy at ciroap.org >> > writes >> >>> I'm not sure how lists.cpsr.org >>> because active again, because one of my >>> last acts when establishing the new list was to change it into >>> moderated mode, so that no posts could get through without approval. >>> >> >> With great respect, you are one of the offenders when it comes to >> starting new threads on the wrong/old list: >> >> To: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> Subject: [governance] US hearing on International Proposals to Regulate >> the Internet >> From: Jeremy Malcolm < >> jeremy at ciroap.org >> > >> Date: 28 May 2012 03:56:31 >> > Yes, I know - sorry! - but what I meant was, the way I left it, any email sent to the old list by mistake would have been rejected, and suddenly that was no longer so. Anyhow, it is all being sorted now thanks to the good folks at CPSR. > > > -- > 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 > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Tue May 29 12:38:32 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 12:38:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E8CC3@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> 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> Message-ID: <0D853D2F-A31E-45CB-B71E-164F4733529B@acm.org> Hi, My assumption about Ministerials is that ministers attend. I doubt that any ministers would come to Baku just to attend an EC pre-event. I also assumed that a ministerial means that some countries bring a bigger entourage. I am assuming that some appropriate member of a minister's entourage might attend an EC pre-event if one was held concurrent with the Ministerial. I think I noticed in Nairobi, that even some people of ministerial ranks (or at least elite enough to be invited to hang out with them) seemed to slip off and attend some of the other stuff that was happening that day. avri On 29 May 2012, at 12:28, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Thanks Anriette, > > I thought folks were saying that the pre-event Ministerial precluded governments from participating in an advance EC event. > > My hunch is still a 'coalition of the willing and able' - whether willing because they wish for progress on EC, or fear it - would adjust plans and stick around for the CS-led after-event discussion. Including - some - government reps. Who tend to have more flexibility and ease in adjusting travel arrangements than broke CS types. But, if the same objective can be served within an Open Session of IGF, as Izumi suggests, that might be even better. > > And as noted, it was just my 2 cents, if not feasible or useful, or if advance event works...never mind. > > Lee > > > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Anriette Esterhuysen [anriette at apc.org] > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 11:40 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation > > Dear Lee > > The problem with this is that we are not likely to get government > participation, and, I really believe that we do need to get particularly > developing country government voices. If the EC meeting overlaps with > the ministerial we are more likely to get gov participants. > > We had very good participation in the human rights pre-event we convened > last year in Nairobi. > > But a post IGF civil society meeting could still be a good idea.. to > focus on the views and debates among civil society on EC. Problem is > also cost though.. and as there are already several other events the day > before, it is more likely people are planning to be there already. > > Anriette > > > On 29/05/2012 16:53, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> If I may make a suggestion: >> >> Saturday Nov. 10th is a travel day for folks returning from IGF 2012. Rather than jam into a crowded schedule before the event, invite people to stick around after IGF 2012, for an extraordinary session on enhanced cooperation in Internet Governance. A through discussion of Parminder's views and others could be among those featured; we need some controversy to drum up interest. >> >> That session whatever it is called would of course be loosely associated with, but not sanctioned by IGF. Hence there is no need to run by the MAG except as a courtesy. It could be hosted by IGC and staffed by attending CS groups. >> >> We would of course invite the technical and business communities, governments, and international organizations, each in their respective roles ; ). But seeing as it is an unofficial event, everyone can relax since nothing official can happen. >> >> Except perhaps some endorsement of Wolfgang's Internet Declaration, and/or IRP's 10 Internet Rights and Principles. For examples of two possible outcomes. (And because of the fear/worry we might actually do/say something, we can expect a reasonably MSH attendance. Even if the event itself is explicitly CS putting its foot down and insisting we will not be left out of the discussion/definition of enhanced cooperation.) >> >> The beauty of this in my opinion is noone can object to folks getting together on a Saturday, and being extra nerdy and trying to make sense of the inscrutable. >> And IGC need ask noone's permission. We would need a venue and someone or some virtual committee to volunteer to pull together. Since the CSTD thing May 18 seems to be agreed to have been a waste of time, why not show folks how CS - enhances cooperation. >> >> I'm only volunteering my 2 cents, and to remotely participate from sunny Syracuse. >> >> Lee >> >> PS: The worst headline we can anticipate is 'People threaten to provide oversight to the Internet' or some such, so politically speaking I think we can get away with this. >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:54 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation >> >> In message <463E2160-45C0-42EE-AE0F-810B41F955F1 at acm.org>, at 07:40:58 >> on Tue, 29 May 2012, Avri Doria writes >>> And we were told quite specifically by the hosts that their Ministerial >>> had NOTHING to do with the IGF, so it makes no sense to let that stand >>> in the way of anything. >> >> Any diary clash that prevents an important stakeholder group from >> attending should be taken into consideration. >> >> It's irrelevant whether or not the clashing event is part of the same >> process. eg If there was a special intersessional ICANN GAC meeting that >> Monday, which is certainly not part of the IGF, it would be rude to >> arrange an event to clash with it. >> -- >> Roland Perry >> >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue May 29 12:39:02 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 18:39:02 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <999E649C059F48358F587715EE298DD8@UserVAIO> (message from michael gurstein on Tue, 29 May 2012 09:08:22 -0700) References: <999E649C059F48358F587715EE298DD8@UserVAIO> Message-ID: <20120529163902.E0C5D1F5A@quill.bollow.ch> 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 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Tue May 29 12:50:18 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 18:50:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E8CC3@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> 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> Message-ID: <4FC4FE4A.6040000@apc.org> Hi all.. also responding to Avri's prodding of the MAG... I think reopening workshop proposals will be contested, but it is not impossible. If the IGC wants to re-jig its proposal that is also good. I would not let go of talking about IGF improvements however.. it is important. Particularly how we deal with outcomes/messages etc. We can also propose that EC be addressed in the CIR and Taking Stock main sessions by making sure there is mention of it in the next version of the programme paper. Discussion at regional IGFs will also be very valuable, and can feed into Baku, directly or indirectly. But a longer-term strategy would be, in my view, to do the pre-event, have some focus during the IGF, hopefully strengthened by the pre-event, and then make sure we use the open consultation next Feb to get a main session on this topic at the Indonesia IGF. Personally I really think it is time to introduce new main session themes.. and this is one that will not go away. Hopefully by next year we will also be able to focus on specific issues (and not a Tao of EC, quoting Bill) as mentioned by several people on the list and look at concrete options for resolving some of these issues such as those proposed by Parminder and responded to by Milton earlier today. As far as an open forum is concerned.. I doubt that the MAG will be open to changing this format. As Bill pointed out, open forums are for institutions, or events, to share what they do. It was created precisely because some institutions used workshops to share information about (promote) their activities. Lee.. one more thought on and event the day after.. APC has tried on several occasions to have project meetings on the day after the event as we usually bring people to the IGF with funding for a specific project. It has not worked well for us.. we are so tired by then that we are pretty useless at having serious discussion. A pre-event will clash with Giganet and the ministerial, and ISOC. I am hoping we can find a way of collaborating with Giganet as we did last year. We are talking with ISOC to see how they feel about this. As for governments.. ministers do not travel without the people that brief them. If we can get some of those for even 50% of the duration of our pre-event it will be valuable. And, if the event is planned well-enough we might even get additional government people that were not planning to go to the IGF at all. Anriette On 29/05/2012 18:28, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Thanks Anriette, > > I thought folks were saying that the pre-event Ministerial precluded governments from participating in an advance EC event. > > My hunch is still a 'coalition of the willing and able' - whether willing because they wish for progress on EC, or fear it - would adjust plans and stick around for the CS-led after-event discussion. Including - some - government reps. Who tend to have more flexibility and ease in adjusting travel arrangements than broke CS types. But, if the same objective can be served within an Open Session of IGF, as Izumi suggests, that might be even better. > > And as noted, it was just my 2 cents, if not feasible or useful, or if advance event works...never mind. > > Lee > > > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Anriette Esterhuysen [anriette at apc.org] > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 11:40 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation > > Dear Lee > > The problem with this is that we are not likely to get government > participation, and, I really believe that we do need to get particularly > developing country government voices. If the EC meeting overlaps with > the ministerial we are more likely to get gov participants. > > We had very good participation in the human rights pre-event we convened > last year in Nairobi. > > But a post IGF civil society meeting could still be a good idea.. to > focus on the views and debates among civil society on EC. Problem is > also cost though.. and as there are already several other events the day > before, it is more likely people are planning to be there already. > > Anriette > > > On 29/05/2012 16:53, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> If I may make a suggestion: >> >> Saturday Nov. 10th is a travel day for folks returning from IGF 2012. Rather than jam into a crowded schedule before the event, invite people to stick around after IGF 2012, for an extraordinary session on enhanced cooperation in Internet Governance. A through discussion of Parminder's views and others could be among those featured; we need some controversy to drum up interest. >> >> That session whatever it is called would of course be loosely associated with, but not sanctioned by IGF. Hence there is no need to run by the MAG except as a courtesy. It could be hosted by IGC and staffed by attending CS groups. >> >> We would of course invite the technical and business communities, governments, and international organizations, each in their respective roles ; ). But seeing as it is an unofficial event, everyone can relax since nothing official can happen. >> >> Except perhaps some endorsement of Wolfgang's Internet Declaration, and/or IRP's 10 Internet Rights and Principles. For examples of two possible outcomes. (And because of the fear/worry we might actually do/say something, we can expect a reasonably MSH attendance. Even if the event itself is explicitly CS putting its foot down and insisting we will not be left out of the discussion/definition of enhanced cooperation.) >> >> The beauty of this in my opinion is noone can object to folks getting together on a Saturday, and being extra nerdy and trying to make sense of the inscrutable. >> And IGC need ask noone's permission. We would need a venue and someone or some virtual committee to volunteer to pull together. Since the CSTD thing May 18 seems to be agreed to have been a waste of time, why not show folks how CS - enhances cooperation. >> >> I'm only volunteering my 2 cents, and to remotely participate from sunny Syracuse. >> >> Lee >> >> PS: The worst headline we can anticipate is 'People threaten to provide oversight to the Internet' or some such, so politically speaking I think we can get away with this. >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:54 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation >> >> In message <463E2160-45C0-42EE-AE0F-810B41F955F1 at acm.org>, at 07:40:58 >> on Tue, 29 May 2012, Avri Doria writes >>> And we were told quite specifically by the hosts that their Ministerial >>> had NOTHING to do with the IGF, so it makes no sense to let that stand >>> in the way of anything. >> >> Any diary clash that prevents an important stakeholder group from >> attending should be taken into consideration. >> >> It's irrelevant whether or not the clashing event is part of the same >> process. eg If there was a special intersessional ICANN GAC meeting that >> Monday, which is certainly not part of the IGF, it would be rude to >> arrange an event to clash with it. >> -- >> Roland Perry >> >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue May 29 12:53:46 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 09:53:46 -0700 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E8CB0@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Thanks for this Lee and as a matter of fact I regularly circulate this within my various networks... What the uptake is or by whom I really don't know but my guess is that it would likely be largely from among academics who may or may not have a policy role to play in their respective governments. M -----Original Message----- From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 9:20 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; 'Norbert Bollow' Subject: RE: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) Michael, I agree with Norbert and McTim that - some more folks - should be encouraged to participate in IETF events. I am not saying it is prerequisite for other forms of participation, but. Whether those attending should be affiliated with government or business or cs is a separate, and variable, issue. Info on fellowships for IETF attendees available from ISOC for developing expertise and experience for meaningful participation in IETF is at: http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programme s/next-generation-leaders/ietf-fellowships Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:08 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Norbert Bollow' Subject: RE: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) But my 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:51 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) 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? Greetings, Norbert = -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue May 29 12:54:07 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 09:54:07 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E8B98@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Lee, I think a lot of the MSM (mainstream media) do in fact seem to equate "Internet oversight" with "Internet control" and even one or two of our esteemed CS colleagues seem to make that unfortunate connection (Bill, I'm still waiting for an answer to the question I asked some time ago--see attachment. Best, Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 7:53 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Roland Perry Subject: RE: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation ... PS: The worst headline we can anticipate is 'People threaten to provide oversight to the Internet' or some such, so politically speaking I think we can get away with this. ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:54 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In message <463E2160-45C0-42EE-AE0F-810B41F955F1 at acm.org>, at 07:40:58 on Tue, 29 May 2012, Avri Doria writes >And we were told quite specifically by the hosts that their Ministerial >had NOTHING to do with the IGF, so it makes no sense to let that stand >in the way of anything. Any diary clash that prevents an important stakeholder group from attending should be taken into consideration. It's irrelevant whether or not the clashing event is part of the same process. eg If there was a special intersessional ICANN GAC meeting that Monday, which is certainly not part of the IGF, it would be rude to arrange an event to clash with it. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "michael gurstein" Subject: FW: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 04:41:09 -0700 Size: 24021 URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue May 29 13:31:28 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 13:31:28 -0400 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/29/12, michael gurstein wrote: > McTim, > > 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. that MAY be the case. However, that has NOT been my experience living in Africa for the last 7 years. There are both biz folks AND CS actively involved in both real and meta-IG activities locally, regionally and globally. this was re-affirmed earlier this month in the Gambia, where I met dozens of young Africans from all over the continent eager to be involved in ISOC/ICANN/RIR/IGF et. al. activities! So in the absence of governmental > involvement there will be no involvement from those parts of the world at > all. see above. > > That might serve the interests of some quite well, but not surprisingly the > folks in those countries without representation are beginning to feel > somewhat aggrieved. Representation is not how IG is done. Governments get to say (usually) how a country code telephone numbering system is managed. They don't get the same control over how CIR's are managed. They may WANT it, but that is not reality based thinking. > > The desire to keep governments out of technical areas is very likely a > commendable one, but in that instance it behooves the supporters of that > position to find some other means to ensure that those currently without a > voice in those discussions are provided with a means to have such a > participation. I don't want to keep governements out of technical areas, not at all!! Last week we had a meeting of the African governmanetal Working Group at the African Internet Summit. It is a method of bringing them IN to the tech/policy side of things! > > The status quo always favours the incumbent. true....I would suggest that your map of the status quo is out of date. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue May 29 13:34:55 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 10:34:55 -0700 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <20120529163902.E0C5D1F5A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <5D03B22C05B84114A6AAE4931FF07A0F@UserVAIO> Norbert, Of course, that is really up to those countries and if/how they arrange it depends on their internal processes and I would guess very much how they prioritize these issues. My guess is that they respond (like everyone else) to crises, positive invitations and the advice of trusted advisors (for many in many LDC's Internet issues are still seen within the telecom domain where the trusted advisor is still the ITU!). Being pro-active in engaging these folks in informed Internet policy related issues would seem to me to be a good strategy from anyone's perspective given the risks of uninformed action in these areas down the road. (This BTW is a fairly strong argument for a WSIS.2... (And no, I'm not absolutely sure that "it is possible to "separate out technical from policy issues"' but I am completely sure that it is not a productive, useful, or in the long term beneficial strategy to leave the "policy" issues to be addressed in what is largely a "technical" forum (or forums)--wrong people, wrong mind-sets, wrong framing of issues etc.etc. How to get the right (mix of) people, right mind-sets, right framing of issues together to address these issues is I think what we are currently talking about on this list. The mix certainly should include technical folks (if for no other reason than to ensure that the non-technical folks don't bollocks up the technical matters) but the issues that need to be addressed go way beyond anything that technical folks have any useful input into (as technical folks) and need to be addressed by the array/mix appropriate to the particular issue or issues. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 9:39 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) ... 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 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find 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 May 29 13:52:24 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 05:52:24 +1200 Subject: [governance] which list: cpsr or igcaucus In-Reply-To: <658A156F-207E-4E1F-99E3-F7E3D07DB76B@acm.org> References: <200AF330-EFF2-49AC-BC18-178C98F12FA2@ciroap.org> <9k02L4c9N6wPFAyT@internetpolicyagency.com> <2e35ff7cbe674c114282544d0fe48a29@ciroap.org> <658A156F-207E-4E1F-99E3-F7E3D07DB76B@acm.org> Message-ID: For the record, the Coordinators did not re-activate the cpsr list. People have been asked to use the new list which is the igcaucus. 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 gurstein at gmail.com Tue May 29 15:23:33 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 12:23:33 -0700 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Glad to see some of the developments you are pointing to but I'm not sure that "dozens" of fledgling swallows make a spring, at least not yet... M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:31 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) On 5/29/12, michael gurstein wrote: > McTim, > > 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. that MAY be the case. However, that has NOT been my experience living in Africa for the last 7 years. There are both biz folks AND CS actively involved in both real and meta-IG activities locally, regionally and globally. this was re-affirmed earlier this month in the Gambia, where I met dozens of young Africans from all over the continent eager to be involved in ISOC/ICANN/RIR/IGF et. al. activities! So in the absence of governmental > involvement there will be no involvement from those parts of the world > at all. see above. > > That might serve the interests of some quite well, but not > surprisingly the folks in those countries without representation are > beginning to feel somewhat aggrieved. Representation is not how IG is done. Governments get to say (usually) how a country code telephone numbering system is managed. They don't get the same control over how CIR's are managed. They may WANT it, but that is not reality based thinking. > > The desire to keep governments out of technical areas is very likely a > commendable one, but in that instance it behooves the supporters of > that position to find some other means to ensure that those currently > without a voice in those discussions are provided with a means to have > such a participation. I don't want to keep governements out of technical areas, not at all!! Last week we had a meeting of the African governmanetal Working Group at the African Internet Summit. It is a method of bringing them IN to the tech/policy side of things! > > The status quo always favours the incumbent. true....I would suggest that your map of the status quo is out of date. -- 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 ocl at gih.com Tue May 29 15:32:31 2012 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 21:32:31 +0200 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FC5244F.40402@gih.com> On 29/05/2012 19:31, McTim wrote : > that MAY be the case. However, that has NOT been my experience living > in Africa for the last 7 years. There are both biz folks AND CS > actively involved in both real and meta-IG activities locally, > regionally and globally. this was re-affirmed earlier this month in > the Gambia, where I met dozens of young Africans from all over the > continent eager to be involved in ISOC/ICANN/RIR/IGF et. al. > activities! Certainly in Africa, AFRALO brings input into the ICANN processes from many At-Large structures. http://www.atlarge.icann.org/maps/afralo It is worth noting that recent improvements in Internet connectivity make remote participation from At-Large Structures in remote locations more possible, especially with recent advances in Voice over IP. I have noticed a real operational improvement within the past 12 months. Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue May 29 15:58:07 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 15:58:07 -0400 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/29/12, michael gurstein wrote: > Glad to see some of the developments you are pointing to but I'm not sure > that "dozens" of fledgling swallows make a spring, at least not yet... You miss the point, there are dozens at each meeting I go to, and many more I haven't met , in addition to the many, many folk who have become involved in the last decade. 2005 was the Spring, we are into summer now! -- 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 qshatti at gmail.com Wed May 30 02:07:15 2012 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai Al-Shatti) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 09:07:15 +0300 Subject: [governance] which list: cpsr or igcaucus In-Reply-To: References: <200AF330-EFF2-49AC-BC18-178C98F12FA2@ciroap.org> <9k02L4c9N6wPFAyT@internetpolicyagency.com> <2e35ff7cbe674c114282544d0fe48a29@ciroap.org> <658A156F-207E-4E1F-99E3-F7E3D07DB76B@acm.org> Message-ID: Dear Izumi and Salanieta: Thank you for the clarification. Regards, Qusai AlShatti On 29/05/2012, at 20:52, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: > For the record, the Coordinators did not re-activate the cpsr list. People have been asked to use the new list which is the igcaucus. > > Kind Regards, > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 30 03:12:06 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 09:12:06 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <5D03B22C05B84114A6AAE4931FF07A0F@UserVAIO> (message from michael gurstein on Tue, 29 May 2012 10:34:55 -0700) References: <5D03B22C05B84114A6AAE4931FF07A0F@UserVAIO> Message-ID: <20120530071206.710B61F5A@quill.bollow.ch> Michael Gurstein wrote: > (And no, I'm not absolutely sure that "it is possible to "separate out > technical from policy issues"' but I am completely sure that it is not a > productive, useful, or in the long term beneficial strategy to leave the > "policy" issues to be addressed in what is largely a "technical" forum (or > forums)--wrong people, wrong mind-sets, wrong framing of issues etc.etc. > > How to get the right (mix of) people, right mind-sets, right framing of > issues together to address these issues is I think what we are currently > talking about on this list. The mix certainly should include technical folks > (if for no other reason than to ensure that the non-technical folks don't > bollocks up the technical matters) but the issues that need to be addressed > go way beyond anything that technical folks have any useful input into (as > technical folks) and need to be addressed by the array/mix appropriate to > the particular issue or issues. Ok... I'm strongly in agreement with all of that. And I'd add that in addition to the right mix of people, we also need processes that ensure a meritocracy of arguments in the sense that when a strong argument comes from a politically and economically weak stakeholder group, this strong argument will have greater weight than any position which is supported only by much weaker arguments, regardless of how economically and politically strong the stakeholder may be who makes those weaker arguments. 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 pranesh at cis-india.org Wed May 30 03:21:14 2012 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 12:51:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] Neelie Kroes's Next Steps on Net Neutrality Message-ID: <4FC5CA6A.2060601@cis-india.org> Dear all, EU Commissioner Neelie Kroes recently posted this on her blog. > But I do not propose to force each and every operator to provide full Internet: it is for consumers to vote with their feet. If consumers want to obtain discounts because they only plan to use limited online services, why stand in their way? And we don’t want to create obstacles to entrepreneurs who want to provide tailored connected services or service bundles, whether it’s for social networking, music, smart grids, eHealth or whatever. But I want to be sure that these consumers are aware of what they are getting, and what they are missing. ## Next steps on Net Neutrality – making sure you get champagne service if that’s what you’re paying for May 29th, 2012 When it comes to the issue of “net neutrality” I want to ensure that Internet users can always choose full Internet access – that is, access to a robust, best-efforts Internet with all the applications you wish. But I don’t like to intervene in competitive markets unless I am sure this is the only way to help either consumers or companies. Preferably both. In particular because a badly designed remedy may be worse than the disease – producing unforeseen harmful effects long into the future. So I wanted better data before acting on net neutrality. [One year ago][], I asked BEREC, the body of European network regulators, to give me the evidence: are users provided with the right quality of service? How much blocking and throttling is taking place? In practice, how easy is it for users to “switch” operators or services? In short, how easy is it for consumers to transparently choose the service that works for them, including full Internet access if they want it? I also asked European national legislators and regulators to wait for better evidence before regulating on an uncoordinated, [country-by-country basis][] that slows down the creation of a Digital Single Market. BEREC has [today][] provided the data I was waiting for. For most Europeans, their Internet access works well most of the time. But these findings show the need for more regulatory certainty and that there are enough problems to warrant strong and targeted action to safeguard consumers. For the first time we know that at least 20%, and potentially up to half of EU mobile broadband users have contracts that allow their Internet service provider (ISP) to restrict services like VOIP (e.g. Skype) or peer-to-peer file sharing. Around 20% of fixed operators (spread across virtually all EU member states) apply restrictions such as to limit peer-to-peer volumes at peak times. This can affect up to 95% of users in a country. At the same time, in nearly all Member States, most if not all ISPs offer fixed and mobile Internet access services that are not subject to such restrictions. According to the BEREC figures 85% of all fixed ISPs and 76% of all mobile ISPs propose at least one unrestricted offer. So the market is generally providing choice, but in some countries the choices are quite limited in some EU countries. But are customers really empowered to choose well? Do they realise what they are signing up for? I didn’t read all the pages in my mobile contract and I bet you didn’t either! I believe we all need more transparent information. Given that BEREC’s findings highlight a problem of effective consumer choice, I will prepare recommendations to generate more real choices and end the net neutrality waiting game in Europe. First, consumers need clear information on actual, real-life broadband speeds. Not just the speed at 3 am, but the speed at peak times. The upload as well as the download speed. The minimum speed, if applicable. And the speed you’ll get when you’re also watching IPTV as part of your triple-play bundle, or downloading a video on demand via a premium “managed” service. Plus, you should know what those advertised speeds typically allow you to do online Second, consumers also need clear information on the limits of what they are paying for. Clear, quantified data ceilings are much better than vague “fair use” policies that leave too much discretion to Internet Service Providers (ISPs). They allow low-volume users to look for deals that suit them. And they incentivise ISPs to price data volumes in ways that reflect costs, and so support investment in modernising networks as traditional voice revenues decline. Third, consumers also need to know if they are getting Champagne or lesser sparkling wine. If it is not full Internet, it shouldn’t be marketed as such; perhaps it shouldn’t be marketed as “Internet” at all, at least not without any upfront qualification. Regulators should have that kind of control over how ISPs market the service. But I do not propose to force each and every operator to provide full Internet: it is for consumers to vote with their feet. If consumers want to obtain discounts because they only plan to use limited online services, why stand in their way? And we don’t want to create obstacles to entrepreneurs who want to provide tailored connected services or service bundles, whether it’s for social networking, music, smart grids, eHealth or whatever. But I want to be sure that these consumers are aware of what they are getting, and what they are missing. Our guidance will make it easier to “switch” service providers, and service offers, so that you can choose the market offer that suits you best. And I will continue to monitor the market to ensure that European consumers generally have access to competitive full Internet products, fixed and mobile. At the same time, products that limit Internet access often require monitoring of online traffic, through so-called “packet inspection”. This raises privacy concerns, and we need clear guidance on responsible behaviour by ISPs; and on how consumers can exercise effective and informed control if they opt for such products. I am in favour of an open Internet and maximum choice. That must be protected. But you don’t need me or the EU telling you what sort of Internet services you must pay for. [One year ago]: [country-by-country basis]: [today]: -- 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed May 30 03:33:36 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 17:33:36 +1000 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <20120530071206.710B61F5A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Norbert suggested - >And I'd add that in addition to the right mix of people, we also >need processes that ensure a meritocracy of arguments in the sense >that when a strong argument comes from a politically and economically >weak stakeholder group, this strong argument will have greater weight >than any position which is supported only by much weaker arguments, >regardless of how economically and politically strong the stakeholder >may be who makes those weaker arguments. Well, unlikely in the real world or in standards setting. My limited IETF experience a few years ago, looking at anti-spam measures, put a technically best solution up against the one that Microsoft was prepared to go along with - a weaker solution. But with the Microsoft monopoly in those days, the only solution likely to go anywhere was the one Microsoft was on board with. There would be many parallel examples - router standards need Cisco on board, search standards need Google on board, etc. And in the governmental arena, moving without some of the powerful players is often counter-productive as well. So I think in the real world, the best solutions arent necessarily those adopted, and big doses of pragmatism are necessary, as is accepting small gains when you had hoped for much larger ones. Meanwhile because this is the way the world is the powers that be remain the powers that be. I wish there was another way to do things, but apart from disruptive innovation (and perhaps something to disrupt the internet status quo is exactly what we need!) there is little we can do, except accept compromise in order to make some gains. Ian Peter > From: Norbert Bollow > Reply-To: , Norbert Bollow > Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 09:12:06 +0200 (CEST) > To: > Subject: Re: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality > check on economics) > > And I'd add that in addition to the right mix of people, we also > need processes that ensure a meritocracy of arguments in the sense > that when a strong argument comes from a politically and economically > weak stakeholder group, this strong argument will have greater weight > than any position which is supported only by much weaker arguments, > regardless of how economically and politically strong the stakeholder > may be who makes those weaker arguments. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed May 30 03:47:52 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 19:47:52 +1200 Subject: [Rigf_program] [governance] URGENT - anybody in Bangkok tomorrow? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Peng Hwa. Interesting how the post was 20 days and does that mean that a Notice was served to remove the "offensive content"? We look forward to the updates and thank you for updating us. Kind Regards, Sala On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote: > The news according to AP wire at around lunch time Bangkok today is that > she has been given a suspended sentence of 8 months. > > http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hxzh_NRKiZ3kMcECG3Qfdjep9wRg?docId=2db4b7c640c94ff29eba5a776e9dddba > > What this means is that, assuming the law is the same as in most other > jurisdictions, if she does not break the same law, she will not have to > spend any time in jail. She has paid a fine of US$625. Chiranuch herself > describes the judge's verdict as "logical and reasonable" although she > apparently harbored some hopes of being released. > > The post in question had been left for 20 days, a period the judge > considered too long. (Best/Common practice for intermediary immunity is > five working days.) > > As many of you would know, what you see is often not what you get > because of the political factor in this equation. I will be in Thailand > tomorrow Thursday presenting on media regulation. I will get more > information. > > Regards, > Peng Hwa > > From: Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , > nhklein > Cc: APrIGF > Subject: Re: [Rigf_program] [governance] URGENT - anybody in Bangkok > tomorrow? > > Dear Norbert, > > This is terrible news and not a good precedent and could prove viral > especially in countries that have rule of law issues. > > Hopefully her lawyers can file a Motion to suggestion is to judically > review the Computer Crimes Act (CCA), since it was passed by an unelected > legislature operating under a military-appointed government passed in 2007 > and another to temporarily stay the prosecution whilst the legality of the > provision is being debated. This will give Human Rights Organizations and > civil society to file amicus briefs. > > It may be useful to consider whether it is worthwhile filing an amicus > brief in this instance??? > > For the Attorney General to prosecute Chiranuch Premchaiporn on > someone's whim reeks nothing short of malicious prosecution. It will be > great to know the outcome of the matter. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Norbert Klein wrote: > >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> this came in just now, late for an urgent court date tomorrow. >> >> It relates to a case of freedom of expression and, in this case, >> specifically to a "crime" related to "transitory liability" of Chiranuch >> Premchaiporn - whether or not the provider of an Internet service is >> legally liable for what users do with this service. As this Urgent Appeal >> states: "Her alleged crime, to underscore the point, was that she removed >> the comments [not written by her or by staff of the Prachathai website], >> which consisted of allusions rather than direct references to the royal >> family, with insufficient rapidity." >> >> The question of "transitory liability" may not be central to Internet >> governance - but it is not only discussed in Thailand. I dare to share this >> here, as Chiranuch did participate in the *Asia Pacific Regional >> Internet Governance Forum *in Hongkong in June 2010, at that time >> already under investigation. >> >> >> Norbert >> -- >> Norbert Klein >> >> Website: http://www.thinking21.org >> Website: http://www.isoc-kh.org >> eMail: nhklein at gmx.net >> >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: THAILAND: Court to read >> verdict in landmark freedom of expression case of Chiranuch Premchaiporn – >> call for observers Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 09:11:05 +0200 From: AHRC >> Urgent Appeals To: >> nhklein at gmx.net >> >> >> >> >> ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION -- URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME >> >> Urgent Appeal Update: AHRC-UAU-017-2012 >> >> May 29, 2012 >> >> [RE: AHRC-STM-099-2012: >> THAILAND: Concerns over delayed verdict in criminal case against free media >> advocate] >> *--------------------------------------------------- >> *THAILAND: Court to read verdict in landmark freedom of expression case >> of Chiranuch Premchaiporn – call for observers >> >> ISSUES: Freedom of expression, >> Human rights defenders >> ------------------------------------------- >> >> Dear friends, >> * >> On 30 May 2012, at 10 am in the Criminal Court in Bangkok, the verdict in >> the case of Chiranuch Premchaiporn, charged with ten counts of allegedly >> violating the 2007 Computer Crimes Act in Black Case No. 1667/2553, will be >> read. The reading, which had been scheduled for one month ago, was >> unexpectedly postponed. The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) urges all >> concerned persons to attend the court as observers, and calls on other >> interested persons to follow the case closely. >> >> UPDATED INFORMATION:* >> >> The formal >> proceedings against Chiranuch Premchaiporn, the 44-year-old webmaster >> Prachatai, an independent online news site, began on 3 March 2009, when the >> Criminal Court issued a warrant for her arrest. On 5 March 2009, a warrant >> to search the Prachatai office was issued and the next day police from the >> Crime Suppression Division raided the office and arrested Chiranuch in >> response to one complaint of her alleged violation of the vaguely worded, >> anti-democratic Computer Crimes Act (CCA), which an unelected legislature >> operating under a military-appointed government passed in 2007. The police >> released Chiranuch later that evening, but the next month nine further >> complaints were brought against her. On 31 March 2010, the Office of the >> Attorney General proceeded with the prosecution and she was arrested and >> held at the Criminal Court before again being released on bail. >> >> Reading the above account, we might infer that Chiranuch had published >> some highly inflammatory, dangerous or secret material on the Prachatai >> site that warranted the heavy involvement of specialist police and state >> prosecutors and a series of events involving a raid and detention. In fact, >> her crime was to have not done something: to have failed to remove 10 >> comments alleged to be injurious to the monarchy from the Prachatai >> webboard quickly enough. Her alleged crime, to underscore the point, was >> that she removed the comments, which consisted of allusions rather than >> direct references to the royal family, with insufficient rapidity. >> >> Examination of the specific provisions of the 2007 Computer Crimes Act >> under which these bizarre allegations were brought does not help us to >> clarify the thinking of those responsible for the prosecution of Chiranuch >> Premchaiporn. Under section 14 of the CCA, anyone can be jailed for five >> years if found to have imported to a computer "false computer data in a >> manner that it is likely to damage the country's security or cause a public >> panic… any computer data related with an offence against the Kingdom's >> security under the Criminal Code". Under its section 15, the service >> provider found to have consented to the use of the computer for this >> purpose is equally liable as the person committing the offence, which in >> the case of Chiranuch is the crime of lese majesty, as stipulated in >> section 112 of the Criminal Code, that, "Whoever defames, insults or >> threatens the King, Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be >> punished (with) imprisonment of three to fifteen years." The broad, vague >> provisions of the CCA, and the imprecise way in which it can be linked with >> equally vague provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with national >> security, post clear and direct threats to the rights of citizens in >> Thailand. The very basis of the allegations against Chiranuch Premchaiporn >> -- that not removing comments deemed to defame, insult, or threaten the >> monarchy, itself an allegation that is unclear, is a threat to national >> security -- threatens to make a mockery of the Court and the meaning of >> justice in Thailand. >> >> The trial hearings occurred in February and September 2011, and February >> 2012, and summaries by Freedom Against Censorship-Thailand are available on >> the campaign webpage that the AHRC has set up for Chiranuch. As these show, >> much of the testimony turned on the interpretation of how the comments that >> she removed tardily, in the opinion of the police and prosecutor, >> constitute criminal content in the meaning of the law. Whether or not a >> written comment on a webpage or link to an image or video is "likely to >> damage the country's security or cause a public panic" is necessarily >> fraught with difficulty, even more so as the Computer Crimes Act does not >> specify what might constitute a likelihood to damage the country's security >> or create a public panic, or even define "security" or "public panic". What >> any of these terms mean, it seems, comes down to the opinion of the judge >> in the individual case. No standards exist to which we can refer. What is >> clear, however, are the effects of this legislation and the absence of >> clear standards contained. Chiranuch Premchaiporn, a long-standing human >> rights defender and media activist, has been forced to endure three years >> of harassment and fear by the Thai state security and legal apparatus. In >> addition, during a critical period in Thailand’s modern history, the >> Prachatai webboard, a crucial site of discussion and debate, was forced to >> shut down, for fear that both users and more of its staff members could >> face additional prosecution. >> >> *The hearings in Chiranuch's case ended in February 2012 and the reading >> of the verdict was set for 30 April 2012. However, 20 minutes before the >> proceedings were to begin*, court staff notified Chiranuch and her >> lawyers that the decision would be delayed for an additional month. The >> rather dubious reason given by the court for the delay was that the judges >> had too many documents to read, and was unable to complete preparing the >> verdict in time for the scheduled date. *In a previous statement >> released at the time of the postponement (AHRC-STM-099-2012), >> the AHRC noted that* both the delay to this case and the explanation for >> the delay were sources of serious concern. Whether caused by the court's >> inefficiency, overwork of the judges, or a more specious strategy to >> subject Chiranuch Premchaiporn to additional harassment and suffering. >> >> On the eve of the re-scheduled reading of the verdict in this case, the >> Asian Human Rights Commission calls on the Criminal Court to ensure that no >> further delays are caused in the reading of this verdict, and that the >> trial be conducted openly, honestly and justly. In particular, given the >> unclarities and lacunae in the Computer Crimes Act, the onus is on the >> judges to act in the service of justice. >> The AHRC urges all those persons and organisations concerned with human >> rights and freedom of expression in Thailand to return to the Criminal >> Court on 30 May 2012 for the re-scheduled reading of the decision to >> observe action in either the service of justice, or to witness its >> foreclosure. >> >> (Visit the AHRC webpage on Chiranuch Premchaiporn at: >> http://www.humanrights.asia/campaigns/chiranuch-prachatai.) >> >> >> Thank you. >> >> Urgent Appeals Programme >> Asian Human Rights Commission (ua at ahrc.asia) >> >> >> *Visit our new website with more features at www.humanrights.asia.* >> >> *You can make a difference. Please support our work and make a donation >> here . * >> >> ----------------------------- >> >> Asian Human Rights Commission >> #701A Westley Square, >> 48 Hoi Yuen Road, Kwun Tong, Kowloon, >> Hongkong S.A.R. >> Tel: +(852) 2698-6339 >> Fax: +(852) 2698-6367 >> Web: humanrights.asia >> twitter/youtube/facebook: humanrightsasia >> >> *Please consider the environment before printing this email.* >> powered by phplist v 2.10.17, © phpList ltd >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and 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 > > > > > ------------------------------ > 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. > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed May 30 03:54:50 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 08:54:50 +0100 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E8CB0@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <20120529155123.ED7C91F5A@quill.bollow.ch> <999E649C059F48358F587715EE298DD8@UserVAIO> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E8CB0@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E8CB0 at SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, at 16:19:47 on Tue, 29 May 2012, Lee W McKnight writes >Whether those attending should be affiliated with government or business or cs is a separate, and variable, issue. > >Info on fellowships for IETF attendees available from ISOC for developing expertise and experience for meaningful participation in IETF is at: > >http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/ietf-fellowships NGLs have to be between 20-40yrs old, although fellows can be any age - but there are quite tight technical restrictions, which look as if they'd rule out the average "telecoms ministry policymaker": o Hold a university-level computer science, information technology, or similar degree, or can demonstrate similar and relevant work experience. o Be employed in a technical or technical management capacity with a data network provider (including university networks), a technology vendor, a local technical association, or other similar organisation OR be a university-level computer science/information technology professor, lecturer, or student currently undertaking research in one or more areas of current IETF standardisation work. Students must be enrolled in a graduate-level program (Masters or Ph.D). etc. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Wed May 30 04:38:40 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 10:38:40 +0200 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FC5DC90.8080200@apc.org> Hi all.. just jumping in on this to respond to McTim and Mike's discussion about ICT business and CS in Africa. I completely agree with McTim on Africa (where I am from and live) being full of ICT entrepreneurs and innovators; technical people and business people who are not into just getting rich, but developing enterprises that will benefit their communities. Don't usually don't call themselves 'social entrepreneurs'. They are just responding to local needs and creating opportunities. These people have been much more effective in supporting ICT's for development than most governmental initiatives. This does not mean I believe we should not pressure/encourage governments to commit and implement... we should.. but often (not always) governments provide the worst of both worlds: - poorly planned ICT related social and eco. programmes - restrictive regulation that limits bottom up innovation and community-based initiatives. This sector is not without its own challenges.. e.g. in South Africa most young tech innovators are white. But as a group they constitute a really positive force.. e.g. when it comes to open source and free software. FOSSFA (well represented on this list) is itself an amazing force and pool of African techie expertise. Our challenge is getting these people involved in the IGF, ICANN, IETF etc. When I talk to them about this their eyes usually glaze over. They are so used to policy/governments not delivering for them that they don't see the point. They do however get involved in national internet/ICT policy discussions quite often. And the techies also lack the resources to travel to meetings. Yes, IETF does not need you to be physically present.. but face-to-face networking at universities, conferences and so on is still in many cases how 'first contact' takes place. As for CS. Agree with McTim there too. Lots of local initiatives. But they don't really see the point of/or have the resources to get into global networks. Or, they are very issue specific.. e.g. working on telecentres, libraries, public access. info literacy and so on. I also find that when such people do make it to the global space the conversations are just not that relevant to them, and the talkers are not that interested in what the people from developing countries have to say. Experiences and issues are just so different - or are expressed in such different ways. Never underestimate the effect of the world being skewed. Usually it is those of us from developing countries who have to make the effort to get into, and stay in, global spaces. We have to do the longer distance traveling (usually). We have to apply for the visas, and deal with horrid exchange rates that make affording being in Europe/NA difficult. And, to apply for a visa you need an invitation from some entity that will be willing to swear you are not an economic migrant. I know that there are special opportunities for supporting and including ICT people from developing countries. This often favours people like myself who get invited as a women, from a developing country to fill quotas on panels. But the barriers to participate are still far greater for people from the developing world. If IG institutions really want to change this I think they should do what some international NGOs have done, like Civicus, APC, and ActionAid: move your internatioinal base to a developing country, or if that is not practical, have most of your international meetings in developing countries. Anriette Anriette On 29/05/2012 19:31, McTim wrote: > On 5/29/12, michael gurstein wrote: >> McTim, >> >> 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. > > > that MAY be the case. However, that has NOT been my experience living > in Africa for the last 7 years. There are both biz folks AND CS > actively involved in both real and meta-IG activities locally, > regionally and globally. this was re-affirmed earlier this month in > the Gambia, where I met dozens of young Africans from all over the > continent eager to be involved in ISOC/ICANN/RIR/IGF et. al. > activities! > > > So in the absence of governmental >> involvement there will be no involvement from those parts of the world at >> all. > > see above. > >> >> That might serve the interests of some quite well, but not surprisingly the >> folks in those countries without representation are beginning to feel >> somewhat aggrieved. > > Representation is not how IG is done. > > Governments get to say (usually) how a country code telephone > numbering system is managed. They don't get the same control over how > CIR's are managed. They may WANT it, but that is not reality based > thinking. > > >> >> The desire to keep governments out of technical areas is very likely a >> commendable one, but in that instance it behooves the supporters of that >> position to find some other means to ensure that those currently without a >> voice in those discussions are provided with a means to have such a >> participation. > > I don't want to keep governements out of technical areas, not at all!! > > Last week we had a meeting of the African governmanetal Working Group > at the African Internet Summit. It is a method of bringing them IN to > the tech/policy side of things! >> >> The status quo always favours the incumbent. > > > true....I would suggest that your map of the status quo is out of date. > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed May 30 04:42:59 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 10:42:59 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Neelie Kroes's Next Steps on Net Neutrality References: <4FC5CA6A.2060601@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDCC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Here are the findings by BEREC and the Commission http://erg.eu.int/doc/consult/bor_12_30_tm-i_snapshot.pdf Could be a subject for EURODIG/IGF wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Pranesh Prakash Gesendet: Mi 30.05.2012 09:21 An: Internet Governance Caucus List Betreff: [governance] Neelie Kroes's Next Steps on Net Neutrality Dear all, EU Commissioner Neelie Kroes recently posted this on her blog. > But I do not propose to force each and every operator to provide full Internet: it is for consumers to vote with their feet. If consumers want to obtain discounts because they only plan to use limited online services, why stand in their way? And we don't want to create obstacles to entrepreneurs who want to provide tailored connected services or service bundles, whether it's for social networking, music, smart grids, eHealth or whatever. But I want to be sure that these consumers are aware of what they are getting, and what they are missing. ## Next steps on Net Neutrality - making sure you get champagne service if that's what you're paying for May 29th, 2012 When it comes to the issue of "net neutrality" I want to ensure that Internet users can always choose full Internet access - that is, access to a robust, best-efforts Internet with all the applications you wish. But I don't like to intervene in competitive markets unless I am sure this is the only way to help either consumers or companies. Preferably both. In particular because a badly designed remedy may be worse than the disease - producing unforeseen harmful effects long into the future. So I wanted better data before acting on net neutrality. [One year ago][], I asked BEREC, the body of European network regulators, to give me the evidence: are users provided with the right quality of service? How much blocking and throttling is taking place? In practice, how easy is it for users to "switch" operators or services? In short, how easy is it for consumers to transparently choose the service that works for them, including full Internet access if they want it? I also asked European national legislators and regulators to wait for better evidence before regulating on an uncoordinated, [country-by-country basis][] that slows down the creation of a Digital Single Market. BEREC has [today][] provided the data I was waiting for. For most Europeans, their Internet access works well most of the time. But these findings show the need for more regulatory certainty and that there are enough problems to warrant strong and targeted action to safeguard consumers. For the first time we know that at least 20%, and potentially up to half of EU mobile broadband users have contracts that allow their Internet service provider (ISP) to restrict services like VOIP (e.g. Skype) or peer-to-peer file sharing. Around 20% of fixed operators (spread across virtually all EU member states) apply restrictions such as to limit peer-to-peer volumes at peak times. This can affect up to 95% of users in a country. At the same time, in nearly all Member States, most if not all ISPs offer fixed and mobile Internet access services that are not subject to such restrictions. According to the BEREC figures 85% of all fixed ISPs and 76% of all mobile ISPs propose at least one unrestricted offer. So the market is generally providing choice, but in some countries the choices are quite limited in some EU countries. But are customers really empowered to choose well? Do they realise what they are signing up for? I didn't read all the pages in my mobile contract and I bet you didn't either! I believe we all need more transparent information. Given that BEREC's findings highlight a problem of effective consumer choice, I will prepare recommendations to generate more real choices and end the net neutrality waiting game in Europe. First, consumers need clear information on actual, real-life broadband speeds. Not just the speed at 3 am, but the speed at peak times. The upload as well as the download speed. The minimum speed, if applicable. And the speed you'll get when you're also watching IPTV as part of your triple-play bundle, or downloading a video on demand via a premium "managed" service. Plus, you should know what those advertised speeds typically allow you to do online Second, consumers also need clear information on the limits of what they are paying for. Clear, quantified data ceilings are much better than vague "fair use" policies that leave too much discretion to Internet Service Providers (ISPs). They allow low-volume users to look for deals that suit them. And they incentivise ISPs to price data volumes in ways that reflect costs, and so support investment in modernising networks as traditional voice revenues decline. Third, consumers also need to know if they are getting Champagne or lesser sparkling wine. If it is not full Internet, it shouldn't be marketed as such; perhaps it shouldn't be marketed as "Internet" at all, at least not without any upfront qualification. Regulators should have that kind of control over how ISPs market the service. But I do not propose to force each and every operator to provide full Internet: it is for consumers to vote with their feet. If consumers want to obtain discounts because they only plan to use limited online services, why stand in their way? And we don't want to create obstacles to entrepreneurs who want to provide tailored connected services or service bundles, whether it's for social networking, music, smart grids, eHealth or whatever. But I want to be sure that these consumers are aware of what they are getting, and what they are missing. Our guidance will make it easier to "switch" service providers, and service offers, so that you can choose the market offer that suits you best. And I will continue to monitor the market to ensure that European consumers generally have access to competitive full Internet products, fixed and mobile. At the same time, products that limit Internet access often require monitoring of online traffic, through so-called "packet inspection". This raises privacy concerns, and we need clear guidance on responsible behaviour by ISPs; and on how consumers can exercise effective and informed control if they opt for such products. I am in favour of an open Internet and maximum choice. That must be protected. But you don't need me or the EU telling you what sort of Internet services you must pay for. [One year ago]: [country-by-country basis]: [today]: -- 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Wed May 30 05:54:57 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 11:54:57 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Neelie Kroes's Next Steps on Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDCC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4FC5CA6A.2060601@cis-india.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDCC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: BEREC's also doing a bunch of work on IP interconnection, including in relation to net neutrality, e.g. this report http://berec.europa.eu/doc/consult/bor_12_33_ip_ic_assessment.pdf and workshop (w/ link to WCIT) http://berec.europa.eu/doc/whatsnew/oecd12_workshop_ipic.pdf Bill On May 30, 2012, at 10:42 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Here are the findings by BEREC and the Commission > > http://erg.eu.int/doc/consult/bor_12_30_tm-i_snapshot.pdf > > > Could be a subject for EURODIG/IGF > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Pranesh Prakash > Gesendet: Mi 30.05.2012 09:21 > An: Internet Governance Caucus List > Betreff: [governance] Neelie Kroes's Next Steps on Net Neutrality > > > > Dear all, > EU Commissioner Neelie Kroes recently posted this on her blog. > >> But I do not propose to force each and every operator to provide full Internet: it is for consumers to vote with their feet. If consumers want to obtain discounts because they only plan to use limited online services, why stand in their way? And we don't want to create obstacles to entrepreneurs who want to provide tailored connected services or service bundles, whether it's for social networking, music, smart grids, eHealth or whatever. But I want to be sure that these consumers are aware of what they are getting, and what they are missing. > > > ## Next steps on Net Neutrality - making sure you get champagne service > if that's what you're paying for > > May 29th, 2012 > > When it comes to the issue of "net neutrality" I want to ensure that > Internet users can always choose full Internet access - that is, access > to a robust, best-efforts Internet with all the applications you wish. > > But I don't like to intervene in competitive markets unless I am sure > this is the only way to help either consumers or companies. Preferably > both. In particular because a badly designed remedy may be worse than > the disease - producing unforeseen harmful effects long into the future. > So I wanted better data before acting on net neutrality. > > [One year ago][], I asked BEREC, the body of European network > regulators, to give me the evidence: are users provided with the right > quality of service? How much blocking and throttling is taking place? In > practice, how easy is it for users to "switch" operators or services? In > short, how easy is it for consumers to transparently choose the service > that works for them, including full Internet access if they want it? > > I also asked European national legislators and regulators to wait for > better evidence before regulating on an uncoordinated, > [country-by-country basis][] that slows down the creation of a Digital > Single Market. > > BEREC has [today][] provided the data I was waiting for. For most > Europeans, their Internet access works well most of the time. But these > findings show the need for more regulatory certainty and that there are > enough problems to warrant strong and targeted action to safeguard > consumers. > > For the first time we know that at least 20%, and potentially up to half > of EU mobile broadband users have contracts that allow their Internet > service provider (ISP) to restrict services like VOIP (e.g. Skype) or > peer-to-peer file sharing. > > Around 20% of fixed operators (spread across virtually all EU member > states) apply restrictions such as to limit peer-to-peer volumes at peak > times. This can affect up to 95% of users in a country. > > At the same time, in nearly all Member States, most if not all ISPs > offer fixed and mobile Internet access services that are not subject to > such restrictions. According to the BEREC figures 85% of all fixed ISPs > and 76% of all mobile ISPs propose at least one unrestricted offer. So > the market is generally providing choice, but in some countries the > choices are quite limited in some EU countries. > > But are customers really empowered to choose well? Do they realise what > they are signing up for? I didn't read all the pages in my mobile > contract and I bet you didn't either! I believe we all need more > transparent information. > > Given that BEREC's findings highlight a problem of effective consumer > choice, I will prepare recommendations to generate more real choices and > end the net neutrality waiting game in Europe. > > First, consumers need clear information on actual, real-life broadband > speeds. Not just the speed at 3 am, but the speed at peak times. The > upload as well as the download speed. The minimum speed, if applicable. > And the speed you'll get when you're also watching IPTV as part of your > triple-play bundle, or downloading a video on demand via a premium > "managed" service. Plus, you should know what those advertised speeds > typically allow you to do online > > Second, consumers also need clear information on the limits of what they > are paying for. Clear, quantified data ceilings are much better than > vague "fair use" policies that leave too much discretion to Internet > Service Providers (ISPs). They allow low-volume users to look for deals > that suit them. And they incentivise ISPs to price data volumes in ways > that reflect costs, and so support investment in modernising networks as > traditional voice revenues decline. > > Third, consumers also need to know if they are getting Champagne or > lesser sparkling wine. If it is not full Internet, it shouldn't be > marketed as such; perhaps it shouldn't be marketed as "Internet" at all, > at least not without any upfront qualification. Regulators should have > that kind of control over how ISPs market the service. > > But I do not propose to force each and every operator to provide full > Internet: it is for consumers to vote with their feet. If consumers want > to obtain discounts because they only plan to use limited online > services, why stand in their way? And we don't want to create obstacles > to entrepreneurs who want to provide tailored connected services or > service bundles, whether it's for social networking, music, smart grids, > eHealth or whatever. But I want to be sure that these consumers are > aware of what they are getting, and what they are missing. > > Our guidance will make it easier to "switch" service providers, and > service offers, so that you can choose the market offer that suits you > best. And I will continue to monitor the market to ensure that European > consumers generally have access to competitive full Internet products, > fixed and mobile. > > At the same time, products that limit Internet access often require > monitoring of online traffic, through so-called "packet inspection". > This raises privacy concerns, and we need clear guidance on responsible > behaviour by ISPs; and on how consumers can exercise effective and > informed control if they opt for such products. > > I am in favour of an open Internet and maximum choice. That must be > protected. But you don't need me or the EU telling you what sort of > Internet services you must pay for. > > [One year ago]: > > [country-by-country basis]: > > [today]: > > -- > Pranesh Prakash · Programme Manager · Centre for Internet and Society > @pranesh_prakash · PGP ID 0x1D5C5F07 · http://cis-india.org > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed May 30 05:55:42 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 11:55:42 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: (message from Ian Peter on Wed, 30 May 2012 17:33:36 +1000) References: Message-ID: <20120530095542.2F2031F5A@quill.bollow.ch> Ian Peter wrote: > Norbert suggested - > >And I'd add that in addition to the right mix of people, we also > >need processes that ensure a meritocracy of arguments in the sense > >that when a strong argument comes from a politically and economically > >weak stakeholder group, this strong argument will have greater weight > >than any position which is supported only by much weaker arguments, > >regardless of how economically and politically strong the stakeholder > >may be who makes those weaker arguments. > > Well, unlikely in the real world or in standards setting. Ok, here we get to a key point: Is what I'm asking for achievable, at least to a significant extent and in the long run, provided that a strategy with this objective is adopted now and then vigorously pursued? I assert that yes, this is indeed achievable, and therefore this objective ought to be pursued. > My limited IETF experience a few years ago, looking at anti-spam > measures, put a technically best solution up against the one that > Microsoft was prepared to go along with - a weaker solution. But > with the Microsoft monopoly in those days, the only solution likely > to go anywhere was the one Microsoft was on board with. Ok, sure, but this is IMO not so much a problem with IETF's decision making processes but with lack of practical ability to effectively introduce into the market something that Microsoft did not want. In my eyes, a major point of this Enhanced Cooperation idea that we're talking about is that when a number of governments decide to cooperate in a truly enhanced way, they're not going to be hobbled by lack of practical ability to actually get implemented whatever is determined to be the best choice. In the example of Microsoft signalling that they're not willing to implement certain ideas, governments that want those ideas implemented have the power to (1) fund implementation of the idea as FOSS (2) get a technical specification of the idea approved as an International Standard (3) insist on conformance to this standard in public procurement, or even as a precondition for marketing products in the country Microsoft would be free to either conform to the standard or withdraw from those markets. But in either scenario what was determined to be the best choice from a policy perspective can be ensured to become not only a theoretical but also de facto standard, regardless of whether Miccrosoft likes it or not. > There would be many parallel examples - router standards need Cisco on > board, search standards need Google on board, etc. And given that Microsoft, Cisco and Google are all US companies, nobody should be surprised when a significant part of the rest of the world considers this concentration of power to be unacceptable. > And in the governmental arena, moving without some of the powerful > players is often counter-productive as well. Yes. That's why I'm not proposing to base the procedures and institutions of Enhanced Cooperation on what I currently see in the governmental arena. > So I think in the real world, the best solutions arent necessarily those > adopted, and big doses of pragmatism are necessary, as is accepting small > gains when you had hoped for much larger ones. Meanwhile because this is the > way the world is the powers that be remain the powers that be. I wish there > was another way to do things, but apart from disruptive innovation (and > perhaps something to disrupt the internet status quo is exactly what we > need!) there is little we can do, except accept compromise in order to make > some gains. There is value in both, but IMO the kind of Enhanced Cooperation that I am proposing is a great opportunity to disrupt thet status quo in a very positive way. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed May 30 06:12:27 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 15:42:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <4FC4FE4A.6040000@apc.org> 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> Message-ID: <4FC5F28B.6080505@itforchange.net> Hi All As discussed recently with Anriette in Geneva, ITfC welcomes a serious engagement with the enhanced cooperation (EC) issue at the IGF. Since a new workshop proposal may be difficult to push in at this stage, one day pre-IGF event should be the best way to do it. I dont think it would work to do a joint thing with GigaNet because GigaNet has an intense, pre-determined program of a rather different nature than the kind of practical and political discussion we are looking to engage in vis a vis EC. However, there are important overlapping actors with interest in both, which problem I am not sure how to deal with. But I think a meeting on EC should be a separate one day thing for it to be effective at all. Also, if we are indeed to avoid the typical 'exegesis of TA' (Avri) or go beyond discussing the 'Tao of EC' (Bill) we will need to start sorting out and perhaps agree on categories of discussion, at least to the extent possible. This also mean that we should be open to first discuss this issue thoroughly on the IGC list, trying to get our basic categories right, but also to build relatively clear set of alternative positions and institutional models. Such preparation alone will give meat and meaning to a discussion at the IGF. I think there are two key sides of the EC issue - (1) on tech gov side, the current unilateral oversight of CIRs is the main issue, and some concerns about capture of tech standards bodies an additional issue (2) on the side of social, eco, cultural policies pertaining to the Internet, with global significance, the kind of work OECD's Committee on ICCP does is the main focus, along with other instances of uni- and pluri-lateralism, and also increasing dominance of private regulation.... If anyone want to suggest some other schema, sure, it is most welcome. But we must first develop a basic level of agreement on categories and key issue areas for discussion before we try to seek substantive convergences on the way forward, solutions, appropriate institutional models etc. parminder On Tuesday 29 May 2012 10:20 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Hi all.. also responding to Avri's prodding of the MAG... > > I think reopening workshop proposals will be contested, but it is not > impossible. > > If the IGC wants to re-jig its proposal that is also good. I would not > let go of talking about IGF improvements however.. it is important. > Particularly how we deal with outcomes/messages etc. > > We can also propose that EC be addressed in the CIR and Taking Stock > main sessions by making sure there is mention of it in the next version > of the programme paper. > > Discussion at regional IGFs will also be very valuable, and can feed > into Baku, directly or indirectly. > > But a longer-term strategy would be, in my view, to do the pre-event, > have some focus during the IGF, hopefully strengthened by the pre-event, > and then make sure we use the open consultation next Feb to get a main > session on this topic at the Indonesia IGF. > > Personally I really think it is time to introduce new main session > themes.. and this is one that will not go away. > > Hopefully by next year we will also be able to focus on specific issues > (and not a Tao of EC, quoting Bill) as mentioned by several people on > the list and look at concrete options for resolving some of these issues > such as those proposed by Parminder and responded to by Milton earlier > today. > > As far as an open forum is concerned.. I doubt that the MAG will be open > to changing this format. As Bill pointed out, open forums are for > institutions, or events, to share what they do. It was created precisely > because some institutions used workshops to share information about > (promote) their activities. > > Lee.. one more thought on and event the day after.. APC has tried on > several occasions to have project meetings on the day after the event as > we usually bring people to the IGF with funding for a specific project. > > It has not worked well for us.. we are so tired by then that we are > pretty useless at having serious discussion. > > A pre-event will clash with Giganet and the ministerial, and ISOC. I am > hoping we can find a way of collaborating with Giganet as we did last > year. We are talking with ISOC to see how they feel about this. > > As for governments.. ministers do not travel without the people that > brief them. If we can get some of those for even 50% of the duration of > our pre-event it will be valuable. And, if the event is planned > well-enough we might even get additional government people that were not > planning to go to the IGF at all. > > Anriette > > > > On 29/05/2012 18:28, Lee W McKnight wrote: > >> Thanks Anriette, >> >> I thought folks were saying that the pre-event Ministerial precluded governments from participating in an advance EC event. >> >> My hunch is still a 'coalition of the willing and able' - whether willing because they wish for progress on EC, or fear it - would adjust plans and stick around for the CS-led after-event discussion. Including - some - government reps. Who tend to have more flexibility and ease in adjusting travel arrangements than broke CS types. But, if the same objective can be served within an Open Session of IGF, as Izumi suggests, that might be even better. >> >> And as noted, it was just my 2 cents, if not feasible or useful, or if advance event works...never mind. >> >> Lee >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Anriette Esterhuysen [anriette at apc.org] >> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 11:40 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation >> >> Dear Lee >> >> The problem with this is that we are not likely to get government >> participation, and, I really believe that we do need to get particularly >> developing country government voices. If the EC meeting overlaps with >> the ministerial we are more likely to get gov participants. >> >> We had very good participation in the human rights pre-event we convened >> last year in Nairobi. >> >> But a post IGF civil society meeting could still be a good idea.. to >> focus on the views and debates among civil society on EC. Problem is >> also cost though.. and as there are already several other events the day >> before, it is more likely people are planning to be there already. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 29/05/2012 16:53, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> >>> If I may make a suggestion: >>> >>> Saturday Nov. 10th is a travel day for folks returning from IGF 2012. Rather than jam into a crowded schedule before the event, invite people to stick around after IGF 2012, for an extraordinary session on enhanced cooperation in Internet Governance. A through discussion of Parminder's views and others could be among those featured; we need some controversy to drum up interest. >>> >>> That session whatever it is called would of course be loosely associated with, but not sanctioned by IGF. Hence there is no need to run by the MAG except as a courtesy. It could be hosted by IGC and staffed by attending CS groups. >>> >>> We would of course invite the technical and business communities, governments, and international organizations, each in their respective roles ; ). But seeing as it is an unofficial event, everyone can relax since nothing official can happen. >>> >>> Except perhaps some endorsement of Wolfgang's Internet Declaration, and/or IRP's 10 Internet Rights and Principles. For examples of two possible outcomes. (And because of the fear/worry we might actually do/say something, we can expect a reasonably MSH attendance. Even if the event itself is explicitly CS putting its foot down and insisting we will not be left out of the discussion/definition of enhanced cooperation.) >>> >>> The beauty of this in my opinion is noone can object to folks getting together on a Saturday, and being extra nerdy and trying to make sense of the inscrutable. >>> And IGC need ask noone's permission. We would need a venue and someone or some virtual committee to volunteer to pull together. Since the CSTD thing May 18 seems to be agreed to have been a waste of time, why not show folks how CS - enhances cooperation. >>> >>> I'm only volunteering my 2 cents, and to remotely participate from sunny Syracuse. >>> >>> Lee >>> >>> PS: The worst headline we can anticipate is 'People threaten to provide oversight to the Internet' or some such, so politically speaking I think we can get away with this. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:54 AM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation >>> >>> In message<463E2160-45C0-42EE-AE0F-810B41F955F1 at acm.org>, at 07:40:58 >>> on Tue, 29 May 2012, Avri Doria writes >>> >>>> And we were told quite specifically by the hosts that their Ministerial >>>> had NOTHING to do with the IGF, so it makes no sense to let that stand >>>> in the way of anything. >>>> >>> Any diary clash that prevents an important stakeholder group from >>> attending should be taken into consideration. >>> >>> It's irrelevant whether or not the clashing event is part of the same >>> process. eg If there was a special intersessional ICANN GAC meeting that >>> Monday, which is certainly not part of the IGF, it would be rude to >>> arrange an event to clash with it. >>> -- >>> Roland Perry >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Wed May 30 06:30:05 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 12:30:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] Neelie Kroes's Next Steps on Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: <4FC5CA6A.2060601@cis-india.org> References: <4FC5CA6A.2060601@cis-india.org> Message-ID: It would be relevant to hear Neely Kroes on ICANN monopoly. But that's taboo in the European Commission. EC neutrality is not on the agenda. - - - On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > Dear all, > EU Commissioner Neelie Kroes recently posted this on her blog. > > > But I do not propose to force each and every operator to provide full > Internet: it is for consumers to vote with their feet. If consumers want to > obtain discounts because they only plan to use limited online services, why > stand in their way? And we don’t want to create obstacles to entrepreneurs > who want to provide tailored connected services or service bundles, whether > it’s for social networking, music, smart grids, eHealth or whatever. But I > want to be sure that these consumers are aware of what they are getting, > and what they are missing. > > [..] > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed May 30 06:37:11 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 13:37:11 +0300 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: <4FBEDFAA.9070206@ITforChange.net> <4FC4955C.90908@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4FC5F857.8070607@gmail.com> Thanks. Not sure what "Recipients are expected to actively participate in and contribute to ICANN processes, both at the meeting and in the future." means though... But lets see... On 2012/05/29 01:47 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Riaz, hi. > > Copied from another list: > >> ICANN's Fellowship programme has now opened >> for applications for travel funding to the Toronto >> meeting: >> Applications are welcome until 8 July. >> > Try it? Though fellowships tend to slightly favor applicants from the > region where the meeting's being held. > > Adam > > > > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >> Guru >> >> The questions you pose are important and not adequately addressed under this >> header, especially as regards principled positions. There is adequate >> attention paid to reform (which is essentially about "effectiveness") but >> less about principled (or dare I say it on this list "radical") positions. >> International law, or governance, is both about effectiveness AND >> legitimacy. Without this parallax view, these discussions become mired in >> convolutions as the subject matter (and/or goal) is not clearly articulated >> - i.e. terrain specificity. >> >> It is NOT possible to argue or intimate that ICANN is legitimate, even >> though some try to do so. It may be effective, like IETF, but legitimacy >> will always be elusive, given current arrangements. Inadequacies abound >> about the lack of legitimacy, gTlds, intellectual property and also the >> thwarting of the will of many poor countries to have some legitimate control >> over CIR. Unless one has ideological (or pay check) blinkers this ought to >> be a moot point. For many on this list, it is not, and will not in the >> foreseeable future. >> >> On reform, there are many avenues to follow, often dictated by the realm of >> possibility that is severely constrained given current predilections. And >> more attention needs to be given to these elements from a principled stance >> as Gurstein has ventured. What I would really like to hear more about is the >> problem of marrying the technical with the non-technical as there is a >> dialectical relationship between the two (tech is tech, but tech is also law >> as Lessig puts it). But the debate would need to move away from the >> pedestrian one, "if it aint broke don't fix it" or "where is your >> alternative" as if these cannot be created, as if ICANN et al have not >> reinvented themselves to make themselves seem more legitimate dolling out >> dosh and following the Iraq& Afghanistan pacification strategy post >> invasion. >> >> There are improvements that need to be made, but I am not sure the >> imagination has been sufficiently decolonised (in general) to even pursue >> some of the inquiries you pose and perhaps some more reality is needed on >> these matters... >> >> >> On 2012/05/25 04:26 AM, Guru गुरु wrote: >> >> >> ask ourselves how we can make the current IG more democratic. >> >> >> >> >> >> Who pays the price for the current IG regimes and lack of its accountability >> to the "global society"? Conversely, who does it benefit disproportionately? >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 30 06:47:18 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 16:17:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <4FC5F28B.6080505@itforchange.net> References: <4E3DE84E-EC35-405B-905C-5E9542B076A@acm.org> <4FC37B66.4060403@apc.org> <4FC381CA.9000803@apc.org> <28BE3422-B8D4-4C46-8310-1AF819281B8F@ella.com> <4FC395E5.90603@apc.org> <60B40984-73B9-4788-B616-EEB5E144CED5@ella.com> <463E2160-45C0-42EE-AE0F-810B41F955F1@acm.org>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E8B98@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<4FC4EDF9.1010108@apc.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E8CC3@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FC4FE4A.6040000@apc.org> <4FC5F28B.6080505@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4FC5FAB6.1010200@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 30 May 2012 03:42 PM, parminder wrote: > Hi All > > As discussed recently with Anriette in Geneva, ITfC welcomes a serious > engagement with the enhanced cooperation (EC) issue at the IGF. SInce the fervour for an IGF based discussion on enhanced cooperation (EC) seems to have formed with some suddenness, and some have even expressed surprise as to why was EC never discussed at the IGF, a little of recent history may be useful to recollect. Even at the Nairobi IGF, Marilia's and my organisation had a workshop on 'Global Internet related public policies – Is there an Institutional Gap? ' which for the organisers was rather directly an EC workshop without the name, is it not? Going back to the early days of the IGF, the IGF establishment firmly blocked any reference to EC in MAG discussion, and ITfC proposal for a workshop on EC for the 2008 IGF was formally turned down, and we had to rope in the Brazilian government to support our proposal whereby finally EC became a part of the CIR main session discussion.... While I am at it, I do find it rather interesting to hear rather strong and concerted suggestions that the IGF should have working groups (WGs), and even issue recommendations, on EC. We are just a few months away from the time when the CSTD WG on IGF improvements folded up. At the CSTD WG, some of us forcefully advocated for the IGF to form WGs and to come up with recommendations (these demands were also part of India's IGF reform proposal), but found little support, and lot of passive resistance, including among those who now seem to want such WGs/ recs for EC. Maybe an explanation by the concerned can be helpful :) .... parminder > Since a new workshop proposal may be difficult to push in at this > stage, one day pre-IGF event should be the best way to do it. I dont > think it would work to do a joint thing with GigaNet because GigaNet > has an intense, pre-determined program of a rather different nature > than the kind of practical and political discussion we are looking to > engage in vis a vis EC. However, there are important overlapping > actors with interest in both, which problem I am not sure how to deal > with. But I think a meeting on EC should be a separate one day thing > for it to be effective at all. > > Also, if we are indeed to avoid the typical 'exegesis of TA' (Avri) or > go beyond discussing the 'Tao of EC' (Bill) we will need to start > sorting out and perhaps agree on categories of discussion, at least to > the extent possible. This also mean that we should be open to first > discuss this issue thoroughly on the IGC list, trying to get our basic > categories right, but also to build relatively clear set of > alternative positions and institutional models. Such preparation alone > will give meat and meaning to a discussion at the IGF. > > I think there are two key sides of the EC issue - (1) on tech gov > side, the current unilateral oversight of CIRs is the main issue, and > some concerns about capture of tech standards bodies an additional > issue (2) on the side of social, eco, cultural policies pertaining to > the Internet, with global significance, the kind of work OECD's > Committee on ICCP does is the main focus, along with other instances > of uni- and pluri-lateralism, and also increasing dominance of private > regulation.... > > If anyone want to suggest some other schema, sure, it is most welcome. > But we must first develop a basic level of agreement on categories and > key issue areas for discussion before we try to seek substantive > convergences on the way forward, solutions, appropriate institutional > models etc. > > parminder > > > > On Tuesday 29 May 2012 10:20 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> Hi all.. also responding to Avri's prodding of the MAG... >> >> I think reopening workshop proposals will be contested, but it is not >> impossible. >> >> If the IGC wants to re-jig its proposal that is also good. I would not >> let go of talking about IGF improvements however.. it is important. >> Particularly how we deal with outcomes/messages etc. >> >> We can also propose that EC be addressed in the CIR and Taking Stock >> main sessions by making sure there is mention of it in the next version >> of the programme paper. >> >> Discussion at regional IGFs will also be very valuable, and can feed >> into Baku, directly or indirectly. >> >> But a longer-term strategy would be, in my view, to do the pre-event, >> have some focus during the IGF, hopefully strengthened by the pre-event, >> and then make sure we use the open consultation next Feb to get a main >> session on this topic at the Indonesia IGF. >> >> Personally I really think it is time to introduce new main session >> themes.. and this is one that will not go away. >> >> Hopefully by next year we will also be able to focus on specific issues >> (and not a Tao of EC, quoting Bill) as mentioned by several people on >> the list and look at concrete options for resolving some of these issues >> such as those proposed by Parminder and responded to by Milton earlier >> today. >> >> As far as an open forum is concerned.. I doubt that the MAG will be open >> to changing this format. As Bill pointed out, open forums are for >> institutions, or events, to share what they do. It was created precisely >> because some institutions used workshops to share information about >> (promote) their activities. >> >> Lee.. one more thought on and event the day after.. APC has tried on >> several occasions to have project meetings on the day after the event as >> we usually bring people to the IGF with funding for a specific project. >> >> It has not worked well for us.. we are so tired by then that we are >> pretty useless at having serious discussion. >> >> A pre-event will clash with Giganet and the ministerial, and ISOC. I am >> hoping we can find a way of collaborating with Giganet as we did last >> year. We are talking with ISOC to see how they feel about this. >> >> As for governments.. ministers do not travel without the people that >> brief them. If we can get some of those for even 50% of the duration of >> our pre-event it will be valuable. And, if the event is planned >> well-enough we might even get additional government people that were not >> planning to go to the IGF at all. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> On 29/05/2012 18:28, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> >>> Thanks Anriette, >>> >>> I thought folks were saying that the pre-event Ministerial precluded governments from participating in an advance EC event. >>> >>> My hunch is still a 'coalition of the willing and able' - whether willing because they wish for progress on EC, or fear it - would adjust plans and stick around for the CS-led after-event discussion. Including - some - government reps. Who tend to have more flexibility and ease in adjusting travel arrangements than broke CS types. But, if the same objective can be served within an Open Session of IGF, as Izumi suggests, that might be even better. >>> >>> And as noted, it was just my 2 cents, if not feasible or useful, or if advance event works...never mind. >>> >>> Lee >>> >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Anriette Esterhuysen [anriette at apc.org] >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 11:40 AM >>> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation >>> >>> Dear Lee >>> >>> The problem with this is that we are not likely to get government >>> participation, and, I really believe that we do need to get particularly >>> developing country government voices. If the EC meeting overlaps with >>> the ministerial we are more likely to get gov participants. >>> >>> We had very good participation in the human rights pre-event we convened >>> last year in Nairobi. >>> >>> But a post IGF civil society meeting could still be a good idea.. to >>> focus on the views and debates among civil society on EC. Problem is >>> also cost though.. and as there are already several other events the day >>> before, it is more likely people are planning to be there already. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> On 29/05/2012 16:53, Lee W McKnight wrote: >>> >>>> If I may make a suggestion: >>>> >>>> Saturday Nov. 10th is a travel day for folks returning from IGF 2012. Rather than jam into a crowded schedule before the event, invite people to stick around after IGF 2012, for an extraordinary session on enhanced cooperation in Internet Governance. A through discussion of Parminder's views and others could be among those featured; we need some controversy to drum up interest. >>>> >>>> That session whatever it is called would of course be loosely associated with, but not sanctioned by IGF. Hence there is no need to run by the MAG except as a courtesy. It could be hosted by IGC and staffed by attending CS groups. >>>> >>>> We would of course invite the technical and business communities, governments, and international organizations, each in their respective roles ; ). But seeing as it is an unofficial event, everyone can relax since nothing official can happen. >>>> >>>> Except perhaps some endorsement of Wolfgang's Internet Declaration, and/or IRP's 10 Internet Rights and Principles. For examples of two possible outcomes. (And because of the fear/worry we might actually do/say something, we can expect a reasonably MSH attendance. Even if the event itself is explicitly CS putting its foot down and insisting we will not be left out of the discussion/definition of enhanced cooperation.) >>>> >>>> The beauty of this in my opinion is noone can object to folks getting together on a Saturday, and being extra nerdy and trying to make sense of the inscrutable. >>>> And IGC need ask noone's permission. We would need a venue and someone or some virtual committee to volunteer to pull together. Since the CSTD thing May 18 seems to be agreed to have been a waste of time, why not show folks how CS - enhances cooperation. >>>> >>>> I'm only volunteering my 2 cents, and to remotely participate from sunny Syracuse. >>>> >>>> Lee >>>> >>>> PS: The worst headline we can anticipate is 'People threaten to provide oversight to the Internet' or some such, so politically speaking I think we can get away with this. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:54 AM >>>> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation >>>> >>>> In message<463E2160-45C0-42EE-AE0F-810B41F955F1 at acm.org>, at 07:40:58 >>>> on Tue, 29 May 2012, Avri Doria writes >>>> >>>>> And we were told quite specifically by the hosts that their Ministerial >>>>> had NOTHING to do with the IGF, so it makes no sense to let that stand >>>>> in the way of anything. >>>>> >>>> Any diary clash that prevents an important stakeholder group from >>>> attending should be taken into consideration. >>>> >>>> It's irrelevant whether or not the clashing event is part of the same >>>> process. eg If there was a special intersessional ICANN GAC meeting that >>>> Monday, which is certainly not part of the IGF, it would be rude to >>>> arrange an event to clash with it. >>>> -- >>>> Roland Perry >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>> www.apc.org >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> south africa >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> >>> >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed May 30 06:55:10 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 19:55:10 +0900 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <4FC5F857.8070607@gmail.com> References: <4FBEDFAA.9070206@ITforChange.net> <4FC4955C.90908@gmail.com> <4FC5F857.8070607@gmail.com> Message-ID: It's quite a tough program, a lot of work. Regular meetings of the Fellows each morning before the main meeting sessions start, briefings from various ICANN "insiders" (the various chairs, committee and working group members etc.) Fellows are encouraged to engage with their colleagues, support eachother, and follow various tracks during the meeting. ICANN's processes are complex, issues pretty arcane and hard to penetrate for people attending the first few times. And then they report back after the meeting both to the Fellow program and to some local networks. Much more than a travel program, tries to help people understand what ICANN does and to be quickly able to contribute. Seeing it from the outside it seems well designed, past Fellows generally speak highly of it, and I think there are a few on this list. And yes, critical voices fine. Adam On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Thanks. > > Not sure what "Recipients are expected to actively participate in and > contribute to ICANN processes, both at the meeting and in the future." means > though... > > But lets see... > > On 2012/05/29 01:47 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > > Riaz, hi. > > Copied from another list: > > ICANN's Fellowship programme has now opened > for applications for travel funding to the Toronto > meeting: > Applications are welcome until 8 July. > > Try it? Though fellowships tend to slightly favor applicants from the > region where the meeting's being held. > > Adam > > > > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > Guru > > The questions you pose are important and not adequately addressed under this > header, especially as regards principled positions. There is adequate > attention paid to reform (which is essentially about "effectiveness") but > less about principled (or dare I say it on this list "radical") positions. > International law, or governance, is both about effectiveness AND > legitimacy. Without this parallax view, these discussions become mired in > convolutions as the subject matter (and/or goal) is not clearly articulated > - i.e. terrain specificity. > > It is NOT possible to argue or intimate that ICANN is legitimate, even > though some try to do so. It may be effective, like IETF, but legitimacy > will always be elusive, given current arrangements. Inadequacies abound > about the lack of legitimacy, gTlds, intellectual property and also the > thwarting of the will of many poor countries to have some legitimate control > over CIR. Unless one has ideological (or pay check) blinkers this ought to > be a moot point. For many on this list, it is not, and will not in the > foreseeable future. > > On reform, there are many avenues to follow, often dictated by the realm of > possibility that is severely constrained given current predilections. And > more attention needs to be given to these elements from a principled stance > as Gurstein has ventured. What I would really like to hear more about is the > problem of marrying the technical with the non-technical as there is a > dialectical relationship between the two (tech is tech, but tech is also law > as Lessig puts it). But the debate would need to move away from the > pedestrian one, "if it aint broke don't fix it" or "where is your > alternative" as if these cannot be created, as if ICANN et al have not > reinvented themselves to make themselves seem more legitimate dolling out > dosh and following the Iraq & Afghanistan pacification strategy post > invasion. > > There are improvements that need to be made, but I am not sure the > imagination has been sufficiently decolonised (in general) to even pursue > some of the inquiries you pose and perhaps some more reality is needed on > these matters... > > > On 2012/05/25 04:26 AM, Guru गुरु wrote: > > >   ask ourselves how we can make the current IG more democratic. > > > > > > Who pays the price for the current IG regimes and lack of its accountability > to the "global society"? Conversely, who does it benefit disproportionately? > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 30 08:48:27 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 05:48:27 -0700 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <4FC5DC90.8080200@apc.org> Message-ID: Just to be clear, my original back and forth with McTim was not around ICT4D or the general state of the IT industry or CS in Africa but had to do with ensuring that there were voices from LDC's who would have the opportunity to participate in discussions around CIR's -- the quote from McTim which I responded to was "nation states should have zero "control" over CIRs", rich or poor!" I would be delighted to have a discussion (I assume in a different venue) on the role of governments in ICT4D initiatives where I generally agree with Annriette in her analysis of the relative effectiveness of governments versus CS but am unclear as to what longer term strategies she might derive from this. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 1:39 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) Hi all.. just jumping in on this to respond to McTim and Mike's discussion about ICT business and CS in Africa. I completely agree with McTim on Africa (where I am from and live) being full of ICT entrepreneurs and innovators; technical people and business people who are not into just getting rich, but developing enterprises that will benefit their communities. Don't usually don't call themselves 'social entrepreneurs'. They are just responding to local needs and creating opportunities. These people have been much more effective in supporting ICT's for development than most governmental initiatives. This does not mean I believe we should not pressure/encourage governments to commit and implement... we should.. but often (not always) governments provide the worst of both worlds: - poorly planned ICT related social and eco. programmes - restrictive regulation that limits bottom up innovation and community-based initiatives. This sector is not without its own challenges.. e.g. in South Africa most young tech innovators are white. But as a group they constitute a really positive force.. e.g. when it comes to open source and free software. FOSSFA (well represented on this list) is itself an amazing force and pool of African techie expertise. Our challenge is getting these people involved in the IGF, ICANN, IETF etc. When I talk to them about this their eyes usually glaze over. They are so used to policy/governments not delivering for them that they don't see the point. They do however get involved in national internet/ICT policy discussions quite often. And the techies also lack the resources to travel to meetings. Yes, IETF does not need you to be physically present.. but face-to-face networking at universities, conferences and so on is still in many cases how 'first contact' takes place. As for CS. Agree with McTim there too. Lots of local initiatives. But they don't really see the point of/or have the resources to get into global networks. Or, they are very issue specific.. e.g. working on telecentres, libraries, public access. info literacy and so on. I also find that when such people do make it to the global space the conversations are just not that relevant to them, and the talkers are not that interested in what the people from developing countries have to say. Experiences and issues are just so different - or are expressed in such different ways. Never underestimate the effect of the world being skewed. Usually it is those of us from developing countries who have to make the effort to get into, and stay in, global spaces. We have to do the longer distance traveling (usually). We have to apply for the visas, and deal with horrid exchange rates that make affording being in Europe/NA difficult. And, to apply for a visa you need an invitation from some entity that will be willing to swear you are not an economic migrant. I know that there are special opportunities for supporting and including ICT people from developing countries. This often favours people like myself who get invited as a women, from a developing country to fill quotas on panels. But the barriers to participate are still far greater for people from the developing world. If IG institutions really want to change this I think they should do what some international NGOs have done, like Civicus, APC, and ActionAid: move your internatioinal base to a developing country, or if that is not practical, have most of your international meetings in developing countries. Anriette Anriette On 29/05/2012 19:31, McTim wrote: > On 5/29/12, michael gurstein wrote: >> McTim, >> >> 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. > > > that MAY be the case. However, that has NOT been my experience living > in Africa for the last 7 years. There are both biz folks AND CS > actively involved in both real and meta-IG activities locally, > regionally and globally. this was re-affirmed earlier this month in > the Gambia, where I met dozens of young Africans from all over the > continent eager to be involved in ISOC/ICANN/RIR/IGF et. al. > activities! > > > So in the absence of governmental >> involvement there will be no involvement from those parts of the >> world at all. > > see above. > >> >> That might serve the interests of some quite well, but not >> surprisingly the folks in those countries without representation are >> beginning to feel somewhat aggrieved. > > Representation is not how IG is done. > > Governments get to say (usually) how a country code telephone > numbering system is managed. They don't get the same control over how > CIR's are managed. They may WANT it, but that is not reality based > thinking. > > >> >> The desire to keep governments out of technical areas is very likely >> a commendable one, but in that instance it behooves the supporters of >> that position to find some other means to ensure that those currently >> without a voice in those discussions are provided with a means to >> have such a participation. > > I don't want to keep governements out of technical areas, not at all!! > > Last week we had a meeting of the African governmanetal Working Group > at the African Internet Summit. It is a method of bringing them IN to > the tech/policy side of things! >> >> The status quo always favours the incumbent. > > > true....I would suggest that your map of the status quo is out of > date. > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed May 30 08:51:49 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 05:51:49 -0700 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <4FC5DC90.8080200@apc.org> Message-ID: Just to be clear, my original back and forth with McTim was not around ICT4D or the general state of the IT industry or CS in Africa but had to do with ensuring that there were voices from LDC's who would have the means and the opportunity to participate in discussions around CIR's -- the quote from McTim which I responded to was "nation states should have zero "control" over CIRs", rich or poor!" I would be delighted to have a discussion (I assume in a different venue) on the role of governments in ICT4D initiatives where I generally agree with Annriette in her analysis of the relative effectiveness of governments versus CS but am unclear as to what longer term strategies she might derive from this. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 1:39 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) Hi all.. just jumping in on this to respond to McTim and Mike's discussion about ICT business and CS in Africa. I completely agree with McTim on Africa (where I am from and live) being full of ICT entrepreneurs and innovators; technical people and business people who are not into just getting rich, but developing enterprises that will benefit their communities. Don't usually don't call themselves 'social entrepreneurs'. They are just responding to local needs and creating opportunities. These people have been much more effective in supporting ICT's for development than most governmental initiatives. This does not mean I believe we should not pressure/encourage governments to commit and implement... we should.. but often (not always) governments provide the worst of both worlds: - poorly planned ICT related social and eco. programmes - restrictive regulation that limits bottom up innovation and community-based initiatives. This sector is not without its own challenges.. e.g. in South Africa most young tech innovators are white. But as a group they constitute a really positive force.. e.g. when it comes to open source and free software. FOSSFA (well represented on this list) is itself an amazing force and pool of African techie expertise. Our challenge is getting these people involved in the IGF, ICANN, IETF etc. When I talk to them about this their eyes usually glaze over. They are so used to policy/governments not delivering for them that they don't see the point. They do however get involved in national internet/ICT policy discussions quite often. And the techies also lack the resources to travel to meetings. Yes, IETF does not need you to be physically present.. but face-to-face networking at universities, conferences and so on is still in many cases how 'first contact' takes place. As for CS. Agree with McTim there too. Lots of local initiatives. But they don't really see the point of/or have the resources to get into global networks. Or, they are very issue specific.. e.g. working on telecentres, libraries, public access. info literacy and so on. I also find that when such people do make it to the global space the conversations are just not that relevant to them, and the talkers are not that interested in what the people from developing countries have to say. Experiences and issues are just so different - or are expressed in such different ways. Never underestimate the effect of the world being skewed. Usually it is those of us from developing countries who have to make the effort to get into, and stay in, global spaces. We have to do the longer distance traveling (usually). We have to apply for the visas, and deal with horrid exchange rates that make affording being in Europe/NA difficult. And, to apply for a visa you need an invitation from some entity that will be willing to swear you are not an economic migrant. I know that there are special opportunities for supporting and including ICT people from developing countries. This often favours people like myself who get invited as a women, from a developing country to fill quotas on panels. But the barriers to participate are still far greater for people from the developing world. If IG institutions really want to change this I think they should do what some international NGOs have done, like Civicus, APC, and ActionAid: move your internatioinal base to a developing country, or if that is not practical, have most of your international meetings in developing countries. Anriette Anriette On 29/05/2012 19:31, McTim wrote: > On 5/29/12, michael gurstein wrote: >> McTim, >> >> 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. > > > that MAY be the case. However, that has NOT been my experience living > in Africa for the last 7 years. There are both biz folks AND CS > actively involved in both real and meta-IG activities locally, > regionally and globally. this was re-affirmed earlier this month in > the Gambia, where I met dozens of young Africans from all over the > continent eager to be involved in ISOC/ICANN/RIR/IGF et. al. > activities! > > > So in the absence of governmental >> involvement there will be no involvement from those parts of the >> world at all. > > see above. > >> >> That might serve the interests of some quite well, but not >> surprisingly the folks in those countries without representation are >> beginning to feel somewhat aggrieved. > > Representation is not how IG is done. > > Governments get to say (usually) how a country code telephone > numbering system is managed. They don't get the same control over how > CIR's are managed. They may WANT it, but that is not reality based > thinking. > > >> >> The desire to keep governments out of technical areas is very likely >> a commendable one, but in that instance it behooves the supporters of >> that position to find some other means to ensure that those currently >> without a voice in those discussions are provided with a means to >> have such a participation. > > I don't want to keep governements out of technical areas, not at all!! > > Last week we had a meeting of the African governmanetal Working Group > at the African Internet Summit. It is a method of bringing them IN to > the tech/policy side of things! >> >> The status quo always favours the incumbent. > > > true....I would suggest that your map of the status quo is out of > date. > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed May 30 09:08:48 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 10:08:48 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <4FC5FAB6.1010200@itforchange.net> References: <4E3DE84E-EC35-405B-905C-5E9542B076A@acm.org> <4FC37B66.4060403@apc.org> <4FC381CA.9000803@apc.org> <28BE3422-B8D4-4C46-8310-1AF819281B8F@ella.com> <4FC395E5.90603@apc.org> <60B40984-73B9-4788-B616-EEB5E144CED5@ella.com> <463E2160-45C0-42EE-AE0F-810B41F955F1@acm.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E8B98@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FC4EDF9.1010108@apc.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E8CC3@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FC4FE4A.6040000@apc.org> <4FC5F28B.6080505@itforchange.net> <4FC5FAB6.1010200@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Sorry to jump in late, it has been a crazy week... I would like to support the proposal of a one day pre-event, for several reasons already mentioned, but also because I think visibility is crucial, and we would not have it if we organize a workshop or open forum. Regardless of our exegesis about the Tunis Agenda, the exact articulation between the IGF and enhanced cooperation is still to be defined. Before EC was taken off the agenda, some of us in the CSTD WG have strongly argued that the IGF needs to be formally connected to mechanism of EC, so that the multistakeholder community and the cross-sector debates are able to inform and guide the discussions that take place in such a mechanism. The proposal from India went on this same direction. If we think about it, EC (regardless of envisioned format) takes its vitality from the IGF. So, I think that organizing this event is, in itself, a political statement that can show the world how the IGF MS community can, very practically, prepare background, analyze material, discuss it, and forward conclusions. If we do it successfully, we will not only be making a step to improve IGF methods, but we would also make a strong point to support the important role of the IGF on a EC process. We could even make the summary/conclusions reach the SG. I am sure this document would be much more useful than the report from the 18th May meeting. This, of course, will require the heavy preparation and planning that Parminder mentioned. By the way, like Parminder, I was (positively) surprised to read suggestions made here that an IGF-related event should formally report its discussions and even make recommendations (the use of this tabu word has been frequent on this thread) on EC. Some months ago we were arguing among us if the IGF sessions should produce outcomes or not, and even the possibility of producing outcomes "with different policy options" was heavily criticized by some. I hope that these suggestions show a change in our common understanding. If so, we should seek that the same logic about the outcomes applies to other IGF sessions that we/our organizations will organize in Baku. Marília On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 7:47 AM, parminder wrote: > ** > > > On Wednesday 30 May 2012 03:42 PM, parminder wrote: > > Hi All > > As discussed recently with Anriette in Geneva, ITfC welcomes a serious > engagement with the enhanced cooperation (EC) issue at the IGF. > > > SInce the fervour for an IGF based discussion on enhanced cooperation (EC) > seems to have formed with some suddenness, and some have even expressed > surprise as to why was EC never discussed at the IGF, a little of recent > history may be useful to recollect. > > Even at the Nairobi IGF, Marilia's and my organisation had a workshop on 'Global > Internet related public policies – Is there an Institutional Gap?' which for the organisers was rather directly an EC workshop without the > name, is it not? > > Going back to the early days of the IGF, the IGF establishment firmly > blocked any reference to EC in MAG discussion, and ITfC proposal for a > workshop on EC for the 2008 IGF was formally turned down, and we had to > rope in the Brazilian government to support our proposal whereby finally EC > became a part of the CIR main session discussion.... > > While I am at it, I do find it rather interesting to hear rather strong > and concerted suggestions that the IGF should have working groups (WGs), > and even issue recommendations, on EC. We are just a few months away from > the time when the CSTD WG on IGF improvements folded up. At the CSTD WG, > some of us forcefully advocated for the IGF to form WGs and to come up > with recommendations (these demands were also part of India's IGF reform > proposal), but found little support, and lot of passive resistance, > including among those who now seem to want such WGs/ recs for EC. Maybe an > explanation by the concerned can be helpful :) .... parminder > > > Since a new workshop proposal may be difficult to push in at this stage, > one day pre-IGF event should be the best way to do it. I dont think it > would work to do a joint thing with GigaNet because GigaNet has an > intense, pre-determined program of a rather different nature than the kind > of practical and political discussion we are looking to engage in vis a vis > EC. However, there are important overlapping actors with interest in both, > which problem I am not sure how to deal with. But I think a meeting on EC > should be a separate one day thing for it to be effective at all. > > Also, if we are indeed to avoid the typical 'exegesis of TA' (Avri) or go > beyond discussing the 'Tao of EC' (Bill) we will need to start sorting out > and perhaps agree on categories of discussion, at least to the extent > possible. This also mean that we should be open to first discuss this issue > thoroughly on the IGC list, trying to get our basic categories right, but > also to build relatively clear set of alternative positions and > institutional models. Such preparation alone will give meat and meaning to > a discussion at the IGF. > > I think there are two key sides of the EC issue - (1) on tech gov side, > the current unilateral oversight of CIRs is the main issue, and some > concerns about capture of tech standards bodies an additional issue (2) on > the side of social, eco, cultural policies pertaining to the Internet, with > global significance, the kind of work OECD's Committee on ICCP does is the > main focus, along with other instances of uni- and pluri-lateralism, and > also increasing dominance of private regulation.... > > If anyone want to suggest some other schema, sure, it is most welcome. But > we must first develop a basic level of agreement on categories and key > issue areas for discussion before we try to seek substantive convergences > on the way forward, solutions, appropriate institutional models etc. > > parminder > > > > On Tuesday 29 May 2012 10:20 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Hi all.. also responding to Avri's prodding of the MAG... > > I think reopening workshop proposals will be contested, but it is not > impossible. > > If the IGC wants to re-jig its proposal that is also good. I would not > let go of talking about IGF improvements however.. it is important. > Particularly how we deal with outcomes/messages etc. > > We can also propose that EC be addressed in the CIR and Taking Stock > main sessions by making sure there is mention of it in the next version > of the programme paper. > > Discussion at regional IGFs will also be very valuable, and can feed > into Baku, directly or indirectly. > > But a longer-term strategy would be, in my view, to do the pre-event, > have some focus during the IGF, hopefully strengthened by the pre-event, > and then make sure we use the open consultation next Feb to get a main > session on this topic at the Indonesia IGF. > > Personally I really think it is time to introduce new main session > themes.. and this is one that will not go away. > > Hopefully by next year we will also be able to focus on specific issues > (and not a Tao of EC, quoting Bill) as mentioned by several people on > the list and look at concrete options for resolving some of these issues > such as those proposed by Parminder and responded to by Milton earlier > today. > > As far as an open forum is concerned.. I doubt that the MAG will be open > to changing this format. As Bill pointed out, open forums are for > institutions, or events, to share what they do. It was created precisely > because some institutions used workshops to share information about > (promote) their activities. > > Lee.. one more thought on and event the day after.. APC has tried on > several occasions to have project meetings on the day after the event as > we usually bring people to the IGF with funding for a specific project. > > It has not worked well for us.. we are so tired by then that we are > pretty useless at having serious discussion. > > A pre-event will clash with Giganet and the ministerial, and ISOC. I am > hoping we can find a way of collaborating with Giganet as we did last > year. We are talking with ISOC to see how they feel about this. > > As for governments.. ministers do not travel without the people that > brief them. If we can get some of those for even 50% of the duration of > our pre-event it will be valuable. And, if the event is planned > well-enough we might even get additional government people that were not > planning to go to the IGF at all. > > Anriette > > > > On 29/05/2012 18:28, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > Thanks Anriette, > > I thought folks were saying that the pre-event Ministerial precluded governments from participating in an advance EC event. > > My hunch is still a 'coalition of the willing and able' - whether willing because they wish for progress on EC, or fear it - would adjust plans and stick around for the CS-led after-event discussion. Including - some - government reps. Who tend to have more flexibility and ease in adjusting travel arrangements than broke CS types. But, if the same objective can be served within an Open Session of IGF, as Izumi suggests, that might be even better. > > And as noted, it was just my 2 cents, if not feasible or useful, or if advance event works...never mind. > > Lee > > > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Anriette Esterhuysen [anriette at apc.org] > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 11:40 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation > > Dear Lee > > The problem with this is that we are not likely to get government > participation, and, I really believe that we do need to get particularly > developing country government voices. If the EC meeting overlaps with > the ministerial we are more likely to get gov participants. > > We had very good participation in the human rights pre-event we convened > last year in Nairobi. > > But a post IGF civil society meeting could still be a good idea.. to > focus on the views and debates among civil society on EC. Problem is > also cost though.. and as there are already several other events the day > before, it is more likely people are planning to be there already. > > Anriette > > > On 29/05/2012 16:53, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > If I may make a suggestion: > > Saturday Nov. 10th is a travel day for folks returning from IGF 2012. Rather than jam into a crowded schedule before the event, invite people to stick around after IGF 2012, for an extraordinary session on enhanced cooperation in Internet Governance. A through discussion of Parminder's views and others could be among those featured; we need some controversy to drum up interest. > > That session whatever it is called would of course be loosely associated with, but not sanctioned by IGF. Hence there is no need to run by the MAG except as a courtesy. It could be hosted by IGC and staffed by attending CS groups. > > We would of course invite the technical and business communities, governments, and international organizations, each in their respective roles ; ). But seeing as it is an unofficial event, everyone can relax since nothing official can happen. > > Except perhaps some endorsement of Wolfgang's Internet Declaration, and/or IRP's 10 Internet Rights and Principles. For examples of two possible outcomes. (And because of the fear/worry we might actually do/say something, we can expect a reasonably MSH attendance. Even if the event itself is explicitly CS putting its foot down and insisting we will not be left out of the discussion/definition of enhanced cooperation.) > > The beauty of this in my opinion is noone can object to folks getting together on a Saturday, and being extra nerdy and trying to make sense of the inscrutable. > And IGC need ask noone's permission. We would need a venue and someone or some virtual committee to volunteer to pull together. Since the CSTD thing May 18 seems to be agreed to have been a waste of time, why not show folks how CS - enhances cooperation. > > I'm only volunteering my 2 cents, and to remotely participate from sunny Syracuse. > > Lee > > PS: The worst headline we can anticipate is 'People threaten to provide oversight to the Internet' or some such, so politically speaking I think we can get away with this. > > > > > > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:54 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation > > In message <463E2160-45C0-42EE-AE0F-810B41F955F1 at acm.org> <463E2160-45C0-42EE-AE0F-810B41F955F1 at acm.org>, at 07:40:58 > on Tue, 29 May 2012, Avri Doria writes > > > And we were told quite specifically by the hosts that their Ministerial > had NOTHING to do with the IGF, so it makes no sense to let that stand > in the way of anything. > > > Any diary clash that prevents an important stakeholder group from > attending should be taken into consideration. > > It's irrelevant whether or not the clashing event is part of the same > process. eg If there was a special intersessional ICANN GAC meeting that > Monday, which is certainly not part of the IGF, it would be rude to > arrange an event to clash with it. > -- > Roland Perry > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed May 30 09:44:39 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 09:44:39 -0400 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: <4FC5DC90.8080200@apc.org> Message-ID: On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:48 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Just to be clear, my original back and forth with McTim was not around ICT4D > or the general state of the IT industry or CS in Africa but had to do with > ensuring that there were voices from LDC's who would have the opportunity to > participate in discussions around CIR's -- the quote from McTim which I > responded to was "nation states should have zero "control" over CIRs", rich > or poor!" What role do you see nation states taking in re: "control" over CIRs? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Wed May 30 09:58:41 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 13:58:41 +0000 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <4FC5F857.8070607@gmail.com> References: <4FBEDFAA.9070206@ITforChange.net> <4FC4955C.90908@gmail.com> ,<4FC5F857.8070607@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D18ACD918@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Riaz, the fellowship program is not a travel program. It is capacity building. Therefore Fellows are chosen who can do the hard work that Adam has described, and will continue to contribute to the community in whatever of many different roles. Engineers/lawyers/activists/policy-makers, people working independently, civil servants, NGO militants, all have been Fellows and gained the ability to influence events and decisions in their environment with full, grounded knowledge of ICANN's subject matter and mechanisms. 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 Tels. +52-(1)-55-5105-6044, +52-(1)-55-5418-3732 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 Riaz K Tayob [riaz.tayob at gmail.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 30 de mayo de 2012 05:37 Hasta: Adam Peake CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Guru गुरु Asunto: Re: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) Thanks. Not sure what "Recipients are expected to actively participate in and contribute to ICANN processes, both at the meeting and in the future." means though... But lets see... On 2012/05/29 01:47 PM, Adam Peake wrote: Riaz, hi. Copied from another list: ICANN's Fellowship programme has now opened for applications for travel funding to the Toronto meeting: Applications are welcome until 8 July. Try it? Though fellowships tend to slightly favor applicants from the region where the meeting's being held. Adam On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: Guru The questions you pose are important and not adequately addressed under this header, especially as regards principled positions. There is adequate attention paid to reform (which is essentially about "effectiveness") but less about principled (or dare I say it on this list "radical") positions. International law, or governance, is both about effectiveness AND legitimacy. Without this parallax view, these discussions become mired in convolutions as the subject matter (and/or goal) is not clearly articulated - i.e. terrain specificity. It is NOT possible to argue or intimate that ICANN is legitimate, even though some try to do so. It may be effective, like IETF, but legitimacy will always be elusive, given current arrangements. Inadequacies abound about the lack of legitimacy, gTlds, intellectual property and also the thwarting of the will of many poor countries to have some legitimate control over CIR. Unless one has ideological (or pay check) blinkers this ought to be a moot point. For many on this list, it is not, and will not in the foreseeable future. On reform, there are many avenues to follow, often dictated by the realm of possibility that is severely constrained given current predilections. And more attention needs to be given to these elements from a principled stance as Gurstein has ventured. What I would really like to hear more about is the problem of marrying the technical with the non-technical as there is a dialectical relationship between the two (tech is tech, but tech is also law as Lessig puts it). But the debate would need to move away from the pedestrian one, "if it aint broke don't fix it" or "where is your alternative" as if these cannot be created, as if ICANN et al have not reinvented themselves to make themselves seem more legitimate dolling out dosh and following the Iraq & Afghanistan pacification strategy post invasion. There are improvements that need to be made, but I am not sure the imagination has been sufficiently decolonised (in general) to even pursue some of the inquiries you pose and perhaps some more reality is needed on these matters... On 2012/05/25 04:26 AM, Guru गुरु wrote: ask ourselves how we can make the current IG more democratic. Who pays the price for the current IG regimes and lack of its accountability to the "global society"? Conversely, who does it benefit disproportionately? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 30 10:25:44 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 11:25:44 -0300 Subject: [governance] Neelie Kroes's Next Steps on Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <4FC5CA6A.2060601@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <4FC62DE8.9070708@cafonso.ca> How do you "vote with your feet" if you have only one provider or a cartel fixing prices? But probably this is a non-issue in the heaven called Europe... --c.a. On 05/30/2012 07:30 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > It would be relevant to hear Neely Kroes on ICANN monopoly. But that's > taboo in the European Commission. EC neutrality is not on the agenda. > - - - > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Pranesh Prakash > wrote: > > Dear all, > EU Commissioner Neelie Kroes recently posted this on her blog. > > > But I do not propose to force each and every operator to provide > full Internet: it is for consumers to vote with their feet. If > consumers want to obtain discounts because they only plan to use > limited online services, why stand in their way? And we don’t want > to create obstacles to entrepreneurs who want to provide tailored > connected services or service bundles, whether it’s for social > networking, music, smart grids, eHealth or whatever. But I want to > be sure that these consumers are aware of what they are getting, and > what they are missing. > > [..] > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 30 10:30:28 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 07:30:28 -0700 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8EB86F6BF9A54C52BD19EC4CE10A1798@UserVAIO> To quote myself in my original response to your original comment... "The desire to keep governments out of technical areas is very likely a commendable one, but in that instance it behooves the supporters of that position to find some other means to ensure that those currently without a voice in those discussions are provided with a means to have such a participation." M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 6:45 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen Subject: Re: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:48 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Just to be clear, my original back and forth with McTim was not around > ICT4D or the general state of the IT industry or CS in Africa but had > to do with ensuring that there were voices from LDC's who would have > the opportunity to participate in discussions around CIR's -- the > quote from McTim which I responded to was "nation states should have > zero "control" over CIRs", rich or poor!" What role do you see nation states taking in re: "control" over CIRs? -- 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 May 30 10:32:37 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 16:32:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Establishment 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> <4FC5FAB6.1010200@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDD2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Parminder: Going back to the early days of the IGF, the IGF establishment firmly blocked any reference to EC in MAG discussion. Wolfgang: Can you clarify what the "IGF establishment" is? Thanks w -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Wed May 30 11:03:27 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 17:03:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] USG forms subcommittee on global Internet governance Message-ID: <6337BC3B-1EC2-439D-BD60-697F01FFB6DE@uzh.ch> This is interesting… http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/gig_charter_signed.pdf *************************************************** 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Wed May 30 11:08:09 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 17:08:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] USG open Internet advisory committee Message-ID: <0D8F8DFC-C03C-43C0-A20C-4748D26D8E7D@uzh.ch> http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0525/DA-12-829A1.pdf *************************************************** 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 avri at acm.org Wed May 30 11:19:14 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 11:19:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF Establishment In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDD2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> 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> <4FC5FAB6.1010200@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDD2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2059588C-11D1-4DAF-9451-6F0AA7CB1B1B@acm.org> On 30 May 2012, at 10:32, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Parminder: > Going back to the early days of the IGF, the IGF establishment firmly blocked any reference to EC in MAG discussion. > > Wolfgang: > Can you clarify what the "IGF establishment" is? Well the secretariat definitely did keep it off the agenda - Nitin said it did not belong to the IGF and we did not question this.. As a member of that secretariat until a year ago, I did not even begin to think of it as a possibility until I left the secretariat and started thinking for myself again and rereading the Sacred Books of WSIS. It was, for all intents and purposes taboo, and no one in the MAG, up until today, ever seriously argued that it should be included. Several voices in the IGC did (Jeremy foremost among them), and maybe even an advisor to the chair did, but I can't remember a MAG member doing so. And at that point, most of those from the Internet community were not willing to even discuss what we not euphemistically call management of critical Internet resources. I put it down to FUD and the immaturity of the organization at that point, it was still finding its way. (I know some people object strongly to that way of looking at it) Now, the IGF is much more mature and has found out that no subject should be taboo. As far as I am concerned the IGF, and its MAG, should start plotting its own course. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Wed May 30 11:21:36 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 11:21:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] USG forms subcommittee on global Internet governance In-Reply-To: <6337BC3B-1EC2-439D-BD60-697F01FFB6DE@uzh.ch> References: <6337BC3B-1EC2-439D-BD60-697F01FFB6DE@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <16EDB2AA-8EF9-4B9E-A2CF-F95928C2237C@ella.com> This one certainly misses the point about multistakeholder participatory democracy. avri On 30 May 2012, at 11:03, William Drake wrote: > This is interesting… > > http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/gig_charter_signed.pdf > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ocl at gih.com Wed May 30 11:23:46 2012 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 17:23:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] USG open Internet advisory committee In-Reply-To: <0D8F8DFC-C03C-43C0-A20C-4748D26D8E7D@uzh.ch> References: <0D8F8DFC-C03C-43C0-A20C-4748D26D8E7D@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <4FC63B82.8030309@gih.com> On 30/05/2012 17:08, William Drake wrote : > http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0525/DA-12-829A1.pdf > I'm quite surprised there's nobody from ICANN on this committee. After all, it is a multi-stakeholder model that's operational, not just theoretical. Kind regards, Olivier (in a personal capacity) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 30 11:26:43 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 17:26:43 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <4FC5F28B.6080505@itforchange.net> (message from parminder on Wed, 30 May 2012 15:42:27 +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> Message-ID: <20120530152644.04F911F5A@quill.bollow.ch> parminder wrote: > I think there are two key sides of the EC issue - (1) on tech gov side, > the current unilateral oversight of CIRs is the main issue, and some > concerns about capture of tech standards bodies an additional issue (2) > on the side of social, eco, cultural policies pertaining to the > Internet, with global significance, the kind of work OECD's Committee on > ICCP does is the main focus, along with other instances of uni- and > pluri-lateralism, and also increasing dominance of private regulation.... I agree that it is important to keep these two aspects in mind, and to be careful to avoid misunderstandings where some of the participants in a conversation are thinking about only one of these aspects and other participants are thinking only about the other of these aspects. But I don't think that it is a good idea to structure any discussion of Enhanced Cooperation into first addressing one of these aspects and then addressing the other aspect. > If anyone want to suggest some other schema, sure, it is most welcome. How about the following? 1. Building a shared understanding of the set of problems for which Enhanced Cooperation should provide better solutions (a) What is unacceptable / intolerable in the status quo of existing Internet governance institutions and processes? (b) What are the problems for which the existing Internet governance institutions and processes have failed to deliver adequate solutions? (c) What are the areas in which copperation of countries on a smaller than global level (e.g. regional coopration or cooperation of countries facing similar economic challenges) might be productive? 2. Building a shared understanding of what makes these problems difficult (a) What has prevented adequate solutions for these problems from emerging before now? (b) Documentation of the solution attempts that have been undertaken so far. 3. Proposals of principles, institutional mechanisms and processes for Enhanced Cooperation (a) What are the proposals? (b) In what ways will these propasals, if implemented, improve the situation? > But we must first develop a basic level of agreement on categories and > key issue areas for discussion before we try to seek substantive > convergences on the way forward, solutions, appropriate institutional > models etc. There is a lot of truth in this, yes, but on the other hand there isn't going to be a lot of motivation for working towards agreement on categories and key issue areas for discussion before there is a vision, a living hope that it will indeed be possible to achieve something worthwhile under the theme of "Enhanced Cooperation". I have this hope now, while before I had this, I didn't have much interest in participating in a debate on the fundamentals for this. 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 Wed May 30 11:27:17 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 17:27:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] Costa Rica President 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> <4FC5FAB6.1010200@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDD2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDD4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Do you remember Presidents Conchilla´s speech during the ICANN meeting. http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2012/32.aspx http://costarica43.icann.org/ wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed May 30 11:32:24 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 12:32:24 -0300 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil Message-ID: 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Wed May 30 11:47:04 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 11:47:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <21B81E06-CC98-493D-A594-4E64F4F4F46C@privaterra.org> Marilia, Your translation is a bit off. The feminist group in question is the "slut walk" that started in my home town of Toronto and has since spread to other cities in Canada, the US, and internationally. Great to know it has spread to Brazil as well. I'll forward your email to contacts at Facebook to make sure they are aware of the incident and see if they can comment. In the meantime, let me share with you and others links with details on the "slut walk" movement. regards Robert -- Toronto 'slut walk' takes to city streets (April 3, 2012) http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/04/03/slut-walk-toronto.html Toronto 'slut walk' spreads to U.S. (May 6, 2012) http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/05/06/slut-walk.html Slut walk in Toronto - http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/show-news/slutwalk-in-toronto.html (March 2012) Don't know if you ever heard the story, but back in January, at a campus safety information session at Osgoode Hall Law School (University of Toronto), a representative of the Toronto Police made the statement that "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized." Of course, the comment sparked a huge outrage, and you just knew a protest was bound to happen. But you have to hand it to one group for coming up with one of the most creative protests ever. They areplanning a SlutWalk. It's planned for April 3rd in Toronto and everyone is welcome. You don't even necessarily have to dress "slutty." Just come as you are. Sounds like a great way to make a point. On 2012-05-30, at 11:32 AM, 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 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed May 30 11:52:54 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 12:52:54 -0300 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: <21B81E06-CC98-493D-A594-4E64F4F4F46C@privaterra.org> References: <21B81E06-CC98-493D-A594-4E64F4F4F46C@privaterra.org> Message-ID: Thanks for the correction, Robert. That was the translation Google suggested me. Interesting. Thanks also for taking this forward. Marília On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Marilia, > > Your translation is a bit off. The feminist group in question is the "slut > walk" that started in my home town of Toronto and has since spread to other > cities in CanadThnana, the US, and internationally. Great to know it has > spread to Brazil as well. > > I'll forward your email to contacts at Facebook to make sure they are > aware of the incident and see if they can comment. > > In the meantime, let me share with you and others links with details on > the "slut walk" movement. > > regards > > Robert > -- > > > Toronto 'slut walk' takes to city streets (April 3, 2012) > > http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/04/03/slut-walk-toronto.html > > Toronto 'slut walk' spreads to U.S. (May 6, 2012) > http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/05/06/slut-walk.html > > Slut walk in Toronto - > http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/show-news/slutwalk-in-toronto.html (March 2012) > > Don't know if you ever heard the story, but back in January, at a campus > safety information session at Osgoode Hall Law School (University of > Toronto), a representative of the Toronto Police made the statement that > "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized." > > Of course, the comment sparked a huge outrage, and you just knew a protest > was bound to happen. > > But you have to hand it to one group for coming up with one of the most > creative protests ever. They areplanning a SlutWalk. > > It's planned for April 3rd in Toronto and everyone is welcome. You don't > even necessarily have to dress "slutty." Just come as you are. Sounds like > a great way to make a point. > > > > On 2012-05-30, at 11:32 AM, 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed May 30 11:56:21 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 17:56:21 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] USG forms subcommittee on global Internet governance References: <6337BC3B-1EC2-439D-BD60-697F01FFB6DE@uzh.ch> <16EDB2AA-8EF9-4B9E-A2CF-F95928C2237C@ella.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDD8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Avri, the multistakeholder participation is reflected in the footnote where it is said that the phrase "private sector" is understood (under the Federal Advisory Committee Act) as "individuals and entities outside the Federal government such as, but not limited to the following: non-Federal sources, academia, State, local or Tribal governments, individual citizens, the public, NGOs, industry associations, international bodies." I do not know whether "international bodies" include the ICANN, ITU or the IGC, anyhow it remains to be seen how this will work. The mandate of the group expires March, 7, 2014. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Mi 30.05.2012 17:21 An: IGC Betreff: Re: [governance] USG forms subcommittee on global Internet governance This one certainly misses the point about multistakeholder participatory democracy. avri On 30 May 2012, at 11:03, William Drake wrote: > This is interesting... > > http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/gig_charter_signed.pdf > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 30 12:06:04 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 12:06:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] USG forms subcommittee on global Internet governance In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDD8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <6337BC3B-1EC2-439D-BD60-697F01FFB6DE@uzh.ch> <16EDB2AA-8EF9-4B9E-A2CF-F95928C2237C@ella.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDD8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi, Yes, I read that before I sent my message and thought of it as a meaningless afterthought. avri On 30 May 2012, at 11:56, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Avri, > > the multistakeholder participation is reflected in the footnote where it is said that the phrase "private sector" is understood (under the Federal Advisory Committee Act) as "individuals and entities outside the Federal government such as, but not limited to the following: non-Federal sources, academia, State, local or Tribal governments, individual citizens, the public, NGOs, industry associations, international bodies." > > I do not know whether "international bodies" include the ICANN, ITU or the IGC, anyhow it remains to be seen how this will work. The mandate of the group expires March, 7, 2014. > > Wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria > Gesendet: Mi 30.05.2012 17:21 > An: IGC > Betreff: Re: [governance] USG forms subcommittee on global Internet governance > > > > > > This one certainly misses the point about multistakeholder participatory democracy. > > avri > > On 30 May 2012, at 11:03, William Drake wrote: > >> This is interesting... >> >> http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/gig_charter_signed.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 dogwallah at gmail.com Wed May 30 12:07:33 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 12:07:33 -0400 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <8EB86F6BF9A54C52BD19EC4CE10A1798@UserVAIO> References: <8EB86F6BF9A54C52BD19EC4CE10A1798@UserVAIO> Message-ID: On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:30 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > To quote myself in my original response to your original comment... > > "The desire to keep governments out of technical areas is very likely a > commendable one, but in that instance it behooves the supporters of that > position to find some other means to ensure that those currently without a > voice in those discussions are provided with a means to have such a > participation." In the African region (and in others) we are encouraging gov't stakeholders to participate in our discussions. This is happening, one example I gave was the AfGWG inside of AfriNIC. Lots of gov reps participated in our latest meeting. Am happy to see gov'ts involved, just NOT "in control" per se. -- 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 May 30 12:08:24 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 16:08:24 +0000 Subject: [governance] USG open Internet advisory committee In-Reply-To: <4FC63B82.8030309@gih.com> References: <0D8F8DFC-C03C-43C0-A20C-4748D26D8E7D@uzh.ch>,<4FC63B82.8030309@gih.com> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EA211@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Re ICANN, not so much there falls in FCC jurisdiction so no surprise. And I emphasize again, the phrase is: open Internet. Net neutrality is so...2009. At least in US domestic politics and policy. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [ocl at gih.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 11:23 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] USG open Internet advisory committee On 30/05/2012 17:08, William Drake wrote : > http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0525/DA-12-829A1.pdf > I'm quite surprised there's nobody from ICANN on this committee. After all, it is a multi-stakeholder model that's operational, not just theoretical. Kind regards, Olivier (in a personal capacity) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 30 12:13:31 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 16:13:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: IGF Establishment In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDD2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> 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> <4FC5FAB6.1010200@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDD2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217E264@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > Parminder: > Going back to the early days of the IGF, the IGF establishment firmly blocked > any reference to EC in MAG discussion. > > Wolfgang: > Can you clarify what the "IGF establishment" is? Rushing to Parminder's defense, as I always do ;-), I suspect that he means what I call the IGF "doves;" i.e., the US, Australia, UK, Canada, western telecom interests, ISOC, ICANN people in IGF who wanted the IGF to be a conference and not a place for negotiating or agreeing upon actual governance. Those folks had a pretty firm grip on the first MAG, if you'll recall. And the US, EC (I think) and Australia spoke out directly in one of the early consultations trying to separate IGF from EC. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 30 12:34:46 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 18:34:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] USG forms subcommittee on global Internet governance In-Reply-To: References: <6337BC3B-1EC2-439D-BD60-697F01FFB6DE@uzh.ch> <16EDB2AA-8EF9-4B9E-A2CF-F95928C2237C@ella.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDD8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi Avri That meaningless afterthought is required by law and standard practice, e.g. the FCC Open Internet AC, the State Dept AC http://www.state.gov/e/eb/adcom/acicip/rls/120676.htm, etc. Congress has one too but not under FACA I suppose http://www.netcaucus.org/advisory/ Obviously there's a need for more CS engagement in these. In the 90s I used to go to the State Dept. AC from time to time and was usually the only CS person, or one of like 2 or 3, with 40-odd corporate folks. While there was a large number of progressive public interest groups working in coalitions around Clinton Internet policies, the Telecom Act of 96, etc, the activities of intergovernmental organizations generally attracted less interest, including later WSIS etc. That might be changing a little now with WCIT…maybe ITU will manage to mobilize people a bit :-) Bill On May 30, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Yes, I read that before I sent my message and thought of it as a meaningless afterthought. > > avri > > On 30 May 2012, at 11:56, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> Avri, >> >> the multistakeholder participation is reflected in the footnote where it is said that the phrase "private sector" is understood (under the Federal Advisory Committee Act) as "individuals and entities outside the Federal government such as, but not limited to the following: non-Federal sources, academia, State, local or Tribal governments, individual citizens, the public, NGOs, industry associations, international bodies." >> >> I do not know whether "international bodies" include the ICANN, ITU or the IGC, anyhow it remains to be seen how this will work. The mandate of the group expires March, 7, 2014. >> >> Wolfgang >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria >> Gesendet: Mi 30.05.2012 17:21 >> An: IGC >> Betreff: Re: [governance] USG forms subcommittee on global Internet governance >> >> >> >> >> >> This one certainly misses the point about multistakeholder participatory democracy. >> >> avri >> >> On 30 May 2012, at 11:03, William Drake wrote: >> >>> This is interesting... >>> >>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/gig_charter_signed.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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Wed May 30 12:57:08 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 18:57:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: IGF Establishment In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217E264@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> 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> <4FC5FAB6.1010200@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDD2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217E264@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FC65164.2080208@apc.org> Agree with Milton and Avri's responses and I think Parminder's use of the term is legitimate. What was interesting about being on the Working Group on IGF Improvements is that at the outset (hearings and open meetings in late 2010) this 'IGF establishment' asserted quite vehemently that the IGF does not need improvement, and, in the unlikely case that it does, it should be left alone to self-improve. For me probably the greatest achievements of this working group is that by the end of the working group process, this 'establishment' had agreed that there was room for improvement and contributed suggestions for how it can take place. Suggestions to talk about 'outcomes' which many of us made on open consultations since the first IGF were always met by this 'establishment' as outrageous, and likely to lead to the demise of the IGF. Now I think they realise that absolutely no outcomes is a far greater risk. I.o.w. the IGF 'establishment' has shifted quite a bit in the last months. Let's hope they are also willing to do so in relation to talking about 'EC'. Anriette On 30/05/2012 18:13, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> -----Original Message----- Parminder: Going back to the early days >> of the IGF, the IGF establishment firmly blocked any reference to >> EC in MAG discussion. >> >> Wolfgang: Can you clarify what the "IGF establishment" is? > > Rushing to Parminder's defense, as I always do ;-), I suspect that he > means what I call the IGF "doves;" i.e., the US, Australia, UK, > Canada, western telecom interests, ISOC, ICANN people in IGF who > wanted the IGF to be a conference and not a place for negotiating or > agreeing upon actual governance. Those folks had a pretty firm grip > on the first MAG, if you'll recall. And the US, EC (I think) and > Australia spoke out directly in one of the early consultations trying > to separate IGF from EC. > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Wed May 30 13:20:15 2012 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 13:20:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: IGF Establishment In-Reply-To: <4FC65164.2080208@apc.org> 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> <4FC5FAB6.1010200@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDD2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217E264@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FC65164.2080208@apc.org> Message-ID: <4FC656CF.10302@eff.org> comments below On 5/30/12 12:57 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > On 30/05/2012 18:13, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >> -----Original Message----- Parminder: Going back to the early days >>> >> of the IGF, the IGF establishment firmly blocked any reference to >>> >> EC in MAG discussion. >>> >> >>> >> Wolfgang: Can you clarify what the "IGF establishment" is? >> > >> > Rushing to Parminder's defense, as I always do;-), I suspect that he >> > means what I call the IGF "doves;" i.e., the US, Australia, UK, >> > Canada, western telecom interests, ISOC, ICANN people in IGF who >> > wanted the IGF to be a conference and not a place for negotiating or >> > agreeing upon actual governance. Those folks had a pretty firm grip >> > on the first MAG, if you'll recall. And the US, EC (I think) and >> > Australia spoke out directly in one of the early consultations trying >> > to separate IGF from EC. >> > FYI: This MAG composition keeps most of the first MAG generation in their position as MAG Member. The rotation of old-MAG members in this latest election targeted mostly later MAG generations rather than the first one. No news here just a reminder. -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed May 30 13:38:38 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 19:38:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Hadopi Revision? 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> <4FC5FAB6.1010200@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDD2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217E264@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <"4FC65164.20 80208"@apc.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDDC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://www.numerama.com/magazine/22658-la-loi-hadopi-sera-bien-34revisee34-d-ici-2013.html FYI 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 May 30 13:40:21 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 14:40:21 -0300 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: References: <21B81E06-CC98-493D-A594-4E64F4F4F46C@privaterra.org> Message-ID: <4FC65B85.7040307@cafonso.ca> Which translation?? The name of the march in BR is correct, and I did not see any translation of the Canadian equivalent in Marilia's msg. Anyway... --c.a. On 05/30/2012 12:52 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Thanks for the correction, Robert. That was the translation Google > suggested me. Interesting. > Thanks also for taking this forward. > > Marília > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Robert Guerra > wrote: > > Marilia, > > Your translation is a bit off. The feminist group in question is the > "slut walk" that started in my home town of Toronto and has since > spread to other cities in CanadThnana, the US, and internationally. > Great to know it has spread to Brazil as well. > > I'll forward your email to contacts at Facebook to make sure they > are aware of the incident and see if they can comment. > > In the meantime, let me share with you and others links with details > on the "slut walk" movement. > > regards > > Robert > -- > > > Toronto 'slut walk' takes to city streets (April 3, 2012) > http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/04/03/slut-walk-toronto.html > > Toronto 'slut walk' spreads to U.S. (May 6, 2012) > http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/05/06/slut-walk.html > > Slut walk in Toronto - > http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/show-news/slutwalk-in-toronto.html (March > 2012) > > Don't know if you ever heard the story, but back in January, at a > campus safety information session at Osgoode Hall Law School > (University of Toronto), a representative of the Toronto Police made > the statement that "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order > not to be victimized." > > Of course, the comment sparked a huge outrage, and you just knew a > protest was bound to happen. > > But you have to hand it to one group for coming up with one of the > most creative protests ever. They areplanning a SlutWalk. > > It's planned for April 3rd in Toronto and everyone is welcome. You > don't even necessarily have to dress "slutty." Just come as you are. > Sounds like a great way to make a point. > > > > On 2012-05-30, at 11:32 AM, 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed May 30 13:55:13 2012 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 19:55:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Establishment In-Reply-To: <2059588C-11D1-4DAF-9451-6F0AA7CB1B1B@acm.org> 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> <4FC5FAB6.1010200@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDD2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2059588C-11D1-4DAF-9451-6F0AA7CB1B1B@acm.org> Message-ID: <4FC65F01.3000201@wzb.eu> I was on the MAG since year one and I recall a discussion on the relationship between IGF and EC. That discussion came about because Nitin's first round of consultations (it was Nitin who led those consultations wasn't it?) in the first year after WSIS did not have any meaningful result. None of the gov's he talked to had any suggestions as to how the concept of EC could be meaningfully put to practice. The MAG briefly talked about addressing EC at the IGF. I specifically remember a harsh remark by someone from the European Commission who insisted that IGF and EC have NOTHING AT ALL to do with each other. Over the years there have been various veto coalitions. Not sure they can be in all cases attributed to the same "establishment". jeanette Am 30.05.2012 17:19, schrieb Avri Doria: > > On 30 May 2012, at 10:32, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> Parminder: >> Going back to the early days of the IGF, the IGF establishment firmly blocked any reference to EC in MAG discussion. >> >> Wolfgang: >> Can you clarify what the "IGF establishment" is? > > > Well the secretariat definitely did keep it off the agenda - Nitin said it did not belong to the IGF and we did not question this.. As a member of that secretariat until a year ago, I did not even begin to think of it as a possibility until I left the secretariat and started thinking for myself again and rereading the Sacred Books of WSIS. It was, for all intents and purposes taboo, and no one in the MAG, up until today, ever seriously argued that it should be included. Several voices in the IGC did (Jeremy foremost among them), and maybe even an advisor to the chair did, but I can't remember a MAG member doing so. > > And at that point, most of those from the Internet community were not willing to even discuss what we not euphemistically call management of critical Internet resources. I put it down to FUD and the immaturity of the organization at that point, it was still finding its way. (I know some people object strongly to that way of looking at it) > > Now, the IGF is much more mature and has found out that no subject should be taboo. As far as I am concerned the IGF, and its MAG, should start plotting its own course. > > 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Wed May 30 14:44:39 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 11:44:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] USG open Internet advisory committee Message-ID: <1338403479.44799.BPMail_low_noncarrier@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> By the way if it is really for Open Internet, does ICANN allows? Open and Alternate Roots (for Open Layers of Internet)? Imran ------------------------------ On Wed, May 30, 2012 21:08 PKT Lee W McKnight wrote: >Re ICANN, not so much there falls in FCC jurisdiction so no surprise. > >And I emphasize again, the phrase is: open Internet. Net neutrality is so...2009. At least in US domestic politics and policy. > >Lee > > >________________________________________ >From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [ocl at gih.com] >Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 11:23 AM >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >Subject: Re: [governance] USG open Internet advisory committee > >On 30/05/2012 17:08, William Drake wrote : >> http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0525/DA-12-829A1.pdf >> > >I'm quite surprised there's nobody from ICANN on this committee. >After all, it is a multi-stakeholder model that's operational, not just >theoretical. > >Kind regards, > >Olivier >(in a personal capacity) > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed May 30 15:46:33 2012 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 20:46:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF Establishment In-Reply-To: <2059588C-11D1-4DAF-9451-6F0AA7CB1B1B@acm.org> 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> <4FC5FAB6.1010200@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDD2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2059588C-11D1-4DAF-9451-6F0AA7CB1B1B@acm.org> Message-ID: <1338407193981109000@crossriverstate.gov.ng> Dear Great Fellows and Friends, The IGF is really matured.+1@ Avri.-- 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" Avri Doria wrote: > On 30 May 2012, at 10:32, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > > Parminder: > > Going back to the early days of the IGF, the IGF establishment firmly blocked any reference to EC in MAG discussion. > > > > Wolfgang: > > Can you clarify what the "IGF establishment" is? > > > Well the secretariat definitely did keep it off the agenda - Nitin said it did not belong to the IGF and we did not question this.. As a member of that secretariat until a year ago, I did not even begin to think of it as a possibility until I left the secretariat and started thinking for myself again and rereading the Sacred Books of WSIS. It was, for all intents and purposes taboo, and no one in the MAG, up until today, ever seriously argued that it should be included. Several voices in the IGC did (Jeremy foremost among them), and maybe even an advisor to the chair did, but I can't remember a MAG member doing so. > > And at that point, most of those from the Internet community were not willing to even discuss what we not euphemistically call management of critical Internet resources. I put it down to FUD and the immaturity of the organization at that point, it was still finding its way. (I know some people object strongly to that way of looking at it) > > Now, the IGF is much more mature and has found out that no subject should be taboo. As far as I am concerned the IGF, and its MAG, should start plotting its own course. > > avri > __________________________________________________________________________ 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 vanda at uol.com.br Wed May 30 15:54:39 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 16:54:39 -0300 Subject: RES: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D18ACD918@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <4FBEDFAA.9070206@ITforChange.net> <4FC4955C.90908@gmail.com> ,<4FC5F857.8070607@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D18ACD918@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <008501cd3e9e$1b302f70$51908e50$@uol.com.br> Thank you Alex for spread the correct information. Just remembering Fellowship program is dedicated to developing countries to facilitate the outreach of new member for ICANN community and to spread a word inside these countries about the Internet whole world of Names and Numbers. All the best, De: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Em nome de Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Enviada em: quarta-feira, 30 de maio de 2012 10:59 Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob; Adam Peake Cc: Guru गुरु Assunto: RE: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) Riaz, the fellowship program is not a travel program. It is capacity building. Therefore Fellows are chosen who can do the hard work that Adam has described, and will continue to contribute to the community in whatever of many different roles. Engineers/lawyers/activists/policy-makers, people working independently, civil servants, NGO militants, all have been Fellows and gained the ability to influence events and decisions in their environment with full, grounded knowledge of ICANN's subject matter and mechanisms. 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 Tels. +52-(1)-55-5105-6044, +52-(1)-55-5418-3732 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 Riaz K Tayob [riaz.tayob at gmail.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 30 de mayo de 2012 05:37 Hasta: Adam Peake CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Guru गुरु Asunto: Re: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) Thanks. Not sure what "Recipients are expected to actively participate in and contribute to ICANN processes, both at the meeting and in the future." means though... But lets see... On 2012/05/29 01:47 PM, Adam Peake wrote: Riaz, hi. Copied from another list: ICANN's Fellowship programme has now opened for applications for travel funding to the Toronto meeting: Applications are welcome until 8 July. Try it? Though fellowships tend to slightly favor applicants from the region where the meeting's being held. Adam On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: Guru The questions you pose are important and not adequately addressed under this header, especially as regards principled positions. There is adequate attention paid to reform (which is essentially about "effectiveness") but less about principled (or dare I say it on this list "radical") positions. International law, or governance, is both about effectiveness AND legitimacy. Without this parallax view, these discussions become mired in convolutions as the subject matter (and/or goal) is not clearly articulated - i.e. terrain specificity. It is NOT possible to argue or intimate that ICANN is legitimate, even though some try to do so. It may be effective, like IETF, but legitimacy will always be elusive, given current arrangements. Inadequacies abound about the lack of legitimacy, gTlds, intellectual property and also the thwarting of the will of many poor countries to have some legitimate control over CIR. Unless one has ideological (or pay check) blinkers this ought to be a moot point. For many on this list, it is not, and will not in the foreseeable future. On reform, there are many avenues to follow, often dictated by the realm of possibility that is severely constrained given current predilections. And more attention needs to be given to these elements from a principled stance as Gurstein has ventured. What I would really like to hear more about is the problem of marrying the technical with the non-technical as there is a dialectical relationship between the two (tech is tech, but tech is also law as Lessig puts it). But the debate would need to move away from the pedestrian one, "if it aint broke don't fix it" or "where is your alternative" as if these cannot be created, as if ICANN et al have not reinvented themselves to make themselves seem more legitimate dolling out dosh and following the Iraq & Afghanistan pacification strategy post invasion. There are improvements that need to be made, but I am not sure the imagination has been sufficiently decolonised (in general) to even pursue some of the inquiries you pose and perhaps some more reality is needed on these matters... On 2012/05/25 04:26 AM, Guru गुरु wrote: ask ourselves how we can make the current IG more democratic. Who pays the price for the current IG regimes and lack of its accountability to the "global society"? Conversely, who does it benefit disproportionately? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed May 30 16:32:01 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 08:32:01 +1200 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: <4FC65B85.7040307@cafonso.ca> References: <21B81E06-CC98-493D-A594-4E64F4F4F46C@privaterra.org> <4FC65B85.7040307@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: The slut walk also hit the press in Fiji in a huge way and there was a huge write up about it and am pleased that it hit the list. Violence against women and children is simply not acceptable. They say that the "Slut" walk was inspired in retaliation to comments by a police man/public official in Toronto who said that women should not dress like sluts so that they do not get victimised. I would say that victims of violence can be men, women and children an transcends religion, culture. dress etc. Violence in any form is simply unacceptable. In the US, the House (am not sure if they have finished debating the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization act as there are some intensely controversial aspects of the Act. Moving back to the removal from facebook, there was a discussion earlier this year on Freedom of Expression and is it absolute or are there exceptions. Article 19 of the ICCPR clear states the exceptions namely, national security, provided for by law or public morality. Most countries have what is called "laws against obscene publications" and some "indecent exposure" and I suspect that Brazil has something of the sort which required the authorities to .take down certain content. The issue remains is when the use of the exception is reasonble and when is it prone to abuse? Sala On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:40 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Which translation?? The name of the march in BR is correct, and I did > not see any translation of the Canadian equivalent in Marilia's msg. > Anyway... > > --c.a. > > On 05/30/2012 12:52 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > Thanks for the correction, Robert. That was the translation Google > > suggested me. Interesting. > > Thanks also for taking this forward. > > > > Marília > > > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Robert Guerra > > wrote: > > > > Marilia, > > > > Your translation is a bit off. The feminist group in question is the > > "slut walk" that started in my home town of Toronto and has since > > spread to other cities in CanadThnana, the US, and internationally. > > Great to know it has spread to Brazil as well. > > > > I'll forward your email to contacts at Facebook to make sure they > > are aware of the incident and see if they can comment. > > > > In the meantime, let me share with you and others links with details > > on the "slut walk" movement. > > > > regards > > > > Robert > > -- > > > > > > Toronto 'slut walk' takes to city streets (April 3, 2012) > > > http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/04/03/slut-walk-toronto.html > > > > Toronto 'slut walk' spreads to U.S. (May 6, 2012) > > > http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/05/06/slut-walk.html > > > > Slut walk in Toronto - > > http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/show-news/slutwalk-in-toronto.html (March > > 2012) > > > > Don't know if you ever heard the story, but back in January, at a > > campus safety information session at Osgoode Hall Law School > > (University of Toronto), a representative of the Toronto Police made > > the statement that "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order > > not to be victimized." > > > > Of course, the comment sparked a huge outrage, and you just knew a > > protest was bound to happen. > > > > But you have to hand it to one group for coming up with one of the > > most creative protests ever. They areplanning a SlutWalk. > > > > It's planned for April 3rd in Toronto and everyone is welcome. You > > don't even necessarily have to dress "slutty." Just come as you are. > > Sounds like a great way to make a point. > > > > > > > > On 2012-05-30, at 11:32 AM, 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 > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > > FGV Direito Rio > > > > Center for Technology and Society > > Getulio Vargas Foundation > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed May 30 17:12:01 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 18:12:01 -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> Message-ID: Hi Sala, On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > Most countries have what is called "laws against obscene publications" and > some "indecent exposure" and I suspect that Brazil has something of the > sort which required the authorities to .take down certain content. > It was not Brazilian authorities that have taken down content from Facebook. The concrete situation is actually quite the opposite: while Brazilian authorities had no problem with the march and Brazilian media (newspapers, TV) had no problem to show the images, Facebook has taken a more conservative and restrictive stance, removing the pictures and blocking the profiles. The content was removed based on Facebook policy guidelines. It is Facebook rules, Facebook morality, which have been applied indistictively in a cross-border fashion to citizens worlwide. Some basic conclusions: a) rights, such as freedom of expression, 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), 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. Best, Marília > > The issue remains is when the use of the exception is reasonble and when > is it prone to abuse? > > Sala > > > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:40 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Which translation?? The name of the march in BR is correct, and I did >> not see any translation of the Canadian equivalent in Marilia's msg. >> Anyway... >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 05/30/2012 12:52 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> > Thanks for the correction, Robert. That was the translation Google >> > suggested me. Interesting. >> > Thanks also for taking this forward. >> > >> > Marília >> > >> > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Robert Guerra > > > wrote: >> > >> > Marilia, >> > >> > Your translation is a bit off. The feminist group in question is the >> > "slut walk" that started in my home town of Toronto and has since >> > spread to other cities in CanadThnana, the US, and internationally. >> > Great to know it has spread to Brazil as well. >> > >> > I'll forward your email to contacts at Facebook to make sure they >> > are aware of the incident and see if they can comment. >> > >> > In the meantime, let me share with you and others links with details >> > on the "slut walk" movement. >> > >> > regards >> > >> > Robert >> > -- >> > >> > >> > Toronto 'slut walk' takes to city streets (April 3, 2012) >> > >> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/04/03/slut-walk-toronto.html >> > >> > Toronto 'slut walk' spreads to U.S. (May 6, 2012) >> > >> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/05/06/slut-walk.html >> > >> > Slut walk in Toronto - >> > http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/show-news/slutwalk-in-toronto.html (March >> > 2012) >> > >> > Don't know if you ever heard the story, but back in January, at a >> > campus safety information session at Osgoode Hall Law School >> > (University of Toronto), a representative of the Toronto Police made >> > the statement that "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order >> > not to be victimized." >> > >> > Of course, the comment sparked a huge outrage, and you just knew a >> > protest was bound to happen. >> > >> > But you have to hand it to one group for coming up with one of the >> > most creative protests ever. They areplanning a SlutWalk. >> > >> > It's planned for April 3rd in Toronto and everyone is welcome. You >> > don't even necessarily have to dress "slutty." Just come as you are. >> > Sounds like a great way to make a point. >> > >> > >> > >> > On 2012-05-30, at 11:32 AM, 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 >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > governance at lists.igcaucus.org> >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >> > FGV Direito Rio >> > >> > Center for Technology and Society >> > Getulio Vargas Foundation >> > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed May 30 17:31:42 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 09:31:42 +1200 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> Message-ID: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Hi Sala, > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > >> >> Most countries have what is called "laws against obscene publications" >> and some "indecent exposure" and I suspect that Brazil has something of the >> sort which required the authorities to .take down certain content. >> > > It was not Brazilian authorities that have taken down content from > Facebook. The concrete situation is actually quite the opposite: while > Brazilian authorities had no problem with the march and Brazilian media > (newspapers, TV) had no problem to show the images, Facebook has taken a > more conservative and restrictive stance, removing the pictures and > blocking the profiles. > > Facebook probably took this approach because its social network transcends multiple jurisdictions that have strict laws on "obscene publications". The recent petition filed by Vinay Rai in the New Delhi courts against Facebook and others. My personal take on it was that it was a *commercial* decision for "Facebook" and that it was far cheaper to take down offensive content if it were to put it in a position of being sued. Their commercial woes are no secret, see below: *"Facebook's IPO troubles continue with the stock hitting a new low, the company facing a class action lawsuit from investors, and now another social network indefinitely postponing its own IPO because of the effect Facebook has had on the market.* Less than two weeks after Facebook’s IPO launched, the company’s value has fallen from an estimated $104 billion to $61.98 billion, with trading falling even further today as the markets opened again in the US after the holiday weekend. That’s the bad news for the social network. The worse news? Things aren’t expected to improve any time soon. Continuing its trend of falling share prices when the overall market rises (Today, the NASDAQ closed up), Facebook stock took another tumble in today’s trading, falling an additional 10 percent from its opening price, bringing its overall price to a new low of $28.84, almost a full $10 down from the $38 price that the stock launched at on May 18, bringing the company’s core value down to just almost $62 billion. With the company facing a class action lawsuit over the information released to investors prior to the IPO brought by the law firm of Robbins Geller, the last thing the company needs to hear is that things are about to get worse, but apparently, they will." Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/facebook-now-worth-40-percent-less-11-days-after-ipo/#ixzz1wOGAQsz2 > The content was removed based on Facebook policy guidelines. It is > Facebook rules, Facebook morality, which have been applied indistictively > in a cross-border fashion to citizens worlwide. > Well if one examines how they have been under pressure by Regulators around the world, one that comes to mind is the imposition of the German Regulator on the use of "like feature" that facebook uses, one can only imagine that what is reported is the tip of the iceberg. Often commercial entities like to keep their compliance notices under wraps if they can help it. No doubt that the cumulative cost would be inevitably high so commercially, their policy was probably framed around the "Don't attract unnecessary cost/ expense" model. This of course has a backdrop in what is largely a flailing global economy where there is no new money just pieces of the pie being reassembled. If we look at what is recently happening in Thailand as Peng Hwa and Norbert reported on the notions of transitory liability where webmasters or the like can face liability (not just fines) but imprisonment for not removing content, I am not surprised. > > Some basic conclusions: a) rights, such as freedom of expression, 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), 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. > The UN Human Rights Council in February this year were discussing Freedom of Expression although I wish more ti me was spent on discussing the abuse of the exceptions under Article 19 of the ICCPR. On the notion of Facebook morailty - this has to be analysed on a case by case basis, I suppose. > > Best, > Marília > > > > > >> >> The issue remains is when the use of the exception is reasonble and when >> is it prone to abuse? >> >> Sala >> >> >> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:40 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> Which translation?? The name of the march in BR is correct, and I did >>> not see any translation of the Canadian equivalent in Marilia's msg. >>> Anyway... >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 05/30/2012 12:52 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>> > Thanks for the correction, Robert. That was the translation Google >>> > suggested me. Interesting. >>> > Thanks also for taking this forward. >>> > >>> > Marília >>> > >>> > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Robert Guerra < >>> rguerra at privaterra.org >>> > > wrote: >>> > >>> > Marilia, >>> > >>> > Your translation is a bit off. The feminist group in question is >>> the >>> > "slut walk" that started in my home town of Toronto and has since >>> > spread to other cities in CanadThnana, the US, and internationally. >>> > Great to know it has spread to Brazil as well. >>> > >>> > I'll forward your email to contacts at Facebook to make sure they >>> > are aware of the incident and see if they can comment. >>> > >>> > In the meantime, let me share with you and others links with >>> details >>> > on the "slut walk" movement. >>> > >>> > regards >>> > >>> > Robert >>> > -- >>> > >>> > >>> > Toronto 'slut walk' takes to city streets (April 3, 2012) >>> > >>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/04/03/slut-walk-toronto.html >>> > >>> > Toronto 'slut walk' spreads to U.S. (May 6, 2012) >>> > >>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/05/06/slut-walk.html >>> > >>> > Slut walk in Toronto - >>> > http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/show-news/slutwalk-in-toronto.html(March >>> > 2012) >>> > >>> > Don't know if you ever heard the story, but back in January, at a >>> > campus safety information session at Osgoode Hall Law School >>> > (University of Toronto), a representative of the Toronto Police >>> made >>> > the statement that "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order >>> > not to be victimized." >>> > >>> > Of course, the comment sparked a huge outrage, and you just knew a >>> > protest was bound to happen. >>> > >>> > But you have to hand it to one group for coming up with one of the >>> > most creative protests ever. They areplanning a SlutWalk. >>> > >>> > It's planned for April 3rd in Toronto and everyone is welcome. You >>> > don't even necessarily have to dress "slutty." Just come as you >>> are. >>> > Sounds like a great way to make a point. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On 2012-05-30, at 11:32 AM, 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 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org> >>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> > >>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> > >>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >>> > FGV Direito Rio >>> > >>> > Center for Technology and Society >>> > Getulio Vargas Foundation >>> > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed May 30 17:49:45 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 17:49:45 -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> Message-ID: Hi, On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Hi Sala, > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >> >> Most countries have what is called "laws against obscene publications" and >> some "indecent exposure" and I suspect that Brazil has something of the sort >> which required the authorities to .take down certain content. > > > It was not Brazilian authorities that have taken down content from Facebook. > The concrete situation is actually quite the opposite: while Brazilian > authorities had no problem with the march and Brazilian media (newspapers, > TV) had no problem to show the images, Facebook has taken a more > conservative and restrictive stance, removing the pictures and blocking the > profiles. > > The content was removed based on Facebook policy guidelines. It is Facebook > rules, Facebook morality, which have been applied indistictively in a > cross-border fashion  to citizens worlwide. > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 30 20:09:25 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 19:09:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <95D959517D0D4E52A93FC0303FAE1201@UserVAIO> I rather prefer the Brazilian translation but then who am I... :) M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 10:53 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Robert Guerra Subject: Re: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil Thanks for the correction, Robert. That was the translation Google suggested me. Interesting. Thanks also for taking this forward. Marília On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: Marilia, Your translation is a bit off. The feminist group in question is the "slut walk" that started in my home town of Toronto and has since spread to other cities in CanadThnana, the US, and internationally. Great to know it has spread to Brazil as well. I'll forward your email to contacts at Facebook to make sure they are aware of the incident and see if they can comment. In the meantime, let me share with you and others links with details on the "slut walk" movement. regards Robert -- Toronto 'slut walk' takes to city streets (April 3, 2012) http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/04/03/slut-walk-toronto.htm l Toronto 'slut walk' spreads to U.S. (May 6, 2012) http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/05/06/slut-walk.html Slut walk in Toronto - http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/show-news/slutwalk-in-toronto.html (March 2012) Don't know if you ever heard the story, but back in January, at a campus safety information session at Osgoode Hall Law School (University of Toronto), a representative of the Toronto Police made the statement that "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized." Of course, the comment sparked a huge outrage, and you just knew a protest was bound to happen. But you have to hand it to one group for coming up with one of the most creative protests ever. They areplanning a SlutWalk. It's planned for April 3rd in Toronto and everyone is welcome. You don't even necessarily have to dress "slutty." Just come as you are. Sounds like a great way to make a point. On 2012-05-30, at 11:32 AM, 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-apar ecem-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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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 gurstein at gmail.com Wed May 30 20:09:25 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 19:09:25 -0500 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sounds like some good progress is being made. M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 11:08 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Anriette Esterhuysen Subject: Re: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:30 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > To quote myself in my original response to your original comment... > > "The desire to keep governments out of technical areas is very likely > a commendable one, but in that instance it behooves the supporters of > that position to find some other means to ensure that those currently > without a voice in those discussions are provided with a means to have > such a participation." In the African region (and in others) we are encouraging gov't stakeholders to participate in our discussions. This is happening, one example I gave was the AfGWG inside of AfriNIC. Lots of gov reps participated in our latest meeting. Am happy to see gov'ts involved, just NOT "in control" per se. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed May 30 21:17:20 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 13:17:20 +1200 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> Message-ID: > >> which required the authorities to .take down certain content. > > > > > > It was not Brazilian authorities that have taken down content from > Facebook. > > The concrete situation is actually quite the opposite: while Brazilian > > authorities had no problem with the march and Brazilian media > (newspapers, > > TV) had no problem to show the images, Facebook has taken a more > > conservative and restrictive stance, removing the pictures and blocking > the > > profiles. > > > > The content was removed based on Facebook policy guidelines. It is > Facebook > > rules, Facebook morality, which have been applied indistictively in a > > cross-border fashion to citizens worlwide. > 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. > > > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed May 30 21:25:12 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 22:25:12 -0300 Subject: [governance] Freenet: how free are we online? A developing country documentary Message-ID: Dear all, Many of you are aware of the documentary that is being produced by Joana Varon, from CTS/FGV, and Naor Elimelech. Several people from our community were interviewed during IGF Nairobi (thanks, by the way!). Now, the teaser for the documentary is ready. With the teaser, producers are hoping to raise more funding to carry on with the whole documentary that will encompass many more wonderful interviews that they had to leave out of the teaser. I just would like to share with you this first material, because it can be very valuable, despite short. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2Ep8wY3hV0E Best, Marília -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Wed May 30 21:35:40 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 21:35:40 -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> Message-ID: <105F1EC9-631C-49BC-9D01-4E1BAE0B26F4@acm.org> 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 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed May 30 22:10:21 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 14:10:21 +1200 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: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:35 PM, 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. The US apparently, see: *Miller v California* 413 U.S. 15 (1973) , *United States v. Thomas*, 74 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 1996) "Even Wikipedia discusses how these varies from country to country, see "The definition of what exactly constitutes an obscenity differs from culture to culture, between communities within a single culture, and also between individuals within those communities. Many cultures have produced laws to define what is considered to be obscene, and censorship is often used to try to suppress or control materials that are obscene under these definitions: usually including, but not limited to, pornographicmaterial. As such censorship restricts freedom of expression, crafting a legal definition of obscenity presents a civil liberties issue." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity > avri > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed May 30 22:27:50 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 14:27:50 +1200 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: Facebook being registered under California is subject to California laws and US Federal laws etc. The United States Department of Justice in 2005 established an Obscenity Prosecution Task Force to Investigate and Prosecute Purveyors of Obscene Materials see: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2005/May/05_crm_242.htm They are bound by the tests given to it by the United States Supreme Court. There are countries like Fiji's that do not in any way have the resources to dedicate an entire unit to investigating and prosecution of obscene materials. However, this may help us understand the psychology and dynamics behind crafting ToS as the one Facebook has. Kind Regards, Sala >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed May 30 22:58:02 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 23:58:02 -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> Message-ID: On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> 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. > Let's consider this for a minute. Little problem, though. What is "nudity" and which nudity should be forbidden by FB? Is a pornographic picture the same as a picture from the Slut Walk? The same as an old picture taken by an artist from a nude person (that was removed from FB as well)? The same as an expressionist painting with nude people? The same as a cartoon with nude characters? The same as a picture from a 3 year old girl whose picture was posted in FB by their parents (and removed from FB as well, according to the news) because she was not wearing shirt? A company should not be entitled to make this decision and enforce to all its users, across borders. What FB considered impropriate nudity would not be considered as such in many countries. So, without discussion, FB is abiding by the last common denominator. Of course, this is based of a market decision. It is better to take the content down than to face litigation. And this is exactly my point: companies make decisions based on profit, regardless of the public interest. 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. 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. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed May 30 23:19:35 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 15:19:35 +1200 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> Message-ID: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> 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. >> > > Let's consider this for a minute. Little problem, though. What is "nudity" > and which nudity should be forbidden by FB? Is a pornographic picture the > same as a picture from the Slut Walk? The same as an old picture taken by > an artist from a nude person (that was removed from FB as well)? The same > as an expressionist painting with nude people? The same as a cartoon with > nude characters? The same as a picture from a 3 year old girl whose > picture was posted in FB by their parents (and removed from FB as well, > according to the news) because she was not wearing shirt? A company should > not to be entitled to make this decision and enforce to all its users, > across borders. > The debate on what is obscene has been raging for quite a long time and well before I was born. Public morality in Brazil is different from Public morality in United Arab Emirates or in Vanuatu. This is why it is well settled international law at least for jurisdictions that have ratified the ICCPR, that freedom of expression is not absolute and it comes with responsibilities. Even in Tunisia recently a journalist and a newspaper was reprimanded for having a famous footballer and a nude model in hand and this was considered "obscene". The case citations that I posted show how public morality has shifted over time and the various distinctions between what is considered art versus indecent and obscene. > > What FB considered impropriate nudity would not be considered as such in > many countries. So, without discussion, FB is abiding by the last common > denominator. Of course, this is based of a market decision. It is better to > take the content down than to face litigation. And this is exactly my > point: companies make decisions based on profit, regardless of the public > interest. > What is public interest? Does it stem from the notion that freedom of expression is an absolute right. What if facebook was merely trying to comply with US laws and other countries laws that expressly prohibit obscenity. 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". 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 > -- 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 jac at apcwomen.org Thu May 31 01:15:52 2012 From: jac at apcwomen.org (Jac sm Kee) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 13:15:52 +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> Message-ID: <4FC6FE88.3030809@apcwomen.org> -----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). 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 would mean anything less than e.g. fully closed face and ankles and wrists would be unacceptable. that doesn't quite make sense either. 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. so i am reluctant to say that states should ahve oversight and negotiate it from there. 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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPxv6IAAoJEKpQzmPAS5FmHCoH/2uwhPDET81D4QPUCLs0VAxS IiJOShAJQmyCJUc6M6ghZl/pmpUdgBF0y0kB++DCJkU/sZrboTz4VGsffXwSBo3a 4bbwMHZcNQLhwRccM9780M0NHCJ4IVgF2gpJxmrfBcREiLp/w4ET4azQ1KTDeGnD 79vDfVg3ZAqTortPV46UgVzHyy025q2DDzMBqhBoup6MUFK3E6ItM7oOGnmjBYaJ esbVXxdSrhnGDfWzCfOvSF9UJ1sjE8pftvTjAP7xAfEHGQvLCiWARA5OWxjBth+h LfumxmmtrDuC3Tp2p1o3AYpR19PaD3DRRqOalwZ12+39SEYQlRyiAQHxDA9YG5Y= =HB8Y -----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 b.schombe at gmail.com Thu May 31 01:21:50 2012 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 07:21:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Marilia, I greatly admired your speech in Geneva at the 15th summit of theCSTD. I was there. Currently, I conduct a study entitled "Impact of facebook in the relations between users." Can you bring me items or links that can help me further documenton facebook . Personally, like you facebook? If so, why, if not why not? SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2012/5/30 Marilia Maciel > > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 31 02:13:32 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 11:43:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: <4FC6FE88.3030809@apcwomen.org> References: <21B81E06-CC98-493D-A594-4E64F4F4F46C@privaterra.org> <4FC65B85.7040307@cafonso.ca> <4FC6FE88.3030809@apcwomen.org> Message-ID: <4FC70C0C.2060601@itforchange.net> On Thursday 31 May 2012 10:45 AM, Jac sm Kee wrote: > Snip > 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. so i am reluctant to > say that states should ahve oversight and negotiate it from there. > 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 > > Jac, your misgivings about how civ soc will be able to influence things are understandable. But it is not that with turning of a switch the regulatory order will shift from the national to the global level. In making the demands for democratising global IG what is expected is rather a complex interplay of global and national level of politics - with certain degrees of government-ish authorities and corresponding role and participative-ness of civ soc - as is appropriate to the complex global-national nature of the Internet. There is no alternative to such a layered national-global system because none of the other options is acceptable, which I think are as below. 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 2) We go by a global least denominator for the whole world (which as you argue is not acceptable) 3) we leave things to private regulation, the will of the monopoly companies almost entirely determined by maximum profit motive 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. parminder > > > >> >> 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 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPxv6IAAoJEKpQzmPAS5FmHCoH/2uwhPDET81D4QPUCLs0VAxS > IiJOShAJQmyCJUc6M6ghZl/pmpUdgBF0y0kB++DCJkU/sZrboTz4VGsffXwSBo3a > 4bbwMHZcNQLhwRccM9780M0NHCJ4IVgF2gpJxmrfBcREiLp/w4ET4azQ1KTDeGnD > 79vDfVg3ZAqTortPV46UgVzHyy025q2DDzMBqhBoup6MUFK3E6ItM7oOGnmjBYaJ > esbVXxdSrhnGDfWzCfOvSF9UJ1sjE8pftvTjAP7xAfEHGQvLCiWARA5OWxjBth+h > LfumxmmtrDuC3Tp2p1o3AYpR19PaD3DRRqOalwZ12+39SEYQlRyiAQHxDA9YG5Y= > =HB8Y > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu May 31 02:26:51 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 07:26:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Neelie Kroes's Next Steps on Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: <4FC62DE8.9070708@cafonso.ca> References: <4FC5CA6A.2060601@cis-india.org> <4FC62DE8.9070708@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: In message <4FC62DE8.9070708 at cafonso.ca>, at 11:25:44 on Wed, 30 May 2012, Carlos A. Afonso writes >How do you "vote with your feet" if you have only one provider or a >cartel fixing prices? But probably this is a non-issue in the heaven >called Europe... Regulatory policy has resulted in very fierce competition (and there never were cartels). Here in the UK the choice is almost bewildering. I don't think the policy that Neelie is proposing is for everywhere - only Europe. -- 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 May 31 02:30:48 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 12:00:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: IGF Establishment In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDD2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> 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> <4FC5FAB6.1010200@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDD2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4FC71018.2090500@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 30 May 2012 08:02 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Parminder: > Going back to the early days of the IGF, the IGF establishment firmly blocked any reference to EC in MAG discussion. > > Wolfgang: > Can you clarify what the "IGF establishment" is? > Those who take decisions on behalf of IGF, MAG chair, executive coordinator, MAG, ...... > > Thanks > > w > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 31 02:37:24 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 08:37:24 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: (salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com) References: <21B81E06-CC98-493D-A594-4E64F4F4F46C@privaterra.org> <4FC65B85.7040307@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <20120531063724.C99D11F5A@quill.bollow.ch> Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > If we look at what is recently happening in Thailand as Peng Hwa and > Norbert reported on the notions of transitory liability where webmasters or > the like can face liability (not just fines) but imprisonment for not > removing content, I am not surprised. Regardless of whether one considers it acceptable for Facebook to forbid nudity in their ToS and act accordingly, im my mind there is no question that whatever freedom of expression issues there may be with nudity restrictions on Facebook, the issue of webmaster liability is a freedom of expression problem of a much more serious kind. I would propose that the public interest would be best served by focusing the global public policy debates as much as possible on the more serious problems and on what can be done to effectively address them. 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 May 31 02:39:55 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 07:39:55 +0100 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> Message-ID: In message , at 09:31:42 on Thu, 31 May 2012, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro writes >Facebook probably took this approach because its social network >transcends multiple jurisdictions that have strict laws on "obscene >publications". The recent petition filed by Vinay Rai in the New Delhi >courts against Facebook and others. My personal take on it was that it >was a commercial decision for "Facebook" and that it was far cheaper to >take down offensive content if it were to put it in a position of being sued Exactly - the same sort of commercial decision which would mean a lack of xxx movies being shown on an international flight. Removing the profiles is probably a knee-jerk too far though, freedom of expression should allow the participants to discuss their protest movement, even if commercial rules mean they can't display the pictures on Facebook. But we are often told how the Internet "routes round damage" in cases like this, and there are numerous photo-sites (let alone a person's own webspace supplied by their ISP) where these photos could be loaded, and referred to from a discussion hosted on Facebook. The Internet is not "just the Web", and the Web is not just Facebook. Stories like this which give the impression that Facebook has an unassailable monopoly simply feeds their marketing strategy. -- 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 May 31 02:52:06 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 07:52:06 +0100 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: In message <105F1EC9-631C-49BC-9D01-4E1BAE0B26F4 at acm.org>, at 21:35:40 on Wed, 30 May 2012, Avri Doria writes >not sure in what world nudity and hate speech fall under the same category. Not sure what you mean by "same category", but they are commonly both banned from certain types of communications media in various countries. 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). -- 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 May 31 02:58:10 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 07:58:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: <95D959517D0D4E52A93FC0303FAE1201@UserVAIO> References: <95D959517D0D4E52A93FC0303FAE1201@UserVAIO> Message-ID: In message <95D959517D0D4E52A93FC0303FAE1201 at UserVAIO>, at 19:09:25 on Wed, 30 May 2012, michael gurstein writes >I rather prefer the Brazilian translation but then who am I... :) The original meaning is closer to "whore" than "bitch" (which is simply a word for a vindictive woman, regardless of her sexual proclivities). Google translate gives me the word Cadela. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu May 31 03:01:54 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 19:01:54 +1200 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: <4FC6FE88.3030809@apcwomen.org> References: <21B81E06-CC98-493D-A594-4E64F4F4F46C@privaterra.org> <4FC65B85.7040307@cafonso.ca> <4FC6FE88.3030809@apcwomen.org> Message-ID: 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 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPxv6IAAoJEKpQzmPAS5FmHCoH/2uwhPDET81D4QPUCLs0VAxS > IiJOShAJQmyCJUc6M6ghZl/pmpUdgBF0y0kB++DCJkU/sZrboTz4VGsffXwSBo3a > 4bbwMHZcNQLhwRccM9780M0NHCJ4IVgF2gpJxmrfBcREiLp/w4ET4azQ1KTDeGnD > 79vDfVg3ZAqTortPV46UgVzHyy025q2DDzMBqhBoup6MUFK3E6ItM7oOGnmjBYaJ > esbVXxdSrhnGDfWzCfOvSF9UJ1sjE8pftvTjAP7xAfEHGQvLCiWARA5OWxjBth+h > LfumxmmtrDuC3Tp2p1o3AYpR19PaD3DRRqOalwZ12+39SEYQlRyiAQHxDA9YG5Y= > =HB8Y > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -- 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu May 31 03:20:36 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 09:20:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] Important Meeting References: <21B81E06-CC98-493D-A594-4E64F4F4F46C@privaterra.org> <4FC65B85.7040307@cafonso.ca> <105F1EC9-631C-49BC-9D01-4E1BAE0B26F4@acm.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDE0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Good to Hear: ICANNs Rod Beckstrom meets his Highness Sheikh Nawaf Al-Ahmed Al-Jaber Al-Sabah Crown Prince of the State of Kuwait. In the meeting participated also Sheikha Aida Al-Sabah, Chairperson of the Board of Trustees of H.H. Sheikh Salem Al-Ali Al-Sabah Informatics Award. The report says, inter alia: "During the meeting, Sheikh Nawaf shared his interesting views and insight on cyber security and the role ICANN as well as other stakeholders can play to increase users trust and confidence in the online space. It was noted that ICANN plays a key role in securing the domain name system through its open, bottom-up process with stakeholder participation from all over the world." http://blog.icann.org/2012/05/icann-receives-arab-world-award/ Wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu May 31 03:36:33 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 19:36:33 +1200 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: <20120531063724.C99D11F5A@quill.bollow.ch> References: <21B81E06-CC98-493D-A594-4E64F4F4F46C@privaterra.org> <4FC65B85.7040307@cafonso.ca> <20120531063724.C99D11F5A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > > If we look at what is recently happening in Thailand as Peng Hwa and > > Norbert reported on the notions of transitory liability where webmasters > or > > the like can face liability (not just fines) but imprisonment for not > > removing content, I am not surprised. > > Regardless of whether one considers it acceptable for Facebook to > forbid nudity in their ToS and act accordingly, im my mind there > is no question that whatever freedom of expression issues there > may be with nudity restrictions on Facebook, the issue of webmaster > liability is a freedom of expression problem of a much more serious > kind. > > The issue of webmaster liability is serious aaccording to La Rue's Report on "Intermediary Liability". La Rue raised in paragraph 39 where he highlights the situation in Turkey and Thailand [ http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf ] "Many States have adopted laws which impose liability upon intermediaries if they do not filter, remove or block content generated by users which is deemed illegal. For example, in Turkey, Law 5651 on the *Prevention of Crime Committed in the Information **Technology Domain*, which was enacted in 2007, imposes new obligations on content providers, ISPs and website hosts. It also grants authority to an agency to issue administrative orders to block websites for content hosted outside of Turkey, and to take down eight broad types of unlawful content." In Thailand, the 2007 Computer Crimes Act imposes liability upon intermediaries that transmit or host third-party content and content authors themselves.This law has been used to prosecute individuals providing online platforms. >From the information sent to the list recently about what was happening in Thailand in relation to the webmaster being prosecuted for not taking down "offensive content", it is abundantly clear that there is a need to engage discussion on instances where the "Exception" is "abused". I think that societies have to "mature" and sadly often it has to be states and ruling powers that need to mature in changing their paradigm that it must allow their people to speak freely and without fear of "persecution" and "prosecution". I would propose that the public interest would be best served by > focusing the global public policy debates as much as possible on > the more serious problems and on what can be done to effectively > address them. > > +1 > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu May 31 03:38:54 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 10:38:54 +0300 Subject: [governance] Sky blocks access to The Pirate Bay file-sharing site Message-ID: <4FC7200E.5050704@gmail.com> 30 May 2012 Last updated at 17:58 GMT Sky blocks access to The Pirate Bay file-sharing site Pirate Bay screenshot The Pirate Bay has created a site with a new IP address to circumvent bans Sky Broadband has begun blocking access to file-sharing site The Pirate Bay. It follows Virgin Media and Everything Everywhere which have already taken similar action. The High Court had demanded the move after complaints by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) that TPB facilitated copyright infringement by providing magnetic links to movies, music and other media. O2 and Talktalk said they were still working to implement the ban. A sixth operator, BT, has been given extra time to make the necessary arrangements. It is expected to act within the next fortnight. Deadlines A statement from Sky said: "We have invested billions of pounds in high-quality entertainment for our customers because we know how much our customers value it. It's therefore important that companies like ours do what they can, alongside the government and the rest of the media and technology industries, to help protect their copyright." A spokesman noted that it had acted ahead of a 1 June deadline. This is the second court order of its kind that Sky has complied with following its block on Newzbin 2 in December. The High Court issued different time limits to the different ISPs. O2 has until 13 June to act, by which time it said it would block access to TPB's main site as well as other IP addresses that the BPI successfully claimed had been set up to enable access to the service. However, the Torrentfreak news site has reported that TPB has since set up a new IP address giving access to its contents. It added the site was willing to play "an extended game of whack-a-mole" in which it would publicise new locations every time the courts ordered one of its addresses to be blocked. A spokesman for the BPI said it was working with ISPs and the courts to ensure that existing orders were effective, but would not comment on whether it would seek to block further addresses. Pornography Golden Eye screenshot Golden Eye wants O2 customers who illegally watched its movies to pay £700 Meanwhile, O2 is set to return to the High Court on Thursday for a hearing into a separate copyright complaint. A judge will hear evidence in a dispute with Golden Eye International, a limited company which trades as Ben Dover Productions making pornographic films. In March the firm won an order demanding O2 release details of thousands of its customers whose IP addresses it said had been linked to illegal downloads of Ben Dover's films. At the time O2 said it had no option but to "co-operate fully". The hearing is for the court to "approve the form of a letter" that Golden Eye wishes to send to its customers. "In our first letter we seek to find out more information regarding evidence of an infringement of our copyright," Julian Becker, director of Golden Eye told the BBC. "Depending on the response to our letters we will then decide our next action. "Fundamentally we are pursuing those that are uploading not downloading. In effect these violations are unauthorised distribution, we are not pursuing those who have simply downloaded one film." Mr Becker added that he was awaiting guidance from the court as to how much compensation his firm could seek. Golden Eye previously said it wanted £700 for each infringement - a sum watchdog Consumer Focus described as "unsupportable". http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18270343 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Thu May 31 03:46:54 2012 From: matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at (Matthias C. Kettemann) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 09:46:54 +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> Message-ID: <4FC721EE.5020209@uni-graz.at> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 31 04:07:10 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 10:07:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: <4FC70C0C.2060601@itforchange.net> (message from parminder on Thu, 31 May 2012 11:43:32 +0530) References: <21B81E06-CC98-493D-A594-4E64F4F4F46C@privaterra.org> <4FC65B85.7040307@cafonso.ca> <4FC6FE88.3030809@apcwomen.org> <4FC70C0C.2060601@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20120531080710.EA3581F5A@quill.bollow.ch> parminder wrote: > Jac, your misgivings about how civ soc will be able to influence things > are understandable. But it is not that with turning of a switch the > regulatory order will shift from the national to the global level. In > making the demands for democratising global IG what is expected is > rather a complex interplay of global and national level of politics - > with certain degrees of government-ish authorities and corresponding > role and participative-ness of civ soc - as is appropriate to the > complex global-national nature of the Internet. There is no alternative > to such a layered national-global system Hmm... can you explain how the "layered national-global system" concept would work in practice? Suppose that someone who is not aware of what the Facebook ToS says exactly (as we all know, most people don't read ToS statements in detail, much less remember the details of whatever parts of the ToS they may actually have read) posts a "slut walk" picture on their "facebook profile", and Facebook Inc reacts by deactivating that "facebook profile" without warning. (Note to those who are familiar with Facebook's recent actions: I'd appreciate if information could be posted please about what actions, if any, Facebook Inc has taken to warn people who violate Facebook's nudity rule about the rule and about what it means - for example, non-native speakers of English could easily misunderstand "nudity" as referring only to being fully nude.) How would the "layered national-global system" decide whether the "facebook profile" is a means of communication to which the protection of correspondence of Article 17(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [1] applies, and whether deactivating that "facebook profile" without warning constitutes forbidden interference with such correspondence??? [1] http://idgovmap.org/map/treaty/ICCPR 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 May 31 05:12:03 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 10:12:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF Establishment In-Reply-To: <4FC65F01.3000201@wzb.eu> 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> <4FC5FAB6.1010200@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDD2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2059588C-11D1-4DAF-9451-6F0AA7CB1B1B@acm.org> <4FC65F01.3000201@wzb.eu> Message-ID: In message <4FC65F01.3000201 at wzb.eu>, at 19:55:13 on Wed, 30 May 2012, Jeanette Hofmann writes >I was on the MAG since year one and I recall a discussion on the >relationship between IGF and EC. That discussion came about because >Nitin's first round of consultations (it was Nitin who led those >consultations wasn't it?) in the first year after WSIS did not have any >meaningful result. None of the gov's he talked to had any suggestions >as to how the concept of EC could be meaningfully put to practice. My recollection as a member of the audience at all the IGF consultations was that Nitin went on an early[1] short tour (with his Special Advisor hat on, not his IGF chair hat) and came back empty handed. From then on his available time was fully occupied by the IGF, and he insisted that the two processes continued separately, the IGF under his control and EC as a "someone else's problem" initiative from New York. The requests for report-backs on Enhance Cooperation (I've posted the url many times and won't bore everyone by repeating it) came from UNDESA in New York, and weren't necessarily taken sufficiently seriously the first year. But eventually they got reports from all the organisations they approached. [1] Mindful also that EC was timetabled to start before IGF, in the Tunis Agenda. -- 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 Thu May 31 06:11:09 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 12:11:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] USG open Internet advisory committee In-Reply-To: <1338403479.44799.BPMail_low_noncarrier@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1338403479.44799.BPMail_low_noncarrier@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Imran, Why do you think you need ICANN authorization for open roots ? Cheers - - - On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > By the way if it is really for Open Internet, does ICANN allows? > Open and Alternate Roots (for Open Layers of Internet)? > > Imran > ------------------------------ > On Wed, May 30, 2012 21:08 PKT Lee W McKnight wrote: > > >Re ICANN, not so much there falls in FCC jurisdiction so no surprise. > > > >And I emphasize again, the phrase is: open Internet. Net neutrality is > so...2009. At least in US domestic politics and policy. > > > >Lee > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Thu May 31 08:51:10 2012 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 08:51:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: <20120531080710.EA3581F5A@quill.bollow.ch> References: <21B81E06-CC98-493D-A594-4E64F4F4F46C@privaterra.org> <4FC65B85.7040307@cafonso.ca> <4FC6FE88.3030809@apcwomen.org> <4FC70C0C.2060601@itforchange.net> <20120531080710.EA3581F5A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: A couple of points reflecting on this thread overall... As I understand it, the Facebook (FB) censorship policy is not just a legal issue. After all, porn is alive and well on WWW and beyond the age limit requirement for the audience/viewer, I'm not sure statutes (or laws) are different for different communication platforms. I recall FB referring to their policy as community-based policy or something along that notion which implies that they check and possibly remove contents when (and presumably *only* after) users complain about them. This does not mean a critical mass of users, whatever that might mean; one user may report a photo as abusive (there's a link to that effect with every picture) and they will take a look at the photo and then make a decision based on their rules w.r.t. abusive and obscene contents, etc. Obviously those rules (ToS) have been drafted by the company's lawyers and based on the legal framework they are operating from. But my point is they do not necessarily screen the pictures in order to apply their censorship rules upfront, but rather after they're prompted by other users. I have noticed that FB pages featuring contents that some people might find offensive/indecent/abusive (typically, adult contents although not what one might call porn) emphatically warn on their info page that anybody who might be offended by such contents should not join the page/group -- and that seems to work as anti-censorship measure. While a young female artist (and US/NYC citizen) who posted a styled nude picture of herself as part of a music release cover project was reported and the concerned picture was taken down. So I don't think the least common denominator is uniformly applied or that the issue is "simply" legal (which, if it was, would have required a *uniform* solution provided from the perspective of the home jurisdiction of the company, as has been suggested.) Now that still leaves out a whole bunch of cases, from graphic pictures that are used to make political statements (and as such even more relevant to the spirit of the freedom of expression right) to baby nudes -- i.o.w., the issue initially raised by Marilia. If you're using nude pictures for political expression, you certainly would want to impact the society at large with your message (in fact even more so those in the society who might be so troubled, in this case, by the way some women dress as to justify rape or any violence against them) not just to impact private citizens who self-select as willing to see your medium and hear your message. Obviously, the internet has been challenging our traditional/previous notion of rules, jurisdiction and enforcement -- and it is no different with FB -- and we're still to see a clear path to any stabilizing solution, i.e. a solution that would not be challenged from more sides than it could satisfy. Furthermore, this reminds me of something I realized during my term at ICANN (and particularly in the Whois debate) which is the assumption still held in some quarters that .com is really for US-based business and therefore it is totally legitimate to regulate that space (and potentially all the generic namespace) from the standpoint of US legal norms and requirements. The second half of that assumption is that the WWW space for any other national jurisdiction claims on commercial entities/activities can only be defined as ".co.uk" and the like (i.o.w. under ccTLD). Otherwise stated, the global space on the Web (at least as far as business practices are concerned) is by default US-regulated and the transaction costs are always going to be very high to change that, if change is at all possible. I haven't seen any explicit policy statement by any institution to that effect, but once I realized some people were thinking that way, a number of policy positions that were troubling to me became much clearer. All things being equal, I do not exclude that this approach might be the best *available* solution in the absence of any specific arrangement addressing the Internet jurisdiction challenge -- which may also explain who are the most opposed to the idea of even discussing the possibility of such arrangement. Translating Slut Walk / Marcha das Vadias / Marche des Salopes (French)... I guess every language has a variety of colorful adjectives to choose from, and Marilia's effort to convey the Portuguese language choice ("March of Bitches") was not to be considered as a reverse translation to replace the original English phrase. Best, Mawaki On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:07 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > parminder wrote: >> Jac, your misgivings about how civ soc will be able to influence things >> are understandable. But it is not that with turning of a switch the >> regulatory order will shift from the national to the global level.  In >> making the demands for democratising global IG what is expected is >> rather a complex interplay of global and national level of politics - >> with certain degrees of government-ish authorities and corresponding >> role and participative-ness of civ soc - as is appropriate to the >> complex global-national nature of the Internet. There is no alternative >> to such a layered national-global system > > Hmm... can you explain how the "layered national-global system" > concept would work in practice? > > Suppose that someone who is not aware of what the Facebook ToS says > exactly (as we all know, most people don't read ToS statements in > detail, much less remember the details of whatever parts of the ToS > they may actually have read) posts a "slut walk" picture on their > "facebook profile", and Facebook Inc reacts by deactivating that > "facebook profile" without warning. (Note to those who are familiar > with Facebook's recent actions: I'd appreciate if information could > be posted please about what actions, if any, Facebook Inc has taken > to warn people who violate Facebook's nudity rule about the rule and > about what it means - for example, non-native speakers of English > could easily misunderstand "nudity" as referring only to being fully > nude.) > > How would the "layered national-global system" decide whether the > "facebook profile" is a means of communication to which the protection > of correspondence of Article 17(1) of the International Covenant on > Civil and Political Rights [1] applies, and whether deactivating that > "facebook profile" without warning constitutes forbidden interference > with such correspondence??? > [1] http://idgovmap.org/map/treaty/ICCPR > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu May 31 09:00:06 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 09:00:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <589E5DB02DA0409FAD6AF07F1FE0A2F9@UserVAIO> FWIW I discussed some of these issues in a blogpost (under somewhat different circumstances) which suggests the links between this discussion and our earlier one on EC. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/is-facebook-a-human-right-egypt-and -tunisia-transform-social-media/ Tiny URL http://wp.me/pJQl5-5I M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 5:32 PM To: Marilia Maciel Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: Hi Sala, On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Most countries have what is called "laws against obscene publications" and some "indecent exposure" and I suspect that Brazil has something of the sort which required the authorities to .take down certain content. It was not Brazilian authorities that have taken down content from Facebook. The concrete situation is actually quite the opposite: while Brazilian authorities had no problem with the march and Brazilian media (newspapers, TV) had no problem to show the images, Facebook has taken a more conservative and restrictive stance, removing the pictures and blocking the profiles. Facebook probably took this approach because its social network transcends multiple jurisdictions that have strict laws on "obscene publications". The recent petition filed by Vinay Rai in the New Delhi courts against Facebook and others. My personal take on it was that it was a commercial decision for "Facebook" and that it was far cheaper to take down offensive content if it were to put it in a position of being sued. Their commercial woes are no secret, see below: "Facebook's IPO troubles continue with the stock hitting a new low, the company facing a class action lawsuit from investors, and now another social network indefinitely postponing its own IPO because of the effect Facebook has had on the market. Less than two weeks after Facebook’s IPO launched, the company’s value has fallen from an estimated $104 billion to $61.98 billion, with trading falling even further today as the markets opened again in the US after the holiday weekend. That’s the bad news for the social network. The worse news? Things aren’t expected to improve any time soon. Continuing its trend of falling share prices when the overall market rises (Today, the NASDAQ closed up), Facebook stock took another tumble in today’s trading, falling an additional 10 percent from its opening price, bringing its overall price to a new low of $28.84 , almost a full $10 down from the $38 price that the stock launched at on May 18, bringing the company’s core value down to just almost $62 billion. With the company facing a class action lawsuit over the information released to investors prior to the IPO brought by the law firm of Robbins Geller, the last thing the company needs to hear is that things are about to get worse, but apparently, they will." Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/facebook-now-worth-40-percent-less -11-days-after-ipo/#ixzz1wOGAQsz2 The content was removed based on Facebook policy guidelines. It is Facebook rules, Facebook morality, which have been applied indistictively in a cross-border fashion to citizens worlwide. Well if one examines how they have been under pressure by Regulators around the world, one that comes to mind is the imposition of the German Regulator on the use of "like feature" that facebook uses, one can only imagine that what is reported is the tip of the iceberg. Often commercial entities like to keep their compliance notices under wraps if they can help it. No doubt that the cumulative cost would be inevitably high so commercially, their policy was probably framed around the "Don't attract unnecessary cost/ expense" model. This of course has a backdrop in what is largely a flailing global economy where there is no new money just pieces of the pie being reassembled. If we look at what is recently happening in Thailand as Peng Hwa and Norbert reported on the notions of transitory liability where webmasters or the like can face liability (not just fines) but imprisonment for not removing content, I am not surprised. Some basic conclusions: a) rights, such as freedom of expression, 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), 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. The UN Human Rights Council in February this year were discussing Freedom of Expression although I wish more ti me was spent on discussing the abuse of the exceptions under Article 19 of the ICCPR. On the notion of Facebook morailty - this has to be analysed on a case by case basis, I suppose. Best, Marília The issue remains is when the use of the exception is reasonble and when is it prone to abuse? Sala On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:40 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: Which translation?? The name of the march in BR is correct, and I did not see any translation of the Canadian equivalent in Marilia's msg. Anyway... --c.a. On 05/30/2012 12:52 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Thanks for the correction, Robert. That was the translation Google > suggested me. Interesting. > Thanks also for taking this forward. > > Marília > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Robert Guerra > wrote: > > Marilia, > > Your translation is a bit off. The feminist group in question is the > "slut walk" that started in my home town of Toronto and has since > spread to other cities in CanadThnana, the US, and internationally. > Great to know it has spread to Brazil as well. > > I'll forward your email to contacts at Facebook to make sure they > are aware of the incident and see if they can comment. > > In the meantime, let me share with you and others links with details > on the "slut walk" movement. > > regards > > Robert > -- > > > Toronto 'slut walk' takes to city streets (April 3, 2012) > http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/04/03/slut-walk-toronto.htm l > > Toronto 'slut walk' spreads to U.S. (May 6, 2012) > http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/05/06/slut-walk.html > > Slut walk in Toronto - > http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/show-news/slutwalk-in-toronto.html (March > 2012) > > Don't know if you ever heard the story, but back in January, at a > campus safety information session at Osgoode Hall Law School > (University of Toronto), a representative of the Toronto Police made > the statement that "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order > not to be victimized." > > Of course, the comment sparked a huge outrage, and you just knew a > protest was bound to happen. > > But you have to hand it to one group for coming up with one of the > most creative protests ever. They areplanning a SlutWalk. > > It's planned for April 3rd in Toronto and everyone is welcome. You > don't even necessarily have to dress "slutty." Just come as you are. > Sounds like a great way to make a point. > > > > On 2012-05-30, at 11:32 AM, 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-apar ecem-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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu May 31 09:14:45 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 09:14:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5D5702A927FD45049FCDE34764C407FB@UserVAIO> Sex offenders fight for right to use Facebook http://news.yahoo.com/sex-offenders-fight-facebook-190311149.html INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Registered sex offenders who have been banned from social networking websites are fighting back in the nation's courts, successfully challenging many of the restrictions as infringements on free speech and their right to participate in common online discussions. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 3:02 AM To: Jac sm Kee Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Marilia Maciel; McTim Subject: Re: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil 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-sec ret-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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPxv6IAAoJEKpQzmPAS5FmHCoH/2uwhPDET81D4QPUCLs0VAxS IiJOShAJQmyCJUc6M6ghZl/pmpUdgBF0y0kB++DCJkU/sZrboTz4VGsffXwSBo3a 4bbwMHZcNQLhwRccM9780M0NHCJ4IVgF2gpJxmrfBcREiLp/w4ET4azQ1KTDeGnD 79vDfVg3ZAqTortPV46UgVzHyy025q2DDzMBqhBoup6MUFK3E6ItM7oOGnmjBYaJ esbVXxdSrhnGDfWzCfOvSF9UJ1sjE8pftvTjAP7xAfEHGQvLCiWARA5OWxjBth+h LfumxmmtrDuC3Tp2p1o3AYpR19PaD3DRRqOalwZ12+39SEYQlRyiAQHxDA9YG5Y= =HB8Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu May 31 09:27:47 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 18:57:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: <20120531080710.EA3581F5A@quill.bollow.ch> References: <21B81E06-CC98-493D-A594-4E64F4F4F46C@privaterra.org> <4FC65B85.7040307@cafonso.ca> <4FC6FE88.3030809@apcwomen.org> <4FC70C0C.2060601@itforchange.net> <20120531080710.EA3581F5A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4FC771D3.6030509@itforchange.net> On Thursday 31 May 2012 01:37 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > parminder wrote: > >> Jac, your misgivings about how civ soc will be able to influence things >> are understandable. But it is not that with turning of a switch the >> regulatory order will shift from the national to the global level. In >> making the demands for democratising global IG what is expected is >> rather a complex interplay of global and national level of politics - >> with certain degrees of government-ish authorities and corresponding >> role and participative-ness of civ soc - as is appropriate to the >> complex global-national nature of the Internet. There is no alternative >> to such a layered national-global system >> > Hmm... can you explain how the "layered national-global system" > concept would work in practice? > Norbert, I this point I only suggested it as the generic shape and form which political systems will need to take around the Internet, in response to Jac's concerns about CS's suitable points of interaction and influence. Seeking from this generic statement, the right solution to a specific problem, jumping, inter alia, the step of appropriate institutional arrangements, would indeed be a big leap. However I can try. For the start, 'Internet intermediary guidelines' should be developed globally, with all countries present, instead of OECD developing them as present! These guidelines can limit what the Internet intermediaries can and cannot do, and the due process of doing it, while giving enough quarters to local law, but also seeks certain harmonisations on the line of universal human rights etc. If that is difficult at this stage, perhaps, we can reach the level of providing certain set of options, with obligations to report things etc, and pressures build into the system to move towards higher quality options... as the UN human rights system operates today. It does help. I know some people would immediately raise the 'lowest common denominator' alarm, but I have great faith in global community's political abilities and future, and even in its currently imperfect representational systems (which includes soft, but increasing, representational power of the civil society). And if one really doesnt have such faith one should, perhaps, correspondingly disassociate from economic and social globalisation, and return to small community living. parminder > Suppose that someone who is not aware of what the Facebook ToS says > exactly (as we all know, most people don't read ToS statements in > detail, much less remember the details of whatever parts of the ToS > they may actually have read) posts a "slut walk" picture on their > "facebook profile", and Facebook Inc reacts by deactivating that > "facebook profile" without warning. (Note to those who are familiar > with Facebook's recent actions: I'd appreciate if information could > be posted please about what actions, if any, Facebook Inc has taken > to warn people who violate Facebook's nudity rule about the rule and > about what it means - for example, non-native speakers of English > could easily misunderstand "nudity" as referring only to being fully > nude.) > > How would the "layered national-global system" decide whether the > "facebook profile" is a means of communication to which the protection > of correspondence of Article 17(1) of the International Covenant on > Civil and Political Rights [1] applies, and whether deactivating that > "facebook profile" without warning constitutes forbidden interference > with such correspondence??? > [1] http://idgovmap.org/map/treaty/ICCPR > > 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 avri at ella.com Thu May 31 09:29:16 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 09:29:16 -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: <69932055-B387-45E0-BA68-BB75EBC6DF40@ella.com> On 31 May 2012, at 02:52, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <105F1EC9-631C-49BC-9D01-4E1BAE0B26F4 at acm.org>, at 21:35:40 on Wed, 30 May 2012, Avri Doria writes > >> not sure in what world nudity and hate speech fall under the same category. > > Not sure what you mean by "same category", but they are commonly both banned from certain types of communications media in various countries. > That was my point. When we begin to accept that they are in the same category and that equating them is in any way reasonable, I think we make a big mistake. Both of these reasons for restricting people's freedom are being grossly abused. To combine their abuse, and somehow indicate that this is a reasonable thing to do is a really bad idea in my view. > 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). according to the hate speech proponents, using any designation other than the n-word designation is hate speech. beware. almost anything is hate speech this days. and if it isn't hate speech today, give it a chance, it will be hate speech tomorrow. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Thu May 31 09:31:52 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 09:31:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: References: <95D959517D0D4E52A93FC0303FAE1201@UserVAIO> Message-ID: <7A71AC53-6534-4EFE-9842-853F5D4AA19E@ella.com> On 31 May 2012, at 02:58, Roland Perry wrote: > The original meaning is closer to "whore" than "bitch" (which is simply a word for a vindictive woman, regardless of her sexual proclivities). I beleive the various denigrating words for women are culturally variant, so an definitional exercise is sort of futile. What is invariant is that every language has a bushel full of words used to denigrate women. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Thu May 31 09:37:03 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 10:37:03 -0300 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: <4FC721EE.5020209@uni-graz.at> References: <21B81E06-CC98-493D-A594-4E64F4F4F46C@privaterra.org> <4FC65B85.7040307@cafonso.ca> <4FC6FE88.3030809@apcwomen.org> <4FC721EE.5020209@uni-graz.at> Message-ID: Matthias, very interesting message, I very much agree. Thanks for the reference of the article. Norbert:im my mind there is no question that whatever freedom of expression issues there may be with nudity restrictions on Facebook, the issue of webmaster liability is a freedom of expression problem of a much more serious kind. MM: Norbert, I agree with you on the importance of liability. Clear and reduced liability of intermediaries is something we are trying to push with the Brazilian Civil Rights Framework, to avoid the chilling effect. The battle will take place in Congress soon. But, on the other hand, I think we cannot minimize the importance of the parameters of "good behavior" set by these global platforms, such as FB. I have a younger sister, and it amazes me how the Internet for younger generations is restricted to platforms like FB and apps. They carry content to these platforms in a way that they are the ones to intermediate digital reality for them. I think that rules established on ToRs are able to influence and modulate, very subtly, cultural ideas, such as the idea of morality. And the importance of this cannot be underestimated and it justifies the discussion of this topic, as much as the topic of intermediaries. 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. 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. 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 > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Thu May 31 09:48:04 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 06:48:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] USG open Internet advisory committee In-Reply-To: References: <1338403479.44799.BPMail_low_noncarrier@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1338472084.18546.YahooMailNeo@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> No, I do not need, However, as per thread discussion about multi-stakeholder representation in the advisory committee on Open Internet, there are could be different types of the stakeholder. 1.Who demand "Open Internet" being a User (to advocate their case), 2.Who can facilitate the "Open Internet". 3.Who needs Restricted/Filtered/Controlled type if Internet instead of "Open Internet" .... .... So, where the ICANN will be, my point was that ICANN is not the facilitator for "Open Internet".   I believe that Term of "Open Internet" is not limited to just Access Right (as per FCC definition) as an Internet Browser Users or/and not limited to the Right of Expression on the Internet, or just not about the traffic that flows through networks.... .. its beyond this, .. it is to be implemented (or it should be implemented) on the Core Internet.     ..... has received about US$350 million in fees for applications from 2,305 potential applications for TLDs, how we say it is "Open Internet".  Thanks   Imran Ahmed Shah       From: Louis Pouzin (well) >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Imran Ahmed Shah >Cc: lmcknigh at syr.edu; ocl at gih.com >Sent: Thursday, 31 May 2012, 15:11 >Subject: [governance] USG open Internet advisory committee > > >Hi Imran, > >Why do you think you need ICANN authorization for open roots ? > >Cheers >- - - > > >On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > >>By the way if it is really for Open Internet, does ICANN allows? >>Open and Alternate Roots (for Open Layers of Internet)? >> >>Imran >>------------------------------ >> >> On Wed, May 30, 2012 21:08 PKT Lee W McKnight wrote: >> >> >Re ICANN, not so much there falls in FCC jurisdiction so no surprise. >> > >> >And I emphasize again, the phrase is: open Internet. Net neutrality is so...2009. At least in US domestic politics and policy. >> > >> >Lee  >> >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu May 31 10:12:29 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 10:12:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: Our internet is at risk Message-ID: -----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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 31 10:25:28 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 15:25:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: <4FC771D3.6030509@itforchange.net> References: <21B81E06-CC98-493D-A594-4E64F4F4F46C@privaterra.org> <4FC65B85.7040307@cafonso.ca> <4FC6FE88.3030809@apcwomen.org> <4FC70C0C.2060601@itforchange.net> <20120531080710.EA3581F5A@quill.bollow.ch> <4FC771D3.6030509@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <4FC771D3.6030509 at itforchange.net>, at 18:57:47 on Thu, 31 May 2012, parminder writes > For the start, 'Internet intermediary guidelines' should be developed >globally, with all countries present, instead of OECD developing them >as present! These guidelines can limit what the Internet intermediaries >can and cannot do, and the due process of doing it, while giving enough >quarters to local law, but also seeks certain harmonisations on the >line of universal human rights etc. I don't know if the remit of the OECD study has changed since I was participating about two years ago, but at that point it wasn't talking about what Intermediaries can and cannot do, but which things happening on their systems (instigated by third parties) they were liable, or not liable, for. eg. At the time YouTube was in the news for *not* removing a video in Italy of a disabled child being assaulted in school (after they'd received a complaint), rather than for exercising *too much* control. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Thu May 31 10:26:52 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 16:26:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] US Congress hearings on WCIT Message-ID: <5C935271-33A9-4C55-886E-18D72CE3602D@uzh.ch> politicians on parade on now…lots of bottom up multistakeholder blah blah http://www.ustream.tv/channel-popup/energyandcommerce2123 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 31 10:30:49 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 15:30:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: <7A71AC53-6534-4EFE-9842-853F5D4AA19E@ella.com> References: <95D959517D0D4E52A93FC0303FAE1201@UserVAIO> <7A71AC53-6534-4EFE-9842-853F5D4AA19E@ella.com> Message-ID: In message <7A71AC53-6534-4EFE-9842-853F5D4AA19E at ella.com>, at 09:31:52 on Thu, 31 May 2012, Avri Doria writes >> The original meaning is closer to "whore" than "bitch" (which is simply a word for a vindictive woman, regardless of her sexual >>proclivities). > >I beleive the various denigrating words for women are culturally variant, so an definitional exercise is sort of futile. What is invariant is >that every language has a bushel full of words used to denigrate women. I think you are missing the point, because the original comments which were being protested about, were along the lines of "don't dress like whores", not "don't dress like bitches". It's that very typecasting which the protesters want to highlight. -- 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 May 31 10:31:56 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 15:31:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: <69932055-B387-45E0-BA68-BB75EBC6DF40@ella.com> References: <21B81E06-CC98-493D-A594-4E64F4F4F46C@privaterra.org> <4FC65B85.7040307@cafonso.ca> <105F1EC9-631C-49BC-9D01-4E1BAE0B26F4@acm.org> <69932055-B387-45E0-BA68-BB75EBC6DF40@ella.com> Message-ID: In message <69932055-B387-45E0-BA68-BB75EBC6DF40 at ella.com>, at 09:29:16 on Thu, 31 May 2012, Avri Doria writes >> Not sure what you mean by "same category", but they are commonly both banned from certain types of communications media in various countries. > >That was my point. When we begin to accept that they are in the same category and that equating them is in any way reasonable, I think we make >a big mistake. SPAM and messages which defraud are also commonly banned. In some places tobacco advertising and threats to the President. That's six categories now. -- 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 kovenronald at aol.com Thu May 31 10:46:04 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 10:46:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] FW: Our internet is at risk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8CF0D533D552BEE-C1C-17E1@webmail-d082.sysops.aol.com> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 31 11:16:05 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 11:16:05 -0400 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: <07EA34DE-3366-4726-8113-B321FFAAD6AE@acm.org> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu May 31 11:40:06 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 17:40:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] WG: ITU calls for global collaboration to tackle cybersecurity threats References: <3005.Sebgarsh.AS-106917.2012.5.31.59898.61.pressoffice@itu.int> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDE7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> ITU calls for global collaboration to tackle cybersecurity threats - ITU Telecom World 2012 to provide platform to examine core global cybersecurity issues Geneva, 31 May 2012 - ITU today called for greater international co-operation between governments and the ICT industry to tackle the global nature of today's cybersecurity threats. The recent discovery of the highly complex Flame malware by Kaspersky Lab reinforces the need for a co-ordinated response. Flame was discovered by Kaspersky Lab experts following a technical analysis requested by the ITU into an unknown piece of malware which was deleting sensitive information. International co-operation is a key element of ITU's Global Cybersecurity Agenda (GCA). ITU is fully engaging its Member States and all the world's players in its activities, collaborating closely with its partners to identify current challenges, consider emerging and future threats, and propose global strategies to meet the goals of the GCA. A core element of GCA is the International Multilateral Partnership Against Cyber Threats (IMPACT), an international public-private initiative - whose membership comprises of 142 countries - dedicated to enhancing the global community's capacity to prevent, defend and respond to cyberthreats. For full text see: http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2012/34.aspx Facebook: www.itu.int/facebook Twitter: www.itu.int/twitter -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 May 31 13:35:58 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 13:35:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2C987925B9C7476FBB3F6D75035A9205@UserVAIO> I think you are missing the point... The use of the term "slut" was meant to be transgressive... And of course trangressions are highly culturally specific so what is transgressive (and thus "shocking"/attention grabbing, which was point) in one culture may be commonplace and quite acceptable in another and this is even more the case for transgressive terminology than for transgressive acts... So it is quite possible that the degree and nature of transgression which was meant to be attached to the term "slut" as in "slut walk" in Toronto, is/was the equivalent of "bitch" in Brazil (I have no idea since I don't speak Brazilian (or any) Portuguese... (It should probably be noted that based on the pictures it would appear that apart from the nudity (q.v.) the actual content of the "walk" was quite similar in SP? as in TO. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 10:31 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In message <7A71AC53-6534-4EFE-9842-853F5D4AA19E at ella.com>, at 09:31:52 on Thu, 31 May 2012, Avri Doria writes >> The original meaning is closer to "whore" than "bitch" (which is >>simply a word for a vindictive woman, regardless of her sexual >>proclivities). > >I beleive the various denigrating words for women are culturally >variant, so an definitional exercise is sort of futile. What is >invariant is that every language has a bushel full of words used to >denigrate women. I think you are missing the point, because the original comments which were being protested about, were along the lines of "don't dress like whores", not "don't dress like bitches". It's that very typecasting which the protesters want to highlight. -- 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 May 31 15:01:43 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 20:01:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: <2C987925B9C7476FBB3F6D75035A9205@UserVAIO> References: <2C987925B9C7476FBB3F6D75035A9205@UserVAIO> Message-ID: In message <2C987925B9C7476FBB3F6D75035A9205 at UserVAIO>, at 13:35:58 on Thu, 31 May 2012, michael gurstein writes >I think you are missing the point... > >The use of the term "slut" was meant to be transgressive... It was the word used by the person who is being protested about. That is exactly the point. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu May 31 15:07:27 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 07:07:27 +1200 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: <69932055-B387-45E0-BA68-BB75EBC6DF40@ella.com> References: <21B81E06-CC98-493D-A594-4E64F4F4F46C@privaterra.org> <4FC65B85.7040307@cafonso.ca> <105F1EC9-631C-49BC-9D01-4E1BAE0B26F4@acm.org> <69932055-B387-45E0-BA68-BB75EBC6DF40@ella.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 31 May 2012, at 02:52, Roland Perry wrote: > > > In message <105F1EC9-631C-49BC-9D01-4E1BAE0B26F4 at acm.org>, at 21:35:40 > on Wed, 30 May 2012, Avri Doria writes > > > >> not sure in what world nudity and hate speech fall under the same > category. > > > > Not sure what you mean by "same category", but they are commonly both > banned from certain types of communications media in various countries. > > > > That was my point. When we begin to accept that they are in the same > category and that equating them is in any way reasonable, I think we make a > big mistake. > > There was no mention of equating them. I simply pointed to the exceptions > according to how Article 19 was crafted and the tests therein. Countries > differ on their laws, and on what they perceive to be public morality. > > Both of these reasons for restricting people's freedom are being grossly > abused. Do you mean the abuse of the exceptions in Article 19 of the ICCPR? To combine their abuse, and somehow indicate that this is a reasonable > thing to do is a really bad idea in my view. > > I am unsure of what you are referring too. > > 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). > > according to the hate speech proponents, using any designation other than > the n-word designation is hate speech. beware. > > almost anything is hate speech this days. and if it isn't hate speech > today, give it a chance, it will be hate speech tomorrow. > > avri > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu May 31 15:55:35 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 07:55:35 +1200 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: On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Matthias, very interesting message, I very much agree. Thanks for the > reference of the article. > > Norbert:im my mind there is no question that whatever freedom of > expression issues there may be with nudity restrictions on Facebook, the > issue of webmaster liability is a freedom of expression problem of a much > more serious kind. > > MM: Norbert, I agree with you on the importance of liability. Clear and > reduced liability of intermediaries is something we are trying to push with > the Brazilian Civil Rights Framework, to avoid the chilling effect. The > battle will take place in Congress soon. But, on the other hand, I think we > cannot minimize the importance of the parameters of "good behavior" set by > these global platforms, such as FB. I have a younger sister, and it amazes > me how the Internet for younger generations is restricted to platforms like > FB and apps. They carry content to these platforms in a way that they are > the ones to intermediate digital reality for them. I think that rules > established on ToRs are able to influence and modulate, very subtly, > cultural ideas, such as the idea of morality. And the importance of this > cannot be underestimated and it justifies the discussion of this topic, as > much as the topic of intermediaries. > > > 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. > Sala: I raised this question to highlight that Facebook exist in an ecosystem where their actions are affected by third party influences or regulatory influences. Some would argue that there are diverse influences that drive political agenda whether civil society driven, or commercially driven. It is generally accepted in most democratic countries that laws merely reflect the pulse of the people. The exception of course is countries that have illegitimate governments such as those that have been usurped through Coup D' Etats and tyranny. > Two points. First, I do not think that is up to FB to give concreteness to > a notion of nudity or obscenity. > Sala: I think we need to re-visit the Terms of Service [ see: http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms]. When people sign up, they sign up knowing what is permitted and not permitted and have the "Free will" to disengage. I have copied a section from their Terms of Service,see below: *3. Safety* We do our best to keep Facebook safe, but we cannot guarantee it. We need your help to do that, which includes the following commitments: 1. You will not send or otherwise post unauthorized commercial communications (such as spam) on Facebook. 2. You will not collect users' content or information, or otherwise access Facebook, using automated means (such as harvesting bots, robots, spiders, or scrapers) without our permission. 3. You will not engage in unlawful multi-level marketing, such as a pyramid scheme, on Facebook. 4. You will not upload viruses or other malicious code. 5. You will not solicit login information or access an account belonging to someone else. 6. You will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user. 7. You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence. 8. You will not develop or operate a third-party application containing alcohol-related or other mature content (including advertisements) without appropriate age-based restrictions. 9. You will follow our Promotions Guidelines and all applicable laws if you publicize or offer any contest, giveaway, or sweepstakes (“promotion”) on Facebook. 10. You will not use Facebook to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious, or discriminatory. 11. You will not do anything that could disable, overburden, or impair the proper working of Facebook, such as a denial of service attack. 12. You will not facilitate or encourage any violations of this Statement. > 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. > Sala: The point is to see if there is any logic. If we moved away from the online world and consider organizations and clubs who impose rules on their members, is it reasonable to expect a certain type of rule or code imposed on those who willingly choose to subscribe. How different should it be for an ordinary entity in the ecosystem. There are many other social networks aside from Facebook that one can go to if one does not like the rules. On the other hand, we see how European Privacy Regulators have effectively intervened where Facebook has violated some of these rights. > Second, I personally do not care to which country law they are complying > with. > Sala: I understand but when an assertion is made that just because Facebook is a private company it exists to derive a profit at the expense of public interest, is on one view misleading if one does not show the holistic picture of what may be causing them to behave in a certain fashion. > 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. > Sala: I suppose this is how inventions, innovations are birthed. When one is dissatisfied with the status quo or with what currently exists and dreams of a better way. This is where you can start an alternative social network and create your own rules. As someone who is also an advocate against violence against women and children, I do not see any correlation to the advocacy work. There are more "concrete" ways to lodge the battle against violence from a National Framework perspective such as strengthening and making consistent sources of statistics, improving access to justice delivery systems having robust community intake centers, ensuring that governments prioritize and allocate finances etc. I was very impressed with how the District Superior Courts in Washington D.C after analysing statistics and noting that the incidence of violence seemed to be coming from the SE Quadrant came up with the idea to establish a Community Intake Center and Satellite technology where victims could access a Judge for emergency protection orders. [See:United Medical Center 1328 Southern Avenue, SE, Suite 311,Washington, DC]. If we examine what occurred in Toronto that sparked the entire "March", it was the comments of a Police Officer which imputes a certain level of "insensitivity". Police Insensitivity is a global phenomenon and even New York had its share and sadly recently in Colorado, Jessica Gonzalez lost her children because the Police did not effect a restraining order. She took State to Court and it reached the Supreme Court and although they ruled against her, she won her matter when they took it to the Inter American Commission on Human Rights where the Commission said that the United States had a responsibility to Jessica. 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. > Sala: I respect your perspective even if I disagree. > It just reinforces the conservative forces we are trying to fight. > Sala: Why fight, when we can live in harmony? Everything has a place. The quiet stream in the middle of the rainforest and the loud volcano erupting are all part of one big ecosystem. > So, FB juridical compliance with some country's law is translating into a > political setback here. > > Sala: I respectfully disagree. 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. > Sala: No one ever said that we should only see the ankles of women on FB. What we should be discussing is how to tackle the abuse of the exception under Article 19 of the ICCPR. > 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 >> >> > > > -- > 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 sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com Thu May 31 16:32:39 2012 From: sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio_Alves_Jr=2E?=) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 17:32:39 -0300 Subject: [governance] Vint Cerf OpEd in the New York Times: "Keep the Internet Open" In-Reply-To: References: <046501cd3c5e$dee98250$9cbc86f0$@uol.com.br> Message-ID: I just noticed I hadn't replied to the list. Sérgio 2012/5/28 Sérgio Alves Jr. > Dear Vanda, > > > I have checked the link. > > Anatel (the regulator) is responsible for representing Brazil before > international telecom bodies (such as ITU and Citel), under the > coordination of the Executive branch (General Telecommunication Law, n > 9472/97, art. 19, I) > > The Brazilian positions before telecom bodies are discussed within the > "Comissões Brasileiras de Comunicações" (CBC), where anyone can > participate. The CBCs are coordinated by Anatel, with a list of telecom/ICT > stakeholders participating. > > You can check and join any of the 4 CBCs at http://www.anatel.gov.br/Portal/exibirPortalNivelDois.do?acao=&codItemCanal=1690&codigoVisao=$visao.codigo&nomeVisao=$visao.descricao&nomeCanal=Comissões > / Comitês&nomeItemCanal=Comissões Brasileiras de Comunicações&codCanal=423 > > ... > > In sum, anyone can join the CBCs... in the previous link for ITU TIES... > just check Anatel. > > > Sérgio > > > > > > 2012/5/27 Vanda UOL > >> I have tried, but since I am not teaching at Universidade do Para or >> member of Brazilian Government I can not have access through that site you >> posted. Thank you for tried.**** >> >> All the best**** >> >> **** >> >> *Vanda Scartezini* >> >> *Nominating Committee Chair* >> >> *ICANN* >> >> *Tel + 5511 3266.6253* >> >> *Mob + 55118181.1464* >> >> *Skype:vanda.scartezini* >> >> Domain dialing free**** >> >> * **[image: Descrição: 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 *Sérgio Alves Jr. >> >> *Enviada em:* sexta-feira, 25 de maio de 2012 13:15 >> *Para:* Adam Peake; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> *Assunto:* Re: [governance] Vint Cerf OpEd in the New York Times: "Keep >> the Internet Open"**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Adam,**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> The other day, someone mentioned that UAE represents its civil society >> before the ITU. I'm not so so arrogant to affirm I represent the whole >> Brazilian one there.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I'm not sure whether I or my country would be penalized at the ITU if >> every document we have access to was made public here or some other forum. >> I have tried that before, and someone from this list said I should not do >> it.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> The ITU TIES account (http://www.itu.int/TIES/) is managed by focal >> points from each Member State, according to the country's own policy. Once >> you have it, you can access anything that is free (except for some >> publications that are sold even for governments).**** >> >> ** ** >> >> In Brazil, the policy is guaranteeing access to anyone who identifies >> herself as a "brasileira" at the application form ( >> http://www.itu.int/cgi-bin/htsh/mm/scripts/reg.screen1.html?_languageid=1). >> One does not need to be from gov or telecom sector.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> In this sense, CS should go after its own country focal points, and ask >> for clarification on their policy.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> This is not enough, I'm sure. I believe CS does not have to express >> itself through the voice of a telecom regulator. We know that and we try >> to, but It has been really difficult to find partners within the ITU in >> favor of opening the Union's processes. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> I cannot speak for the ITU membership, not even for Brazil, but if that >> helps clarifying our strategy, these are the touchstones to guide our >> participation at any ITU meeting or conference regarding Internet-related >> public policy issues: >> http://www.cgi.br/english/regulations/resolution2009-003.htm**** >> >> ** ** >> >> My opion: forget about WCIT, it is already decided. Nothing is going to >> chance.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> The focus should be WTPF-13, WSIS+10 and PP-14. In the between, >> CWG-Internet might shad some light on the oldie ITU.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> Abraços,**** >> >> Sérgio**** >> >> ** ** >> >> 2012/5/25 Adam Peake **** >> >> Rumors are the main problem, when there's a lack of information lobbying >> is of course effective. The ITU gave a briefing on WCIT during the WSIS >> reviews in Geneva last week. ITU Secretariat emphasized they wanted to be >> as open and transparent as possible. A couple of sector members asked if >> they could share the information they had access to with their members, if >> I remember correctly the answer from the Secretariat was ask the ITU >> Council. Requests for information were stonewalled. The presentation did >> not give any information about the substance of what was being discussed >> (your email, a couple of sentences, is more informative), but somewhat >> bizarrely it did mention summary documents of the regional preparatory >> meetings and submissions to date had been prepared. At least two people >> asked if those documents could be made public, and the answer was a >> negative non-committal. What was the point of mentioning the existence of >> the documents? >> >> Sérgio, governments that care about the ITRs might do well to make sure >> information is made available, or the ITRs are likely to end up in the same >> place as ACTA, SOPA, and PIPA, etc. Look at ACTA, treaties don't seem to be >> quite as certain as they recently were. >> >> Of course the U.S. wants to make the ITRs as ineffectual as possible, and >> the lack of information from others makes their lobbying all the more >> effective. >> >> Best, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> **** >> >> WCIT has nothing to do with expanding ITU's mandate on the internet. >> Any proposal in this sense is stillborn. >> >> This OpEd adds zero to the ITRs debate. This is the kind of American >> strategy that is killing the conference. >> >> The real topics are international connectivity, accounting rules, >> finances. Brazilian proposals, for instance, are focused on increasing >> transparency and lowering international roaming rates (topics that many, >> including US, don't agree to negotiate either). >> >> The only thing I agree in the text is that civil society is kept unfairly >> out the debate. Were SC in, there wouldn't be so many nonsense rumors like >> this. >> >> Abraços, >> Sérgio Alves Jr**** >> >> Em 25/05/2012 09:16, "Adam Peake" < >> ajp at glocom.ac.jp> escreveu:**** >> >> >> >> Hamadoun Toure, May 1 speaking about WCIT: >> "There are many important issues that may be addressed at WCIT, but I >> would like to focus on one broader issue in particular: how do we ensure >> sufficient investment in broadband network infrastructure?" >> and >> "And, the current ITRs are not properly equipped to deal with this >> challenge either, which raises the question of how all this new >> infrastructure will be paid for?" >> and >> "Everyone wants mobile broadband and the benefits it will bring. But few >> seem willing to pay for it -- including both the over-the-top players, who >> are generating vast new demand through their applications, and consumers, >> who have become accustomed to unlimited packages."**** >> >> < >> http://www.itu.int/en/osg/speeches/Pages/2012-05-01.aspx>**** >> >> >> >> Hello Google, enter Vint :-) >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> Dear friends and colleagues, >> >> I thought you would appreciate knowing that an OpEd by Vint Cerf as >> above titled was printed today in the New York Times (and I believe >> the IHT).**** >> >> < >> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/opinion/keep-the-internet-open.html?_r=1 >> > >> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/opinion/keep-the-internet-open.html?_r=1 >> **** >> >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Nick Ashton-Hart >> Geneva Representative >> Computer & Communications Industry Association**** >> >> Tel: >> >+41 (22) 362 02 38 >> Fax: : >+41 >> (22) 594-85-44 >> Mobile: >+41 79 >> 595 5468**** >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPad, please excuse typos >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:**** >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org*** >> * >> >> >> To be removed from the list, visit:**** >> >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing**** >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see:**** >> >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance**** >> >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:**** >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t**** >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:**** >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org*** >> * >> >> >> To be removed from the list, visit:**** >> >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing**** >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see:**** >> >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance**** >> >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:**** >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t**** >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 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