From suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 30 16:59:36 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 03:29:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Eh, looks like there is very broad consensus across various African stakeholders on the .africa ccTLD. That it doesn't match one single player's wishes is ..well, regrettable. The WCIT discussion is on a rather broader level than this one. --srs (iPad) On 30-Nov-2012, at 22:16, "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > Yeah. Smacks of Google vs. ITU. > > How about peace & love with .africa and .afrique ? > > Good luck. Louis. > - - - > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> It is invective and innuendo laden as usual >> >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "McTim" >> To: , "Martin McOsieno" >> Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! >> Date: Fri, Nov 30, 2012 9:26 PM >> >> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Martin McOsieno >> wrote: >> > Here are some interesting insights on a new conflict of interest case at >> > ICANN: >> > >> > http://domainnewsafrica.com/the-plot-thickens-as-icann-and-africa-both-loose-africa/ >> >> This piece, which is clearly written by a supporter of on of the bids, >> repeats conflict of interest charges that have no substance. >> >> As someone who has watched this competition for many years, the >> charges that "yesterdays appointment of Pierre Dandjinou who has >> openly campaigned against DotConnectAfrica’s bid for .africa and even lost an ALAC Board seat in 2010 due to history of COI further >> complicates the matters in Africa’s position." >> >> are absolutely false. >> >> PD has never "openly campaigned" against either bid, nor will he play a part in evaluating either bid. >> >> There is no evidence that the DCA campaign against him for the ALAC >> Board seat led to the selection of another candidate. >> >> DCA has committed itself to a "slash n burn" media strategy that >> ultimately, IMHO, has damaged their credibility in the ICANN >> community. >> >> > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121127_africa_vs_africa_gac_early_warnings_on_new_gtld_applications/ >> >> I see no conflict of interest here, only competition, just as what is >> occurring with many other new gTLD applications. >> >> Can you identify an actual conflict of interest in either story? >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 30 17:11:31 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 03:41:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: <01c401cdcf1f$d5910800$80b31800$@gmail.com> References: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> <0ddd01cdcd91$4f368ee0$eda3aca0$@gmail.com> <0e6e01cdcd9e$f6ac3460$e4049d20$@gmail.com> <50B8A89E.1090500@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB7409F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <013501cdcf13$d7c320b0$87496210$@gmail.com> <01c401cdcf1f$d5910800$80b31800$@gmail.com> Message-ID: The you was a generic you, not you as in Mike Gurstein. Hegemony was Milton and then the China Daily (was that the same newspaper that did a photo feature on Kim Jong Un to congratulate him for being nominated as the sexiest man alive by the onion?). Then plurilateral is a parminderism. The global management and governance part is a double edged sword when governments have a monopoly on the process, as will inevitably happen when ITU gets to be in the saddle. Sure, we got done woth why consistency is important, in the one root server infrastructure discussion, but centralization of power has lnown pitfalls. Geopolitics will play an overarching role, and something now as widely accepted as Amadeu abril y abril's .cat .. allocated after a long and passionately committed campaign across civil society and other groups in Catalonia .. would never have seen the light of day. --srs (iPad) On 30-Nov-2012, at 22:56, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Cool… > > (Suresh, you also must have me mixed up with someone else… I just did a quick check and the only time that the interesting terminology of "hegemony" has been used on this list in the recent past (as far back as my Outlook search would go--was by Milton in a somewhat barbed jibe at some comments that were made I believe by a third party although his comments were directed at me. As for " plurilteralism", I'm presuming that you mean "plurilateralism".. again my handy search engine couldn't find any use of term at all on this list by anyone… > > Suresh, As a matter of fact, I think those below are both interesting examples of cases where some form of global management/governance is required--the question is how to get there, where to do this and who gets to be involved in the decision making processes at various stages in the process… I'll leave both of those specific areas to folks with the appropriate expertise and interest--both as proponents and as critics/advocates and of course that is where a workable multistakeholder structure within a legitimized global decision making framework (or frameworks) comes into play. > > Alejandro, I have immense respect for the folks who built the Internet (one of the most -- perhaps the most -- significant technical achievements in modern times) and whose intellectual and technical skills and determination maintain it in its current form. However, the very success of the Internet --it's becoming a (and very soon "the") fundamental platform for life in the 21st century--has meant that it no longer (can or should) belong to those who created it or even those who (technically) sustain it… It is too important for everyone globally for that position to prevail. So, IMHO we are presented with a huge huge challenge--that unfortunately current campaigns like "Hands off the Internet" don't do much to help resolve… That challenge is to find a way that we all globally, can allow the Internet to fulfill the possibilities for all of us that it presents (and in ways that are meaningful to all of us in our global diversity) -- and that means finding a way to reconcile sometimes extremely divergent interests and perspectives concerning for example, what issues are important/necessary to resolve and where they can be resolved and who/how should be involved in resolving them. > > I don't have answers to those questions but I'm hoping that once the current smoke/fog clears that reasonable folks will set about dealing with them. > > Best, > > M > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 8:20 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Cc: ; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch > Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 > > You tell me which of the two international organisations .. ITU or Interpol .. is going to be a better bet for, say cybercrime > > Both under the Vienna convention, so .. > > And then say an issue with the .tw ccTLD. After a previous history of chicanery that took away taiwan's IDD code 866. left it without one for several years, got a new (reserved) one. 886,allocated, and later quietly changed to being listed as belonging to Taiwan, China. > > http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2010/10/05/2003484569/1 > > Now, if that sort of accident starts happening to say .tw, or to the asn of some Taiwanese ISP .. > > You are welcome to rail against US hegemony, "plurilteralism" (what a mouthful!) or whatever, but believe it or not, they have a long way to go, even with countries on their OFAC blacklist like Cuba and Syria, before this sort of mendacious accident happens to say .cu > > ;; ANSWER SECTION: > cu. 3600 IN NS ns2.ceniai.net.cu. > cu. 3600 IN NS rip.psg.com. > cu. 3600 IN NS ns.ceniai.net.cu. > cu. 3600 IN NS cu.cctld.authdns.ripe.net. > cu. 3600 IN NS ns2.gip.net. > cu. 3600 IN NS ns.dns.br. > > Or .sy, which has at least one authoritative ns still around and served by ripe, for all that the el Assad government decided to take their country off the net altogether. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 30-Nov-2012, at 21:30, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Huh? I'm curious what you see as a "massive ad hominem attack"… that I see the simultaneous, dare I say somewhat hypocritical blustering against Internet regulation and governance alongside a quite reasonable recognition that some governance and regulation is required; and then pointing out that reasonable people can disagree on what the nature of the issues being governed and regulated might be (and the appropriate venue as to where that governance/regulation might take place); and then rather humbly (I would say) suggesting that perhaps rather than mobilizing the millions in a crusade against what might seem to be paper tigers/windmills, perhaps some of the same resources might go into figuring a rather more globally equitable way of determining which of those governance/regulatory issues should be addressed and in what venue(s) is somehow a personal attack on anyone rather escapes me… but maybe you have me mixed up with someone else in the demon pool… > > M > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 7:18 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob > Subject: RE: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 > > Michael (Gurstein), > > I am really stunned by the turn your latest messages have taken. It would seem that you have directed a massive ad-hominem argument (attack?) on a large group of people who not only don't get paid but actually sacrifice better paid jobs and put their own day jobs on the line - sometimes also pay out of pocket and don't get a lot of love at home - for the promotion and, when needed, defense of values of the Internet. > > Many - I tend to include myself in this list - have a very clear approach to the situations when their views and action coincide with those of corporations, governments, and even non-commercial organizations whose views and funding do not align in other issue areas. > > To your statement about supporting or not "regulation." Maybe it is useful to go back to the WGIG's list of issues and find out if among the 40 or so there is something missing that has become important today. You'll see there a variety of levels of "regulation" and/or of governmental intervention, both happening now and desirable or denounced as undesirable. > > People like McTim and Suresh have expressed themselves over the years about many of these, with expertise and knowledge. Your pass at them seems totally ungrounded. Unless you actually meant someone else and meant to exclude them from your sweeping statement. > > Riaz, same applies, IMO. > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Riaz K Tayob [riaz.tayob at gmail.com] > Enviado el: viernes, 30 de noviembre de 2012 06:37 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Asunto: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 > > Michael > > The function of arguing against regulation and then making "piece meal" adjustments as "necessary" (which is a commodious term) is not as innocuous as it seems. From the 3 prong list earlier in this thread, there is a clear "position" (as stated) and "interest" (the reason, purpose, etc) and this is how the "game" is played. > > It is not innocuous because this frames the debate in the "free markets are better" mold. Now the global financial crisis was facilitated (if not caused) by this type of thinking - in a sector most susceptible to oversight... > > It is of course a different matter, when those who argue for "hands off" and then "hands on" (exceptionally or otherwise), if one seeks to be in two places at once. But with a battalion of corporate funded ideogogues backing this view up, I guess it passes some sort of muster.... Perhaps people are playing the "game", but perhaps not... > > Riaz > > On 2012/11/28 09:31 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > McTim, it seems to me that you (and others) argue long and hard against management/regulation of the Internet except (as in this case) when you don't. > > And then having accepted the (obvious) need for some sort of management/regulation of at least certain aspects of the Internet why you (etc.) should expect that others (the rest of the world for example) should accept your definition of what those "exceptions" should be and where they should (or rather should not) be adjudicated leaves me a bit puzzled. > > M > > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:30 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian; Ian Peter; Ginger Paque > Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:53 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > No question, Suresh (and McTim) but you/they can't have it both ways i.e. vehemently denouncing regulation/governance ("keep your hand off the Internet") etc.etc. on the one hand and then practicing it (if only implicitly) on the other. > > I'm only trying to have it one way. I feel gov'ts have far too much control over what we say and do online. I don't want an intergovernmental body setting global Internet policy. > > > I would have thought, if the option is in fact #2 (or #3) as of course, any rational actor would I believe have to accept; that if one doesn't like a particular venue -- what does one suggest as an appropriate (globally acceptable) alternative venue(s)--particularly since the current (default) position seems to be seen as unacceptably self-serving by so many. > > > Accepting #2 which as I have said before is the current status quo does not mean that one accepts the need for further global Internet Governance mechanisms. > > I do not find #3 acceptable. > > I've been singing the same song for years, what is it that you don't understand about my position? > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Fri Nov 30 17:15:23 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:15:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: <01c401cdcf1f$d5910800$80b31800$@gmail.com> References: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> <0ddd01cdcd91$4f368ee0$eda3aca0$@gmail.com> <0e6e01cdcd9e$f6ac3460$e4049d20$@gmail.com> <50B8A89E.1090500@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB7409F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <013501cdcf13$d7c320b0$87496210$@gmail.com> <01c401cdcf1f$d5910800$80b31800$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2124C4C7-D8E3-4FA6-B2F2-1250566D9946@istaff.org> On Nov 30, 2012, at 12:26 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > That challenge is to find a way that we all globally, can allow the Internet to fulfill the possibilities for all of us that it presents (and in ways that are meaningful to all of us in our global diversity) -- and that means finding a way to reconcile sometimes extremely divergent interests and perspectives concerning for example, what issues are important/necessary to resolve and where they can be resolved and who/how should be involved in resolving them. Agreed. The challenge is that the Internet is truly a global system, and we lack good mechanisms for development of true agreement on public policy issues when applied to a global scope. There are some feedback loops which operate reasonable well in the context of a single country. (For example, the response of consumers, and civil society on their behalf, to "bad" decisions by businesses with respect to privacy results in lots of attention, and sometimes even results changes to the errant business practices.) In an ideal world, there would be a way to encourage productive discussion of the various public policy principles that should be applicable to Internet communications on a global scope, and such discussions would multistakeholder in nature, open in participation, and transparent in the processes used to reach outcomes (there is a little bit of a challenge in accomplishing such, since making the final determinations of what is appropriate public policy is one of areas that has been considered the realm of governments, and yet we are collectively unsure if that model continues to work in our new highly connected world) If we could produce clear statements of public policy principles, and the statements were made known to existing Internet governance institutions, then they would quite likely be considered in development of the various technical standards and policies that we need to keep the Internet running. Likewise, if folks working on such standards and policies took significant measures to keep governments and civil society aware of the ongoing developments, it would help in avoiding conflicts between Internet practices and the globally accepted principles in any given public policy area. /John p.s. Disclaimers apply. My views alone. Use of this email may trigger visions and/or produce delusions, paranoia, and schizophrenia-like symptoms. Use sparingly and seek appropriate medical treatment as needed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 30 17:15:31 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 03:45:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: References: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> <0ddd01cdcd91$4f368ee0$eda3aca0$@gmail.com> <0e6e01cdcd9e$f6ac3460$e4049d20$@gmail.com> <50B8A89E.1090500@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB7409F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <013501cdcf13$d7c320b0$87496210$@gmail.com> <01c401cdcf1f$d5910800$80b31800$@gmail.com> <027201cdcf34$4438baf0$ccaa30d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0C12874C-DB00-4FD1-B153-A2F05F900FC7@hserus.net> The police officers and the judge who facilitate the arrest have been subject to administrative punishment and transferred out of their current postings. And the Indian government has substantially tightened enforcement of the act, though without amending the act itself (for which there is currently a public interest litigation being raised in the Supreme Court by a 21 year old law student, of course one whose mother is a Supreme Court lawyer herself) --srs (iPad) On 01-Dec-2012, at 1:32, McTim wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:52 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> >> (And just to say I do believe that in something like the UDHR we have a >> bedrock of shared values (and ways of identifying clearly aberrant >> behaviour) on which the normative framework necessary for building the >> decision making framework(s) can (and should) be built.) > > > Given the rampant daily floutings of the UDHR by governments around > the world (Syria yesterday, India arresting people for "liking" on FB > the day before, etc, do you really think that the UDHR is a "bedrock". > > I wish it was, but i don't see that it is presently! > > -- > 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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 30 17:18:59 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 03:48:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: <2124C4C7-D8E3-4FA6-B2F2-1250566D9946@istaff.org> References: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> <0ddd01cdcd91$4f368ee0$eda3aca0$@gmail.com> <0e6e01cdcd9e$f6ac3460$e4049d20$@gmail.com> <50B8A89E.1090500@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB7409F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <013501cdcf13$d7c320b0$87496210$@gmail.com> <01c401cdcf1f$d5910800$80b31800$@gmail.com> <2124C4C7-D8E3-4FA6-B2F2-1250566D9946@istaff.org> Message-ID: <42A406A7-8258-46F9-9978-DF37AB35EF86@hserus.net> This NPR piece is of interest, Draws a parallel between Syria disconnecting itself from the Internet and WCIT submissions by some countries http://www.npr.org/2012/11/29/166186762/widespread-internet-outages-reported-in-syria --srs (iPad) On 01-Dec-2012, at 3:45, John Curran wrote: > On Nov 30, 2012, at 12:26 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> That challenge is to find a way that we all globally, can allow the Internet to fulfill the possibilities for all of us that it presents (and in ways that are meaningful to all of us in our global diversity) -- and that means finding a way to reconcile sometimes extremely divergent interests and perspectives concerning for example, what issues are important/necessary to resolve and where they can be resolved and who/how should be involved in resolving them. > > Agreed. > > The challenge is that the Internet is truly a global system, and we lack good mechanisms > for development of true agreement on public policy issues when applied to a global scope. > There are some feedback loops which operate reasonable well in the context of a single > country. (For example, the response of consumers, and civil society on their behalf, to > "bad" decisions by businesses with respect to privacy results in lots of attention, and > sometimes even results changes to the errant business practices.) > > In an ideal world, there would be a way to encourage productive discussion of the various > public policy principles that should be applicable to Internet communications on a global > scope, and such discussions would multistakeholder in nature, open in participation, and > transparent in the processes used to reach outcomes (there is a little bit of a challenge in > accomplishing such, since making the final determinations of what is appropriate public > policy is one of areas that has been considered the realm of governments, and yet we are > collectively unsure if that model continues to work in our new highly connected world) > > If we could produce clear statements of public policy principles, and the statements were > made known to existing Internet governance institutions, then they would quite likely be > considered in development of the various technical standards and policies that we need > to keep the Internet running. Likewise, if folks working on such standards and policies > took significant measures to keep governments and civil society aware of the ongoing > developments, it would help in avoiding conflicts between Internet practices and the > globally accepted principles in any given public policy area. > > /John > > p.s. Disclaimers apply. My views alone. Use of this email may trigger visions and/or > produce delusions, paranoia, and schizophrenia-like symptoms. Use sparingly and > seek appropriate medical treatment as needed. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 30 17:21:31 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:21:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] Brazilian Congress and lobbyists kill world first internet Bill of Rights Message-ID: <3516858890910361147@unknownmsgid> Brazilian Congress and lobbyists kill world first internet Bill of Rights | UNCUT http://uncut.indexoncensorship.org/2012/11/brazil-internet-marco-civil/ ------------------------------ Digital The Brazilian Congress’ lower house has killed a draft bill that would have pioneered the world’s first “Internet Bill of Rights.” Feted by free-speech activists and negotiated over several years, the bill used a civil rights framework to guarantee basic rights for internet users, content creators and online intermediaries — establishing that providers are not responsible for user content. [image: Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA] Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA The bill, known as Marco Civil da Internet , also guaranteed net neutrality — a move that angered the telecommunications industry as it would prevent internet service providers (ISPs) from implementing a two-tier flow of internet traffic. ISPs worldwide are keen to charge differentiated rates for delivering digital content, this would enable the industry to charge either content providers or consumers more for delivering some kinds of internet traffic, such as movies. A vote on the draft bill scheduled to take place in the Chamber of Deputies on 20 November was postponed. It was the fifth time in the last two months that a vote on Marco Civil was pushed back after legislators failed to agree on the text. House Speaker Marco Maia has now removed Marco Civil from the list of draft bills on Brazilian lawmakers’ agenda — meaning it will not be bought back to the floor. The main reason for Marco Civil’s failure was a lack of consensus on the issue of net neutrality. Deputy Alessandro Molon, who sponsored the bill, says Brazil’s main telecommunication companieslobbied hard against it, arguing it was contrary to the principles of the free market. Other elements of the bill also created controversy — copyright holders were angered by the legal protections offered to internet intermediaries who host or transmit content shared or created by third parties (companies like Google and Facebook). The draft bill stated that such third party content should only be deleted after a court order. Detractors say this process should be faster and simpler, and providers should be able to remove content after being merely notified by offended parties — an argument seen by analysts and activists as a risk to free speech. The companies’ case apparently influenced key members of Congress and made it impossible to reach an agreement on Marco Civil’s final text. Although industry lobbies were successful in watering down key user protections, their legislative surrogates wanted to impose even greater changes on the text. After Marco Civil’s failure on Tuesday, Molon said it was up to society to put pressure on deputies to push the draft bill to the floor. He was also critical of big companies that had “their interests frustrated” by Marco Civil. Molon was supported by the countries President Dilma Rousseff and Vice-President Michel Temer — president of PMDB Party, the main ally to Rousseff’s Workers’ Party in Congress. Despite their respective parties having a substantial legislative majority Rousseff’s and Temer’s support of Marco Civil was rendered ineffectual after lawmakers — mainly from PMDB — took issue with key elements. The failure of Marco Civil was denounced by activists all around the internet. The Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge called the episode a “political fiasco” in which Brazil wasted a chance to gain world-wide influence on free speech issues. “[The Marco Civil obstruction] follows a ridiculous watering-down and dumbing-down of the bill, at the request of obsolete industry lobbies. Having been permanently shelved, this means that Brazil has practically killed its chance of leapfrogging other nations’ economies”, said Falkvingeon his website. “Marco Civil could be an advance not only for Brazil, but for all countries, on how to discuss law enforcement on the online world — and its consequences”, said André Pase , Digital Communication professor at PUC University in Porto Alegre. “A legal framework could go beyond regular laws that get easily obsolete in a context of innovation, where fresh, free online services are born all the time.” *Rafael Spuldar is a journalist based in São Paulo* ------------------------------ (via Instapaper ) Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2222 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 17:32:48 2012 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:32:48 -0500 Subject: [governance] Brazilian Congress and lobbyists kill world first internet Bill of Rights In-Reply-To: <3516858890910361147@unknownmsgid> References: <3516858890910361147@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: I wouldn't be so pessimist about the Bill of Law. It is not dead yet. Just follow on twitter the hashtag #MARCOCIVIL to follow the latest developments. We are facing a tough struggle in the Country (I'm following it from abroad unfortunately), but we shall succeed. On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Brazilian Congress and lobbyists kill world first internet Bill of Rights > | UNCUT > http://uncut.indexoncensorship.org/2012/11/brazil-internet-marco-civil/ > ------------------------------ > > Digital > > The Brazilian Congress’ lower house has killed a draft bill that would > have pioneered the world’s first “Internet Bill of Rights.” > Feted by free-speech activists and > negotiated over several years, the bill used a civil rights framework to > guarantee basic rights for internet users, content > creators and online intermediaries — establishing that providers are not > responsible for user content. > [image: Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA] > > Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA > > The bill, known as Marco Civil da Internet , also > guaranteed net neutrality — > a move that angered the telecommunications industry as it would prevent > internet service providers (ISPs) from implementing a two-tier flow of > internet traffic. ISPs worldwide are keen to charge differentiated rates > for delivering digital content, this would enable the industry to charge > either content providers or consumers more for delivering some kinds of > internet traffic, such as movies. > > A vote on the draft bill scheduled to take place in the Chamber of > Deputies on 20 November was postponed. It was the fifth time in the last > two months that a vote on Marco Civil was pushed back after legislators > failed to agree on the text. House Speaker Marco Maia has now removed Marco > Civil from the list of draft bills on Brazilian lawmakers’ agenda — meaning > it will not be bought back to the floor. > > The main reason for Marco Civil’s failure was a lack of consensus on the > issue of net neutrality. Deputy Alessandro Molon, who > sponsored the bill, says Brazil’s main telecommunication companieslobbied hard against it, arguing it was contrary to the principles of the > free market. > > Other elements of the bill also created controversy — copyright holders > were angered by the legal protections offered to internet intermediaries > who host or transmit content shared or created by third parties (companies > like Google and Facebook). The draft bill stated that such third party > content should only be deleted after a court order. Detractors say this > process should be faster and simpler, and providers should be able to > remove content after being merely notified by offended parties — an > argument seen by analysts and activists as a risk to free speech. > > The companies’ case apparently influenced key members of Congress and made > it impossible to reach an agreement on Marco Civil’s final text. Although > industry lobbies were successful in watering down key > user protections, their legislative surrogates wanted to impose even > greater changes on the text. > > After Marco Civil’s failure on Tuesday, Molon said it was up to society to > put pressure on deputies to push the draft bill to the floor. He was also > critical of big companies that had “their interests frustrated” by Marco > Civil. > > Molon was supported by the countries President Dilma Rousseff and > Vice-President Michel Temer — president of PMDB Party, the main ally to > Rousseff’s Workers’ Party in Congress. Despite their respective parties > having a substantial legislative majority Rousseff’s and Temer’s support of > Marco Civil was rendered ineffectual after lawmakers — mainly from PMDB — > took issue with key elements. > > The failure of Marco Civil was denounced by activists all around the > internet. The Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge called the episode a > “political fiasco” in which Brazil wasted a chance to gain world-wide > influence on free speech issues. > > “[The Marco Civil obstruction] follows a ridiculous watering-down and > dumbing-down of the bill, at the request of obsolete industry lobbies. > Having been permanently shelved, this means that Brazil has practically > killed its chance of leapfrogging other nations’ economies”, said > Falkvingeon his website. > > “Marco Civil could be an advance not only for Brazil, but for all > countries, on how to discuss law enforcement on the online world — and its > consequences”, said André Pase , Digital > Communication professor at PUC University in Porto Alegre. > > “A legal framework could go beyond regular laws that get easily obsolete > in a context of innovation, where fresh, free online services are born all > the time.” > > *Rafael Spuldar is a journalist based in São Paulo* > ------------------------------ > > (via Instapaper ) > > > Sent from my iPhone > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 30 20:01:53 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:01:53 -0800 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: <2124C4C7-D8E3-4FA6-B2F2-1250566D9946@istaff.org> References: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> <0ddd01cdcd91$4f368ee0$eda3aca0$@gmail.com> <0e6e01cdcd9e$f6ac3460$e4049d20$@gmail.com> <50B8A89E.1090500@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB7409F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <013501cdcf13$d7c320b0$87496210$@gmail.com> <01c401cdcf1f$d5910800$80b31800$@gmail.com> <2124C4C7-D8E3-4FA6-B2F2-1250566D9946@istaff.org> Message-ID: <038801cdcf5f$860771d0$92165570$@gmail.com> +1 And I think the just released statement by the US delegation to WCIT begins some significant movement in the direction of those processes. Now how to capitalize on this and its general support for the "Best Bits statement " (which includes that "Fundamental to the framing of public policy (for the Internet) must be the pursuit of the public interest and fundamental human rights..."); perhaps starting by revisiting the OECD Internet policy principles to resolve the areas of CS concern which led to CS not signing onto the final OECD document ; and also beginning a process of becoming more globally inclusive in this development (as for example using the IRP statement of Internet Rights & Principles which have a strong anchor in Human Rights/the UDHRD as a conceptual/normative foundation). Beginning with the above but then initiating a much broader and more inclusive global norm-setting process as for example, through a reformed and much more inclusive IGF (designed to be something other than a place to swap business cards and chat) or towards an update of the WSIS declaration in light of what has transpired in the last ten years or so. M From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 2:15 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 On Nov 30, 2012, at 12:26 PM, michael gurstein wrote: That challenge is to find a way that we all globally, can allow the Internet to fulfill the possibilities for all of us that it presents (and in ways that are meaningful to all of us in our global diversity) -- and that means finding a way to reconcile sometimes extremely divergent interests and perspectives concerning for example, what issues are important/necessary to resolve and where they can be resolved and who/how should be involved in resolving them. Agreed. The challenge is that the Internet is truly a global system, and we lack good mechanisms for development of true agreement on public policy issues when applied to a global scope. There are some feedback loops which operate reasonable well in the context of a single country. (For example, the response of consumers, and civil society on their behalf, to "bad" decisions by businesses with respect to privacy results in lots of attention, and sometimes even results changes to the errant business practices.) In an ideal world, there would be a way to encourage productive discussion of the various public policy principles that should be applicable to Internet communications on a global scope, and such discussions would multistakeholder in nature, open in participation, and transparent in the processes used to reach outcomes (there is a little bit of a challenge in accomplishing such, since making the final determinations of what is appropriate public policy is one of areas that has been considered the realm of governments, and yet we are collectively unsure if that model continues to work in our new highly connected world) If we could produce clear statements of public policy principles, and the statements were made known to existing Internet governance institutions, then they would quite likely be considered in development of the various technical standards and policies that we need to keep the Internet running. Likewise, if folks working on such standards and policies took significant measures to keep governments and civil society aware of the ongoing developments, it would help in avoiding conflicts between Internet practices and the globally accepted principles in any given public policy area. /John p.s. Disclaimers apply. My views alone. Use of this email may trigger visions and/or produce delusions, paranoia, and schizophrenia-like symptoms. Use sparingly and seek appropriate medical treatment as needed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 30 20:06:40 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 06:36:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: <038801cdcf5f$860771d0$92165570$@gmail.com> References: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> <0ddd01cdcd91$4f368ee0$eda3aca0$@gmail.com> <0e6e01cdcd9e$f6ac3460$e4049d20$@gmail.com> <50B8A89E.1090500@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB7409F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <013501cdcf13$d7c320b0$87496210$@gmail.com> <01c401cdcf1f$d5910800$80b31800$@gmail.com> <2124C4C7-D8E3-4FA6-B2F2-1250566D9946@istaff.org> <038801cdcf5f$860771d0$92165570$@gmail.com> Message-ID: The OECD actually makes for a more sensible choice for cs to support and endorse, given their willingness to listen across stakeholder groups. --srs (iPad) On 01-Dec-2012, at 6:31, "michael gurstein" wrote: > +1 > > And I think the just released statement by the US delegation to WCIT begins some significant movement in the direction of those processes… > > Now how to capitalize on this and its general support for the "Best Bits statement" (which includes that "Fundamental to the framing of public policy (for the Internet) must be the pursuit of the public interest and fundamental human rights..."); perhaps starting by revisiting the OECD Internet policy principles to resolve the areas of CS concern which led to CS not signing onto the final OECD document; and also beginning a process of becoming more globally inclusive in this development (as for example using the IRP statement of Internet Rights & Principles which have a strong anchor in Human Rights/the UDHRD as a conceptual/normative foundation). > > Beginning with the above but then initiating a much broader and more inclusive global norm-setting process as for example, through a reformed and much more inclusive IGF (designed to be something other than a place to swap business cards and chat) or towards an update of the WSIS declaration in light of what has transpired in the last ten years or so… > > M > > From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 2:15 PM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 > > On Nov 30, 2012, at 12:26 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > That challenge is to find a way that we all globally, can allow the Internet to fulfill the possibilities for all of us that it presents (and in ways that are meaningful to all of us in our global diversity) -- and that means finding a way to reconcile sometimes extremely divergent interests and perspectives concerning for example, what issues are important/necessary to resolve and where they can be resolved and who/how should be involved in resolving them. > > Agreed. > > The challenge is that the Internet is truly a global system, and we lack good mechanisms > for development of true agreement on public policy issues when applied to a global scope. > There are some feedback loops which operate reasonable well in the context of a single > country. (For example, the response of consumers, and civil society on their behalf, to > "bad" decisions by businesses with respect to privacy results in lots of attention, and > sometimes even results changes to the errant business practices.) > > In an ideal world, there would be a way to encourage productive discussion of the various > public policy principles that should be applicable to Internet communications on a global > scope, and such discussions would multistakeholder in nature, open in participation, and > transparent in the processes used to reach outcomes (there is a little bit of a challenge in > accomplishing such, since making the final determinations of what is appropriate public > policy is one of areas that has been considered the realm of governments, and yet we are > collectively unsure if that model continues to work in our new highly connected world) > > If we could produce clear statements of public policy principles, and the statements were > made known to existing Internet governance institutions, then they would quite likely be > considered in development of the various technical standards and policies that we need > to keep the Internet running. Likewise, if folks working on such standards and policies > took significant measures to keep governments and civil society aware of the ongoing > developments, it would help in avoiding conflicts between Internet practices and the > globally accepted principles in any given public policy area. > > /John > > p.s. Disclaimers apply. My views alone. Use of this email may trigger visions and/or > produce delusions, paranoia, and schizophrenia-like symptoms. Use sparingly and > seek appropriate medical treatment as needed. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 30 21:16:48 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 02:16:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: <038801cdcf5f$860771d0$92165570$@gmail.com> References: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> <0ddd01cdcd91$4f368ee0$eda3aca0$@gmail.com> <0e6e01cdcd9e$f6ac3460$e4049d20$@gmail.com> <50B8A89E.1090500@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB7409F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <013501cdcf13$d7c320b0$87496210$@gmail.com> <01c401cdcf1f$d5910800$80b31800$@gmail.com> <2124C4C7-D8E3-4FA6-B2F2-1250566D9946@istaff.org>,<038801cdcf5f$860771d0$92165570$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16E5F5@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> I agree, reading tea leaves, it is notable the US statement pointed to 'Best Bits' and IGF. Re Internet Rights and Principles, fyi I am folding the 10 into the WiGiT v0.2 Open Specs to be released next week at an industry event in Orlando, even as the governments hang in Dubai. Meaning we will - sort of - have gotten Wall Street and tech industry CIOs more or less accepting IRP without even knowing it, since they'll likely have not read carefully that part of our fine print. ; ) Of course it's all iterative drafts so significance is unclear. But it is better if mobile cloud to edge services come with rights and principles, than not, right. I'll share pointers to at least some of those docs next week. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 8:01 PM To: 'John Curran' Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 +1 And I think the just released statement by the US delegation to WCIT begins some significant movement in the direction of those processes… Now how to capitalize on this and its general support for the "Best Bits statement" (which includes that "Fundamental to the framing of public policy (for the Internet) must be the pursuit of the public interest and fundamental human rights..."); perhaps starting by revisiting the OECD Internet policy principles to resolve the areas of CS concern which led to CS not signing onto the final OECD document; and also beginning a process of becoming more globally inclusive in this development (as for example using the IRP statement of Internet Rights & Principles which have a strong anchor in Human Rights/the UDHRD as a conceptual/normative foundation). Beginning with the above but then initiating a much broader and more inclusive global norm-setting process as for example, through a reformed and much more inclusive IGF (designed to be something other than a place to swap business cards and chat) or towards an update of the WSIS declaration in light of what has transpired in the last ten years or so… M From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 2:15 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 On Nov 30, 2012, at 12:26 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: That challenge is to find a way that we all globally, can allow the Internet to fulfill the possibilities for all of us that it presents (and in ways that are meaningful to all of us in our global diversity) -- and that means finding a way to reconcile sometimes extremely divergent interests and perspectives concerning for example, what issues are important/necessary to resolve and where they can be resolved and who/how should be involved in resolving them. Agreed. The challenge is that the Internet is truly a global system, and we lack good mechanisms for development of true agreement on public policy issues when applied to a global scope. There are some feedback loops which operate reasonable well in the context of a single country. (For example, the response of consumers, and civil society on their behalf, to "bad" decisions by businesses with respect to privacy results in lots of attention, and sometimes even results changes to the errant business practices.) In an ideal world, there would be a way to encourage productive discussion of the various public policy principles that should be applicable to Internet communications on a global scope, and such discussions would multistakeholder in nature, open in participation, and transparent in the processes used to reach outcomes (there is a little bit of a challenge in accomplishing such, since making the final determinations of what is appropriate public policy is one of areas that has been considered the realm of governments, and yet we are collectively unsure if that model continues to work in our new highly connected world) If we could produce clear statements of public policy principles, and the statements were made known to existing Internet governance institutions, then they would quite likely be considered in development of the various technical standards and policies that we need to keep the Internet running. Likewise, if folks working on such standards and policies took significant measures to keep governments and civil society aware of the ongoing developments, it would help in avoiding conflicts between Internet practices and the globally accepted principles in any given public policy area. /John p.s. Disclaimers apply. My views alone. Use of this email may trigger visions and/or produce delusions, paranoia, and schizophrenia-like symptoms. Use sparingly and seek appropriate medical treatment as needed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Thu Nov 1 04:09:29 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 13:39:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] CS Speakers for Baku In-Reply-To: References: <6htvq562u9xwndojpff6tjwa.1351715549740@email.android.com> <1351717131.30525.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <77843C2D-FF1E-4FF7-BA2C-5199F3622B4E@privaterra.org> <1351723363.30961.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Izumi had broadcast her request here - a fair few people responded saying Carlos was a good choice. - ------ ref: Izumi AIZU iza at anr.org via lists.igcaucus.org Oct 2 to governance Dear list, We need to select Civil Society speakers for the Baku Main session, I think one for the opening and another for the closing session. Please send your suggestions and nominations asap. izumi ------- People who responded positively for Carlos include Hartmut Richard Glaser Graciela Selaimen Graciela Selaimen Deirdre Williams Valeria Betancourt Valeria Betancourt Ginger Paque -C On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Let's be clear, I don't have an issue with the people that were selected. > Just the process, or lack of one, that was used. > > Suggest we focus on a way to develop a far more transparent and in > dependant process next time > > Robert > > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > On 2012-10-31, at 9:30 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > It is in part my fault for not wrapping up the discussion quickly, to > > select the speakers > > and liaise to the Secretariat. So sorry about this delay. > > > > I guess IGF Secretariat chose one from IGC members and another one from > non-IGC. > > > > They had indicated that the speaker does not have to be IGC member per > se. > > > > IGC is not the sole representative of the Civil Society for IGF. > > > > Yet I believe Valentina will also be an excellent speaker, especially > from > > Central/East Europe. > > > > > > izumi > > > > > > > > 2012/11/1 shaila mistry : > >> me too :) > >> > >> The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! > >> ..................... the renaissance of composure ! > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > >> > >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Robert Guerra < > rguerra at privaterra.org> > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 3:40 PM > >> Subject: Re: [governance] CS Speakers for Baku > >> > >> yes it took me by surprise as well Mawaki. :O > >> > >> Sala > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Robert Guerra > >> wrote: > >> > >> To be honest, in my opinion, the process to select speakers for the main > >> opening session has seemed ad-hoc at best. > >> > >> Would have expected a far more deliberate process along the lines that > the > >> caucus reviews, recommends and nominates persons for the MAG. > >> > >> Robert > >> -- > >> R. Guerra > >> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > >> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > >> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > >> > >> On 2012-10-31, at 6:09 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> ... Still, I'm not sure I understand the process that got us > >>> nominating people and end up with a name that was never mentioned here > >>> (this is nothing personal). Were there other CS groups that had been > >>> running the same nomination process? Is this at the discretion of the > >>> Secretariat? And what happens now to the idea of collectively prepared > >>> discourse or talking points, and to Milton's good start on that? > >>> > >>> Just asking. > >>> > >>> mawaki > >>> > >>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Nnenna wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I think Carlos and Valentina make a great pair. > >>>> > >>>> Cheers > >>>> > >>>> N > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants > >>>> Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development > >>>> Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 > >>>> Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| > http://www.nnenna.org > >>>> nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | > nnennaorg.blogspot.com > >>>> > >>>> ________________________________ > >>>> From: Carlos A. Afonso > >>>> To: william.drake at uzh.ch; glaser at cgi.br > >>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 8:32 PM > >>>> Subject: Re: Re: [governance] CS Speakers for Baku > >>>> > >>>> :) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Carlos A. Afonso > >>>> > >>>> William Drake escreveu: > >>>> My apologies to Carlos, I cut and paste from someone else's email > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Oct 31, 2012, at 8:05 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Correct name is => Carlos Alberto Afonso ... > >>>> > >>>> ========================================== > >>>> On 31/10/12 17:04, William Drake wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi > >>>> > >>>> The secretariat has invited Carlos Alfonso for the opening session and > >>>> Valentina Pellizzer for the closing session. > >>>> > >>>> Bill > >>>> > >>>> On Oct 31, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Dear list, > >>>> > >>>> Sorry for not following this up earlier. Just too many things to do. > >>>> > >>>> Though I said we may run a poll, I guess Carlos is already our de > facto > >>>> speaker, > >>>> and Nnnena seems to have received good support and fulfills the gender > >>>> balance > >>>> and also from developing region. > >>>> > >>>> And as Ginger rightly suggested both speakers will take up the talking > >>>> points > >>>> into their text, with some degree of, of course, their own words to be > >>>> added. > >>>> > >>>> May I ask you if this is our rough consensus? > >>>> > >>>> Many thanks, > >>>> > >>>> izumi > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 2012/10/11 William Drake : > >>>> > >>>> it's what they're sending registrants > >>>> > >>>> On Oct 11, 2012, at 8:42 AM, Katy P wrote: > >>>> > >>>> What? When did this happen? > >>>> > >>>> On Oct 11, 2012 8:24 AM, "William Drake" > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> In light of the host country's jaw dropping decision to publicly > >>>> disseminate all participants' passport numbers, I hope whoever we have > >>>> speaking in the opening an closing will emphasize the centrality of > >>>> personal > >>>> privacy protection in Internet governance. > >>>> > >>>> Best > >>>> > >>>> Bill > >>>> > >>>> On Oct 10, 2012, at 5:10 AM, Nnenna wrote: > >>>> > >>>> +1 On each of the points below. I am currently in the Côte d'Ivoire > >>>> Internet Governance Forum and my drafting capacity is limited. > However, > >>>> I > >>>> would like to see a line that extends "Multistakeholderism" down to > >>>> active > >>>> national participation of all stakeholders. AFAIK, in as much as in > some > >>>> countries, the government is weighing in, in ways that may appear > >>>> overbearing, in others, the decision-makers are actually note > interested > >>>> or > >>>> think it is an NGO thing. > >>>> > >>>> Can we have a "Development Agenda" paragraph? I am also thinking that > >>>> "Participation" may also need to be a paragraph of its own > >>>> > >>>> Best > >>>> > >>>> Nnenna > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG > >>>> | Consultants > >>>> Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development > >>>> Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 > >>>> Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| > http://www.nnenna.org/ > >>>> nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | > nnennaorg.blogspot.com > >>>> > >>>> ________________________________ > >>>> From: Milton L Mueller > >>>> To: 'Ginger Paque' ; "governance at lists.igcaucus.org > " > >>>> > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 9:07 PM > >>>> Subject: RE: [governance] CS Speakers for Baku > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> From: gpaque at gmail.com [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ginger > >>>> Paque > >>>> > >>>> I think that both points are important... I would say 'in addition to' > >>>> not > >>>> 'rather than'. Whom we choose sends a signal as sometimes as > significant > >>>> as > >>>> their words, and we tend to know their general positions as well as > >>>> speaking > >>>> abilities when we nominate them. > >>>> > >>>> Ginger and colleagues: > >>>> Yes, of course it is "in addition to" not "rather than" - but has > there > >>>> been any substantive discussion yet? Frankly I think what they say is > >>>> more > >>>> important than who we choose, but agree that in some cases "the > medium is > >>>> the message." At any rate we are long on "who" and rather short on > >>>> "what" > >>>> at the moment, so… > >>>> > >>>> let me throw out three short statements on issues that I passionately > >>>> believe should be addressed. In doing so, I will make an attempt to > >>>> address > >>>> them in a way that takes into account the differences among us and > hope > >>>> others do so in the same spirit. Other candidate topics would include > >>>> IPR, > >>>> development…I defer to others there. > >>>> > >>>> Human rights > >>>> CS believes that the absence of gatekeepers and the open, global > >>>> communication enabled by the Internet realizes the promise of Article > 19 > >>>> of > >>>> the UN UDHR. To erect (national) legal barriers to the free flow of > >>>> information is a bad idea and contrary to the individual human right > to > >>>> freedom of expression. We therefore oppose efforts to create "national > >>>> Internets," or to block and filter internet access in ways that deny > >>>> individuals access to applications, content and services of their > choice. > >>>> All attempts to deem certain forms of communication and information > >>>> illegal > >>>> and remove them must follow established, transparent processes of law > and > >>>> should not involve prior restraint. > >>>> > >>>> Security and Securitization > >>>> CS opposes efforts to militarize the Internet, or any actions that > would > >>>> foster a destructive and wasteful cyber arms race among governments > >>>> and/or > >>>> private actors. We consider the surreptitious use of exploits and > malware > >>>> for surveillance or attacks to be criminal regardless of whether they > are > >>>> deployed by governments, private corporations or organized criminals. > We > >>>> are > >>>> skeptical of efforts to subordinate the design and use of information > and > >>>> communication technology to "national security" agendas. We believe > that > >>>> Internet security will be achieved primarily at the operational level > and > >>>> that national security and military agendas often work against rather > >>>> than > >>>> for users' security needs. > >>>> > >>>> Multistakeholderism > >>>> Global governance institutions should not be restricted to states, so > CS > >>>> welcomes the additional participation in global policy making that > >>>> multi-stakeholder processes provide. But CS cautions that > >>>> multi-stakeholder > >>>> participation is not an end in itself. Opening up global governance > >>>> institutions to additional voices from civil society and business does > >>>> not > >>>> by itself ensure that individual rights are adequately protected or > that > >>>> the > >>>> best substantive policies are developed and enforced. In the informal > >>>> spaces > >>>> created by MS institutions, it is possible that powerful governmental > and > >>>> corporate actors can make deals contrary to the interests of Internet > >>>> users. > >>>> MS processes must incorporate and institutionalize concepts of due > >>>> process, > >>>> separation of powers and user's inalienable civil and political > rights. > >>>> > >>>> Milton L. Mueller > >>>> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > >>>> Internet Governance Project > >>>> http://blog.internetgovernance.org > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> Izumi Aizu << > >>>> > >>>> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > >>>> > >>>> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > >>>> Japan > >>>> * * * * * > >>>> << Writing the Future of the History >> > >>>> www.anr.org > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >> P.O. Box 17862 > >> Suva > >> Fiji > >> > >> Twitter: @SalanietaT > >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > > > > > -- > >>> Izumi Aizu << > > > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > > Japan > > * * * * * > > << Writing the Future of the History >> > > www.anr.org > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Thu Nov 1 04:15:38 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 13:45:38 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGF 2012 - Bilateral meeting In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD3EC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi Izumi, I'd love to attend this. Do advise on venue though as that is a primary factor for me. Thanks, Chaitanya On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Following the one in Nairobi last year, European commission and > European Parliament > people want to hold an informal meeting with civil society members and > asked Wolfgang to coordinate. > > Since this is an informal meeting with limited space, we need to find and > decide who will > be there. Around 5 or 6 people, max. > > Time/Date/Venue are not confirmed, though. > > Please indicate if you like to attend. I will consult Sala and Worlgang to > make > the selection taking account regional, gender and other factors in balance. > > 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 wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Thu Nov 1 05:40:22 2012 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at)) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 10:40:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGF 2012 - Bilateral meeting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I would be interested as well if there is still space. Maybe to represent some processes in IRP and CoE. Wolfgang Benedek Von: Chaitanya Dhareshwar > Antworten an: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >, Chaitanya Dhareshwar > Datum: Donnerstag, 01. November 2012 09:15 An: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >, Izumi AIZU > Betreff: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGF 2012 - Bilateral meeting Hi Izumi, I'd love to attend this. Do advise on venue though as that is a primary factor for me. Thanks, Chaitanya On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Izumi AIZU > wrote: Following the one in Nairobi last year, European commission and European Parliament people want to hold an informal meeting with civil society members and asked Wolfgang to coordinate. Since this is an informal meeting with limited space, we need to find and decide who will be there. Around 5 or 6 people, max. Time/Date/Venue are not confirmed, though. Please indicate if you like to attend. I will consult Sala and Worlgang to make the selection taking account regional, gender and other factors in balance. 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Nov 1 06:11:17 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 15:11:17 +0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGF 2012 - Bilateral meeting In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD3EC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: You have me there. Best Fouad On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Following the one in Nairobi last year, European commission and > European Parliament > people want to hold an informal meeting with civil society members and > asked Wolfgang to coordinate. > > Since this is an informal meeting with limited space, we need to find and > decide who will > be there. Around 5 or 6 people, max. > > Time/Date/Venue are not confirmed, though. > > Please indicate if you like to attend. I will consult Sala and Worlgang to > make > the selection taking account regional, gender and other factors in balance. > > 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 sana.pryhod at gmail.com Thu Nov 1 06:12:15 2012 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 12:12:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGF 2012 - Bilateral meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, I am extremely interested to participate. Is it possible? Best regards, Oksana 2012/11/1 Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) : > I would be interested as well if there is still space. Maybe to represent > some processes in IRP and CoE. > > Wolfgang Benedek > > > > Von: Chaitanya Dhareshwar > Antworten an: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > , Chaitanya Dhareshwar > > Datum: Donnerstag, 01. November 2012 09:15 > An: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , Izumi > AIZU > Betreff: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGF 2012 - Bilateral meeting > > Hi Izumi, > > I'd love to attend this. Do advise on venue though as that is a primary > factor for me. > > Thanks, > Chaitanya > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >> Following the one in Nairobi last year, European commission and European >> Parliament >> people want to hold an informal meeting with civil society members and >> asked Wolfgang to coordinate. >> >> Since this is an informal meeting with limited space, we need to find and >> decide who will >> be there. Around 5 or 6 people, max. >> >> Time/Date/Venue are not confirmed, though. >> >> Please indicate if you like to attend. I will consult Sala and Worlgang to >> make >> the selection taking account regional, gender and other factors in >> balance. >> >> 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 >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 chaitanyabd at gmail.com Thu Nov 1 06:26:47 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 15:56:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGF 2012 - Bilateral meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Izumi, I'm guessing we've got more than a full house and more will be coming in. Do advise how you'll be picking participants (first come first or random, etc) as you've noted a limit of 5-6 people... :) -C On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Oksana Prykhodko wrote: > Hi, > > I am extremely interested to participate. > > Is it possible? > > Best regards, > Oksana > > 2012/11/1 Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) > : > > I would be interested as well if there is still space. Maybe to represent > > some processes in IRP and CoE. > > > > Wolfgang Benedek > > > > > > > > Von: Chaitanya Dhareshwar > > Antworten an: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > > , Chaitanya Dhareshwar > > > > Datum: Donnerstag, 01. November 2012 09:15 > > An: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , > Izumi > > AIZU > > Betreff: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGF 2012 - Bilateral meeting > > > > Hi Izumi, > > > > I'd love to attend this. Do advise on venue though as that is a primary > > factor for me. > > > > Thanks, > > Chaitanya > > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> > >> Following the one in Nairobi last year, European commission and European > >> Parliament > >> people want to hold an informal meeting with civil society members and > >> asked Wolfgang to coordinate. > >> > >> Since this is an informal meeting with limited space, we need to find > and > >> decide who will > >> be there. Around 5 or 6 people, max. > >> > >> Time/Date/Venue are not confirmed, though. > >> > >> Please indicate if you like to attend. I will consult Sala and Worlgang > to > >> make > >> the selection taking account regional, gender and other factors in > >> balance. > >> > >> 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 > >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From valeriab at apc.org Thu Nov 1 10:59:44 2012 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:59:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] APC's priorities for IGF Baku Message-ID: <35EDCC04-E90E-4DB3-AE28-4672D090DC7D@apc.org> Dear all, The document which highlights APC's priorities for the 2012 IGF is already available at https://www.apc.org/en/node/15652/ Your comments are welcome. Valeria ------------- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Thu Nov 1 11:04:42 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 20:34:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGF 2012 - Bilateral meeting In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD3EC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Dear Izumi, I would like to under this meeting. Please include me as a CS participant from India. Thank you Sivasubramanian M Sent from Turiya MID http://turiya.co.in On Oct 31, 2012 2:37 PM, "Izumi AIZU" wrote: > Following the one in Nairobi last year, European commission and > European Parliament > people want to hold an informal meeting with civil society members and > asked Wolfgang to coordinate. > > Since this is an informal meeting with limited space, we need to find and > decide who will > be there. Around 5 or 6 people, max. > > Time/Date/Venue are not confirmed, though. > > Please indicate if you like to attend. I will consult Sala and Worlgang to > make > the selection taking account regional, gender and other factors in balance. > > 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Nov 1 10:54:31 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 15:54:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] Cash-strapped European news websites ask governments to step in and force Google to pay for story links Message-ID: <50928D27.8080802@gmail.com> News > World > Europe Cash-strapped European news websites ask governments to step in and force Google to pay for story links Lori Hinnant Thursday 01 November 2012 European news organisations bleeding money and readers are trying to avoid extinction by asking governments in France, Germany and Italy to step in and charge Google for links to stories the internet search giant has always used for free. Critics --- including, unsurprisingly, Google --- say the strategy is shortsighted and self-destructive, and the search engine warns it will stop indexing European news sites if forced to pay for links. But publishers advocating a "Google tax" aimed at benefiting their industry point to the example of Brazil, where their counterparts abandoned the search engine and say repercussions have been minimal. The dispute underscores a fundamental question facing media agencies around the world: Who should benefit from links to online content that is costly to produce and yet generates a fraction of the ad revenue that once allowed newspapers to flourish? Europe has tried to sidestep Google before. Six years ago, then-French President Jacques Chirac unveiled plans for Quaero (Latin for "I search") as the answer to US dominance of the internet. The multi-platform search and operating system was supposed to work with desktop computers, mobile devices and even televisions. Despite millions spent to develop Quaero, it went nowhere. This week, implicit threats hovered over a meeting between current French President Francois Hollande and Eric Schmidt, Google's executive chairman. Hollande demanded Google reach a deal with publishers over the copyright dispute and also address the French taxes it escapes by basing its European headquarters in Ireland. Google essentially reiterated a point it made in a recent letter to French publishers: Paris' latest attempt to impose itself would force readers to "Anglo-Saxon" sites based in countries with more favorable copyright laws, such as Britain and Ireland. Google's post-meeting statement said the discussions dealt with "the contributions of the internet to job creation and the influence of French culture in the world." Adding to the pressure on Google in France, a French newspaper reported yesterday that French authorities are threatening Google with a 1 billion euro tax bill and investigating alleged financial wrongdoing. Google France denied being notified of such a tax bill and said it will "continue to cooperate with the French authorities." Government spokeswoman Najat Vallaud-Belkacem wouldn't comment on the report in the weekly Canard Enchaine, except to say that if there were a tax probe, it would be covered by laws on fiscal secrecy. French publishers, along with counterparts in Germany and Italy, are hoping Brazil will be the proof that there is a successful way to confront Google. After failing to come to terms with Google in the past year, Brazil's biggest papers --- representing 90 per cent of circulation --- decided to boycott Google News by essentially making their content unavailable to anyone using the search engine. The result? Negligible losses in web traffic, the Brazilian papers say. Brazilian newspapers haven't ruled out reopening talks with Google, if the company whose name is synonymous with "search" agrees to pay for their content. Unlike in Europe, the Brazilian publishers have not turned to their government to act as a mediator or impose a tax as part of their dealings with Google. "Newspapers live off advertising revenues, like Google. They're our competition and they have billions and billions in revenues globally," said Ricardo Pedreira, executive director of Brazil's National Association of Newspapers. Still, Pedreira is not convinced Brazil is a good model for European nations. "Every country has a specific reality, and I think there will probably evolve different models in each nation," he said. Others in Brazil have warned about long-term consequences of the boycott. Carlos Castilho, a media critic and TV journalist, writing on the press watchdog website Observatorio da Imprensa, argued that the boycott was a backward strategy, because "news is everywhere today and to surround it with walls of copyrights is like trying to dry ice." /AP/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 1 14:00:57 2012 From: ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com (Narine Khachatryan) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 22:00:57 +0400 Subject: [governance] On the eve of IGF Azerbaijani parliament proposes to toughen legislation surrounding freedom of assembly Message-ID: *On the eve of IGF Azerbaijani parliament proposes to toughen legislation surrounding freedom of assembly * On Tuesday, October 23 Azerbaijani parliamentarians suggested to toughen the legislation surrounding freedom of assembly in the country, Caucasus Elections Watch wrote. ( http://electionswatch.org/2012/10/30/ahead-of-presidential-elections-in-2013-azerbaijani-government-proposes-to-toughen-legislation-on-public-protests/ ). During a joint session held by parliamentary committees for “Legal Policy and State building”, and “Human Rights” parliamentarians expressed their concerns that so-called “unauthorised actions”, which have been on the rise in recent years in Azerbaijan, have had a negative impact on Azerbaijan’s international image. This trend, the lawmakers say, is likely a result of the fact that the penalties are not a big enough deterrent for protesters.The lawmakers suggested to increase the fines for participating in unsanctioned mobilizations up to 5000 and 8000 manat (up to 7-9 thousand USD). The proposed amendments to be sent to parliament for further deliberation. Opposition argues these amendments do not comply with country’s obligations before Council of Europe and OSCE, contradict the European Convention on Human Rights and Freedoms, the OSCE Copenhagen Document, the Council of Europe’s basic principles on freedom of expression and freedom of association. Read more… http://electionswatch.org/2012/10/30/ahead-of-presidential-elections-in-2013-azerbaijani-government-proposes-to-toughen-legislation-on-public-protests/#more-961 Narine Khachatryan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Nov 1 14:04:46 2012 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 23:04:46 +0500 Subject: [governance] CS Speakers for Baku In-Reply-To: References: <6htvq562u9xwndojpff6tjwa.1351715549740@email.android.com> <1351717131.30525.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <77843C2D-FF1E-4FF7-BA2C-5199F3622B4E@privaterra.org> <1351723363.30961.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: +1 On 1 November 2012 13:09, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > Izumi had broadcast her request here - a fair few people responded saying > Carlos was a good choice. - > > ------ > ref: > Izumi AIZU iza at anr.org via > lists.igcaucus.org > Oct 2 > to governance > > Dear list, > > We need to select Civil Society speakers for the Baku Main session, > I think one for the opening and another for the closing session. > > Please send your suggestions and nominations asap. > > izumi > > > ------- > People who responded positively for Carlos include > Hartmut Richard Glaser > Graciela Selaimen > Graciela Selaimen > Deirdre Williams > Valeria Betancourt > Valeria Betancourt > Ginger Paque > > -C > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Robert Guerra wrote: > >> Let's be clear, I don't have an issue with the people that were >> selected. Just the process, or lack of one, that was used. >> >> Suggest we focus on a way to develop a far more transparent and in >> dependant process next time >> >> Robert >> >> >> -- >> R. Guerra >> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >> >> On 2012-10-31, at 9:30 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >> > It is in part my fault for not wrapping up the discussion quickly, to >> > select the speakers >> > and liaise to the Secretariat. So sorry about this delay. >> > >> > I guess IGF Secretariat chose one from IGC members and another one from >> non-IGC. >> > >> > They had indicated that the speaker does not have to be IGC member per >> se. >> > >> > IGC is not the sole representative of the Civil Society for IGF. >> > >> > Yet I believe Valentina will also be an excellent speaker, especially >> from >> > Central/East Europe. >> > >> > >> > izumi >> > >> > >> > >> > 2012/11/1 shaila mistry : >> >> me too :) >> >> >> >> The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! >> >> ..................... the renaissance of composure ! >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> >> >> >> >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Robert Guerra < >> rguerra at privaterra.org> >> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 3:40 PM >> >> Subject: Re: [governance] CS Speakers for Baku >> >> >> >> yes it took me by surprise as well Mawaki. :O >> >> >> >> Sala >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Robert Guerra > > >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> To be honest, in my opinion, the process to select speakers for the >> main >> >> opening session has seemed ad-hoc at best. >> >> >> >> Would have expected a far more deliberate process along the lines that >> the >> >> caucus reviews, recommends and nominates persons for the MAG. >> >> >> >> Robert >> >> -- >> >> R. Guerra >> >> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >> >> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >> >> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >> >> >> >> On 2012-10-31, at 6:09 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> ... Still, I'm not sure I understand the process that got us >> >>> nominating people and end up with a name that was never mentioned here >> >>> (this is nothing personal). Were there other CS groups that had been >> >>> running the same nomination process? Is this at the discretion of the >> >>> Secretariat? And what happens now to the idea of collectively prepared >> >>> discourse or talking points, and to Milton's good start on that? >> >>> >> >>> Just asking. >> >>> >> >>> mawaki >> >>> >> >>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Nnenna wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> I think Carlos and Valentina make a great pair. >> >>>> >> >>>> Cheers >> >>>> >> >>>> N >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants >> >>>> Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for >> Development >> >>>> Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 >> >>>> Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| >> http://www.nnenna.org >> >>>> nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | >> nnennaorg.blogspot.com >> >>>> >> >>>> ________________________________ >> >>>> From: Carlos A. Afonso >> >>>> To: william.drake at uzh.ch; glaser at cgi.br >> >>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 8:32 PM >> >>>> Subject: Re: Re: [governance] CS Speakers for Baku >> >>>> >> >>>> :) >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Carlos A. Afonso >> >>>> >> >>>> William Drake escreveu: >> >>>> My apologies to Carlos, I cut and paste from someone else's email >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On Oct 31, 2012, at 8:05 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Correct name is => Carlos Alberto Afonso ... >> >>>> >> >>>> ========================================== >> >>>> On 31/10/12 17:04, William Drake wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Hi >> >>>> >> >>>> The secretariat has invited Carlos Alfonso for the opening session >> and >> >>>> Valentina Pellizzer for the closing session. >> >>>> >> >>>> Bill >> >>>> >> >>>> On Oct 31, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Dear list, >> >>>> >> >>>> Sorry for not following this up earlier. Just too many things to do. >> >>>> >> >>>> Though I said we may run a poll, I guess Carlos is already our de >> facto >> >>>> speaker, >> >>>> and Nnnena seems to have received good support and fulfills the >> gender >> >>>> balance >> >>>> and also from developing region. >> >>>> >> >>>> And as Ginger rightly suggested both speakers will take up the >> talking >> >>>> points >> >>>> into their text, with some degree of, of course, their own words to >> be >> >>>> added. >> >>>> >> >>>> May I ask you if this is our rough consensus? >> >>>> >> >>>> Many thanks, >> >>>> >> >>>> izumi >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> 2012/10/11 William Drake : >> >>>> >> >>>> it's what they're sending registrants >> >>>> >> >>>> On Oct 11, 2012, at 8:42 AM, Katy P wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> What? When did this happen? >> >>>> >> >>>> On Oct 11, 2012 8:24 AM, "William Drake" >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> In light of the host country's jaw dropping decision to publicly >> >>>> disseminate all participants' passport numbers, I hope whoever we >> have >> >>>> speaking in the opening an closing will emphasize the centrality of >> >>>> personal >> >>>> privacy protection in Internet governance. >> >>>> >> >>>> Best >> >>>> >> >>>> Bill >> >>>> >> >>>> On Oct 10, 2012, at 5:10 AM, Nnenna wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> +1 On each of the points below. I am currently in the Côte d'Ivoire >> >>>> Internet Governance Forum and my drafting capacity is limited. >> However, >> >>>> I >> >>>> would like to see a line that extends "Multistakeholderism" down to >> >>>> active >> >>>> national participation of all stakeholders. AFAIK, in as much as in >> some >> >>>> countries, the government is weighing in, in ways that may appear >> >>>> overbearing, in others, the decision-makers are actually note >> interested >> >>>> or >> >>>> think it is an NGO thing. >> >>>> >> >>>> Can we have a "Development Agenda" paragraph? I am also thinking that >> >>>> "Participation" may also need to be a paragraph of its own >> >>>> >> >>>> Best >> >>>> >> >>>> Nnenna >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG >> >>>> | Consultants >> >>>> Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for >> Development >> >>>> Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 >> >>>> Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| >> http://www.nnenna.org/ >> >>>> nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | >> nnennaorg.blogspot.com >> >>>> >> >>>> ________________________________ >> >>>> From: Milton L Mueller >> >>>> To: 'Ginger Paque' ; " >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >> >>>> >> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 9:07 PM >> >>>> Subject: RE: [governance] CS Speakers for Baku >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> From: gpaque at gmail.com [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ginger >> >>>> Paque >> >>>> >> >>>> I think that both points are important... I would say 'in addition >> to' >> >>>> not >> >>>> 'rather than'. Whom we choose sends a signal as sometimes as >> significant >> >>>> as >> >>>> their words, and we tend to know their general positions as well as >> >>>> speaking >> >>>> abilities when we nominate them. >> >>>> >> >>>> Ginger and colleagues: >> >>>> Yes, of course it is "in addition to" not "rather than" - but has >> there >> >>>> been any substantive discussion yet? Frankly I think what they say is >> >>>> more >> >>>> important than who we choose, but agree that in some cases "the >> medium is >> >>>> the message." At any rate we are long on "who" and rather short on >> >>>> "what" >> >>>> at the moment, so… >> >>>> >> >>>> let me throw out three short statements on issues that I passionately >> >>>> believe should be addressed. In doing so, I will make an attempt to >> >>>> address >> >>>> them in a way that takes into account the differences among us and >> hope >> >>>> others do so in the same spirit. Other candidate topics would include >> >>>> IPR, >> >>>> development…I defer to others there. >> >>>> >> >>>> Human rights >> >>>> CS believes that the absence of gatekeepers and the open, global >> >>>> communication enabled by the Internet realizes the promise of >> Article 19 >> >>>> of >> >>>> the UN UDHR. To erect (national) legal barriers to the free flow of >> >>>> information is a bad idea and contrary to the individual human right >> to >> >>>> freedom of expression. We therefore oppose efforts to create >> "national >> >>>> Internets," or to block and filter internet access in ways that deny >> >>>> individuals access to applications, content and services of their >> choice. >> >>>> All attempts to deem certain forms of communication and information >> >>>> illegal >> >>>> and remove them must follow established, transparent processes of >> law and >> >>>> should not involve prior restraint. >> >>>> >> >>>> Security and Securitization >> >>>> CS opposes efforts to militarize the Internet, or any actions that >> would >> >>>> foster a destructive and wasteful cyber arms race among governments >> >>>> and/or >> >>>> private actors. We consider the surreptitious use of exploits and >> malware >> >>>> for surveillance or attacks to be criminal regardless of whether >> they are >> >>>> deployed by governments, private corporations or organized >> criminals. We >> >>>> are >> >>>> skeptical of efforts to subordinate the design and use of >> information and >> >>>> communication technology to "national security" agendas. We believe >> that >> >>>> Internet security will be achieved primarily at the operational >> level and >> >>>> that national security and military agendas often work against rather >> >>>> than >> >>>> for users' security needs. >> >>>> >> >>>> Multistakeholderism >> >>>> Global governance institutions should not be restricted to states, >> so CS >> >>>> welcomes the additional participation in global policy making that >> >>>> multi-stakeholder processes provide. But CS cautions that >> >>>> multi-stakeholder >> >>>> participation is not an end in itself. Opening up global governance >> >>>> institutions to additional voices from civil society and business >> does >> >>>> not >> >>>> by itself ensure that individual rights are adequately protected or >> that >> >>>> the >> >>>> best substantive policies are developed and enforced. In the informal >> >>>> spaces >> >>>> created by MS institutions, it is possible that powerful >> governmental and >> >>>> corporate actors can make deals contrary to the interests of Internet >> >>>> users. >> >>>> MS processes must incorporate and institutionalize concepts of due >> >>>> process, >> >>>> separation of powers and user's inalienable civil and political >> rights. >> >>>> >> >>>> Milton L. Mueller >> >>>> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies >> >>>> Internet Governance Project >> >>>> http://blog.internetgovernance.org >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>>> >> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>>> >> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>>> >> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>>> >> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>>> >> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>>> >> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >>>> >> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>>> >> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>>> >> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> >> >>>> Izumi Aizu << >> >>>> >> >>>> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> >>>> >> >>>> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> >>>> Japan >> >>>> * * * * * >> >>>> << Writing the Future of the History >> >> >>>> www.anr.org >> >>>> >> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>>> >> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>>> >> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>>> >> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>>> >> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>>> >> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>>> >> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>> >> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>> >> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> P.O. Box 17862 >> >> Suva >> >> Fiji >> >> >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> >>> Izumi Aizu << >> > >> > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> > >> > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> > Japan >> > * * * * * >> > << Writing the Future of the History >> >> > www.anr.org >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Follow me @* * **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 mueller at syr.edu Thu Nov 1 17:57:19 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 21:57:19 +0000 Subject: [governance] CS Speakers for Baku In-Reply-To: <1351717131.30525.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <6htvq562u9xwndojpff6tjwa.1351715549740@email.android.com> <1351717131.30525.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2278691@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> That’s Carlos ALBERTO…and Valentina!!! From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Nnenna Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 4:59 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Carlos A. Afonso Subject: Re: Re: [governance] CS Speakers for Baku I think Carlos and Valentina make a great pair. Cheers N Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com ________________________________ From: Carlos A. Afonso To: william.drake at uzh.ch; glaser at cgi.br Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 8:32 PM Subject: Re: Re: [governance] CS Speakers for Baku :) Carlos A. Afonso William Drake escreveu: My apologies to Carlos, I cut and paste from someone else's email On Oct 31, 2012, at 8:05 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: Correct name is => Carlos Alberto Afonso ... ========================================== On 31/10/12 17:04, William Drake wrote: Hi The secretariat has invited Carlos Alfonso for the opening session and Valentina Pellizzer for the closing session. Bill On Oct 31, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: Dear list, Sorry for not following this up earlier. Just too many things to do. Though I said we may run a poll, I guess Carlos is already our de facto speaker, and Nnnena seems to have received good support and fulfills the gender balance and also from developing region. And as Ginger rightly suggested both speakers will take up the talking points into their text, with some degree of, of course, their own words to be added. May I ask you if this is our rough consensus? Many thanks, izumi 2012/10/11 William Drake : it's what they're sending registrants On Oct 11, 2012, at 8:42 AM, Katy P wrote: What? When did this happen? On Oct 11, 2012 8:24 AM, "William Drake" wrote: In light of the host country's jaw dropping decision to publicly disseminate all participants' passport numbers, I hope whoever we have speaking in the opening an closing will emphasize the centrality of personal privacy protection in Internet governance. Best Bill On Oct 10, 2012, at 5:10 AM, Nnenna wrote: +1 On each of the points below. I am currently in the Côte d'Ivoire Internet Governance Forum and my drafting capacity is limited. However, I would like to see a line that extends "Multistakeholderism" down to active national participation of all stakeholders. AFAIK, in as much as in some countries, the government is weighing in, in ways that may appear overbearing, in others, the decision-makers are actually note interested or think it is an NGO thing. Can we have a "Development Agenda" paragraph? I am also thinking that "Participation" may also need to be a paragraph of its own Best Nnenna Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org/ nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com ________________________________ From: Milton L Mueller To: 'Ginger Paque' ; "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 9:07 PM Subject: RE: [governance] CS Speakers for Baku From: gpaque at gmail.com [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ginger Paque I think that both points are important... I would say 'in addition to' not 'rather than'. Whom we choose sends a signal as sometimes as significant as their words, and we tend to know their general positions as well as speaking abilities when we nominate them. Ginger and colleagues: Yes, of course it is "in addition to" not "rather than" - but has there been any substantive discussion yet? Frankly I think what they say is more important than who we choose, but agree that in some cases "the medium is the message." At any rate we are long on "who" and rather short on "what" at the moment, so… let me throw out three short statements on issues that I passionately believe should be addressed. In doing so, I will make an attempt to address them in a way that takes into account the differences among us and hope others do so in the same spirit. Other candidate topics would include IPR, development…I defer to others there. Human rights CS believes that the absence of gatekeepers and the open, global communication enabled by the Internet realizes the promise of Article 19 of the UN UDHR. To erect (national) legal barriers to the free flow of information is a bad idea and contrary to the individual human right to freedom of expression. We therefore oppose efforts to create "national Internets," or to block and filter internet access in ways that deny individuals access to applications, content and services of their choice. All attempts to deem certain forms of communication and information illegal and remove them must follow established, transparent processes of law and should not involve prior restraint. Security and Securitization CS opposes efforts to militarize the Internet, or any actions that would foster a destructive and wasteful cyber arms race among governments and/or private actors. We consider the surreptitious use of exploits and malware for surveillance or attacks to be criminal regardless of whether they are deployed by governments, private corporations or organized criminals. We are skeptical of efforts to subordinate the design and use of information and communication technology to "national security" agendas. We believe that Internet security will be achieved primarily at the operational level and that national security and military agendas often work against rather than for users' security needs. Multistakeholderism Global governance institutions should not be restricted to states, so CS welcomes the additional participation in global policy making that multi-stakeholder processes provide. But CS cautions that multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself. Opening up global governance institutions to additional voices from civil society and business does not by itself ensure that individual rights are adequately protected or that the best substantive policies are developed and enforced. In the informal spaces created by MS institutions, it is possible that powerful governmental and corporate actors can make deals contrary to the interests of Internet users. MS processes must incorporate and institutionalize concepts of due process, separation of powers and user's inalienable civil and political rights. Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 1 17:58:48 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 21:58:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] CS Speakers for Baku In-Reply-To: References: <6htvq562u9xwndojpff6tjwa.1351715549740@email.android.com> <1351717131.30525.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22786B4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> It's a valid question, Mawaki. The answer seems to be: when it comes to the UN, _everything_ is discretionary, including MAG selections as well as CS speakers. This is obviously a bad system, and needs to be challenged and changed. > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:10 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Nnenna > Subject: Re: Re: [governance] CS Speakers for Baku > > Hi, > > ... Still, I'm not sure I understand the process that got us nominating > people and end up with a name that was never mentioned here (this is > nothing personal). Were there other CS groups that had been running the > same nomination process? Is this at the discretion of the Secretariat? > And what happens now to the idea of collectively prepared discourse or > talking points, and to Milton's good start on that? > > Just asking. > > mawaki > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Nnenna wrote: > > > > I think Carlos and Valentina make a great pair. > > > > Cheers > > > > N > > > > > > > > Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants > > Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development > > Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 > > Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org > > nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Carlos A. Afonso > > To: william.drake at uzh.ch; glaser at cgi.br > > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 8:32 PM > > Subject: Re: Re: [governance] CS Speakers for Baku > > > > :) > > > > > > > > > > Carlos A. Afonso > > > > William Drake escreveu: > > My apologies to Carlos, I cut and paste from someone else's email > > > > > > On Oct 31, 2012, at 8:05 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: > > > > > > Correct name is => Carlos Alberto Afonso ... > > > > ========================================== > > On 31/10/12 17:04, William Drake wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > The secretariat has invited Carlos Alfonso for the opening session and > > Valentina Pellizzer for the closing session. > > > > Bill > > > > On Oct 31, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > > Dear list, > > > > Sorry for not following this up earlier. Just too many things to do. > > > > Though I said we may run a poll, I guess Carlos is already our de > > facto speaker, and Nnnena seems to have received good support and > > fulfills the gender balance and also from developing region. > > > > And as Ginger rightly suggested both speakers will take up the talking > > points into their text, with some degree of, of course, their own > > words to be added. > > > > May I ask you if this is our rough consensus? > > > > Many thanks, > > > > izumi > > > > > > > > > > > > 2012/10/11 William Drake : > > > > it's what they're sending registrants > > > > On Oct 11, 2012, at 8:42 AM, Katy P wrote: > > > > What? When did this happen? > > > > On Oct 11, 2012 8:24 AM, "William Drake" wrote: > > > > In light of the host country's jaw dropping decision to publicly > > disseminate all participants' passport numbers, I hope whoever we have > > speaking in the opening an closing will emphasize the centrality of > > personal privacy protection in Internet governance. > > > > Best > > > > Bill > > > > On Oct 10, 2012, at 5:10 AM, Nnenna wrote: > > > > +1 On each of the points below. I am currently in the Côte d'Ivoire > > Internet Governance Forum and my drafting capacity is limited. > > However, I would like to see a line that extends "Multistakeholderism" > > down to active national participation of all stakeholders. AFAIK, in > > as much as in some countries, the government is weighing in, in ways > > that may appear overbearing, in others, the decision-makers are > > actually note interested or think it is an NGO thing. > > > > Can we have a "Development Agenda" paragraph? I am also thinking that > > "Participation" may also need to be a paragraph of its own > > > > Best > > > > Nnenna > > > > > > > > Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG > > | Consultants > > Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development > > Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 > > Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| > > http://www.nnenna.org/ nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | > > nnennaorg.blogspot.com > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Milton L Mueller > > To: 'Ginger Paque' ; "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 9:07 PM > > Subject: RE: [governance] CS Speakers for Baku > > > > > > From: gpaque at gmail.com [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ginger > > Paque > > > > I think that both points are important... I would say 'in addition to' > > not 'rather than'. Whom we choose sends a signal as sometimes as > > significant as their words, and we tend to know their general > > positions as well as speaking abilities when we nominate them. > > > > Ginger and colleagues: > > Yes, of course it is "in addition to" not "rather than" - but has > > there been any substantive discussion yet? Frankly I think what they > > say is more important than who we choose, but agree that in some cases > > "the medium is the message." At any rate we are long on "who" and > rather short on "what" > > at the moment, so. > > > > let me throw out three short statements on issues that I passionately > > believe should be addressed. In doing so, I will make an attempt to > > address them in a way that takes into account the differences among us > > and hope others do so in the same spirit. Other candidate topics would > > include IPR, development.I defer to others there. > > > > Human rights > > CS believes that the absence of gatekeepers and the open, global > > communication enabled by the Internet realizes the promise of Article > > 19 of the UN UDHR. To erect (national) legal barriers to the free flow > > of information is a bad idea and contrary to the individual human > > right to freedom of expression. We therefore oppose efforts to create > > "national Internets," or to block and filter internet access in ways > > that deny individuals access to applications, content and services of > their choice. > > All attempts to deem certain forms of communication and information > > illegal and remove them must follow established, transparent processes > > of law and should not involve prior restraint. > > > > Security and Securitization > > CS opposes efforts to militarize the Internet, or any actions that > > would foster a destructive and wasteful cyber arms race among > > governments and/or private actors. We consider the surreptitious use > > of exploits and malware for surveillance or attacks to be criminal > > regardless of whether they are deployed by governments, private > > corporations or organized criminals. We are skeptical of efforts to > > subordinate the design and use of information and communication > > technology to "national security" agendas. We believe that Internet > > security will be achieved primarily at the operational level and that > > national security and military agendas often work against rather than > for users' security needs. > > > > Multistakeholderism > > Global governance institutions should not be restricted to states, so > > CS welcomes the additional participation in global policy making that > > multi-stakeholder processes provide. But CS cautions that > > multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself. Opening up > > global governance institutions to additional voices from civil society > > and business does not by itself ensure that individual rights are > > adequately protected or that the best substantive policies are > > developed and enforced. In the informal spaces created by MS > > institutions, it is possible that powerful governmental and corporate > actors can make deals contrary to the interests of Internet users. > > MS processes must incorporate and institutionalize concepts of due > > process, separation of powers and user's inalienable civil and > political rights. > > > > Milton L. Mueller > > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet > > Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > > > > Izumi Aizu << > > > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > > Japan > > * * * * * > > << Writing the Future of the History >> > > www.anr.org > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Thu Nov 1 18:04:15 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 22:04:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGF 2012 - Bilateral meeting In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD3EC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22786E4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> 5 or 6 people, max? Ridiculous. This is an inherently bad, undemocratic method. Governments such as the EC try to impose false notions of "representation" on civil society, by seeking a few "spokespersons" or "representatives." Their only real object is to make their job easier. We should decline to cooperate with this political version of artificial scarcity, and just insist on an open meeting. I am serious. If you are so flattered that they asked for your opinion, but go along with their attempt to reduce civil society to a few privileged voices, you are completely missing the point. On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Izumi AIZU > wrote: Following the one in Nairobi last year, European commission and European Parliament people want to hold an informal meeting with civil society members and asked Wolfgang to coordinate. Since this is an informal meeting with limited space, we need to find and decide who will be there. Around 5 or 6 people, max. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 1 18:08:15 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 22:08:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] CS Speakers for Baku In-Reply-To: References: <506B08C9.90107@cgi.br> <506B2256.1030707@nupef.org.br> <0CB09DB8-E475-4EEB-B1DB-84F1F921071E@privaterra.org> <506BCAF1.7080504@itforchange.net> <506BCC3A.3080703@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2248050@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD224C0EE@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1349860254.22164.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <2A131ED0-0371-4EDA-AE99-98943AD1D33C@uzh.ch> <04985B25-E155-4931-A380-FC92F0D50033@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2278715@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Carlos ALBERTO Afonso received overwhelming support from this list, as I recall. He is more than a de facto, he is a legitimate choice. As I recall also, Nnenna politely informed us that she was private sector but expressed a willingness to speak for CS if we wanted her to and gave her a prepared statement. To my mind, that means we should choose someone else. But, I also thought that the UN had made the second choice for us. --MM > -----Original Message----- > > Though I said we may run a poll, I guess Carlos is already our de facto > speaker, and Nnnena seems to have received good support and fulfills the > gender balance and also from developing region. > > And as Ginger rightly suggested both speakers will take up the talking > points into their text, with some degree of, of course, their own words > to be added. > > May I ask you if this is our rough consensus? > > Many thanks, > > izumi > > > > > > 2012/10/11 William Drake : > > it's what they're sending registrants > > > > On Oct 11, 2012, at 8:42 AM, Katy P wrote: > > > > What? When did this happen? > > > > On Oct 11, 2012 8:24 AM, "William Drake" wrote: > >> > >> In light of the host country's jaw dropping decision to publicly > >> disseminate all participants' passport numbers, I hope whoever we > >> have speaking in the opening an closing will emphasize the centrality > >> of personal privacy protection in Internet governance. > >> > >> Best > >> > >> Bill > >> > >> On Oct 10, 2012, at 5:10 AM, Nnenna wrote: > >> > >> +1 On each of the points below. I am currently in the Côte d'Ivoire > >> Internet Governance Forum and my drafting capacity is limited. > >> However, I would like to see a line that extends > >> "Multistakeholderism" down to active national participation of all > >> stakeholders. AFAIK, in as much as in some countries, the government > >> is weighing in, in ways that may appear overbearing, in others, the > >> decision-makers are actually note interested or think it is an NGO > thing. > >> > >> Can we have a "Development Agenda" paragraph? I am also thinking that > >> "Participation" may also need to be a paragraph of its own > >> > >> Best > >> > >> Nnenna > >> > >> > >> > >> Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants > >> Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for > >> Development Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 > >> |Mob. 07416820 > >> Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| > >> http://www.nnenna.org nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | > >> nnennaorg.blogspot.com > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> From: Milton L Mueller > >> To: 'Ginger Paque' ; > "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > >> > >> Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 9:07 PM > >> Subject: RE: [governance] CS Speakers for Baku > >> > >> > >> From: gpaque at gmail.com [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ginger > >> Paque > >> > >> I think that both points are important... I would say 'in addition > >> to' not 'rather than'. Whom we choose sends a signal as sometimes as > >> significant as their words, and we tend to know their general > >> positions as well as speaking abilities when we nominate them. > >> > >> Ginger and colleagues: > >> Yes, of course it is "in addition to" not "rather than" - but has > >> there been any substantive discussion yet? Frankly I think what they > >> say is more important than who we choose, but agree that in some > >> cases "the medium is the message." At any rate we are long on "who" > and rather short on "what" > >> at the moment, so. > >> > >> let me throw out three short statements on issues that I passionately > >> believe should be addressed. In doing so, I will make an attempt to > >> address them in a way that takes into account the differences among > >> us and hope others do so in the same spirit. Other candidate topics > >> would include IPR, development.I defer to others there. > >> > >> Human rights > >> CS believes that the absence of gatekeepers and the open, global > >> communication enabled by the Internet realizes the promise of Article > >> 19 of the UN UDHR. To erect (national) legal barriers to the free > >> flow of information is a bad idea and contrary to the individual > >> human right to freedom of expression. We therefore oppose efforts to > >> create "national Internets," or to block and filter internet access > >> in ways that deny individuals access to applications, content and > services of their choice. > >> All attempts to deem certain forms of communication and information > >> illegal and remove them must follow established, transparent > >> processes of law and should not involve prior restraint. > >> > >> Security and Securitization > >> CS opposes efforts to militarize the Internet, or any actions that > >> would foster a destructive and wasteful cyber arms race among > >> governments and/or private actors. We consider the surreptitious use > >> of exploits and malware for surveillance or attacks to be criminal > >> regardless of whether they are deployed by governments, private > >> corporations or organized criminals. We are skeptical of efforts to > >> subordinate the design and use of information and communication > >> technology to "national security" agendas. We believe that Internet > >> security will be achieved primarily at the operational level and that > >> national security and military agendas often work against rather than > for users' security needs. > >> > >> Multistakeholderism > >> Global governance institutions should not be restricted to states, so > >> CS welcomes the additional participation in global policy making that > >> multi-stakeholder processes provide. But CS cautions that > >> multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself. Opening up > >> global governance institutions to additional voices from civil > >> society and business does not by itself ensure that individual rights > >> are adequately protected or that the best substantive policies are > >> developed and enforced. In the informal spaces created by MS > >> institutions, it is possible that powerful governmental and corporate > actors can make deals contrary to the interests of Internet users. > >> MS processes must incorporate and institutionalize concepts of due > >> process, separation of powers and user's inalienable civil and > political rights. > >> > >> Milton L. Mueller > >> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet > >> Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Nov 1 18:11:36 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 11:11:36 +1300 Subject: [governance] CS Speakers for Baku In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2278715@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <506B08C9.90107@cgi.br> <506B2256.1030707@nupef.org.br> <0CB09DB8-E475-4EEB-B1DB-84F1F921071E@privaterra.org> <506BCAF1.7080504@itforchange.net> <506BCC3A.3080703@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2248050@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD224C0EE@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1349860254.22164.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <2A131ED0-0371-4EDA-AE99-98943AD1D33C@uzh.ch> <04985B25-E155-4931-A380-FC92F0D50033@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2278715@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I agree with you Milton. On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Carlos ALBERTO Afonso received overwhelming support from this list, as I > recall. He is more than a de facto, he is a legitimate choice. As I recall > also, Nnenna politely informed us that she was private sector but expressed > a willingness to speak for CS if we wanted her to and gave her a prepared > statement. To my mind, that means we should choose someone else. But, I > also thought that the UN had made the second choice for us. > > --MM > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > Though I said we may run a poll, I guess Carlos is already our de facto > > speaker, and Nnnena seems to have received good support and fulfills the > > gender balance and also from developing region. > > > > And as Ginger rightly suggested both speakers will take up the talking > > points into their text, with some degree of, of course, their own words > > to be added. > > > > May I ask you if this is our rough consensus? > > > > Many thanks, > > > > izumi > > > > > > > > > > > > 2012/10/11 William Drake : > > > it's what they're sending registrants > > > > > > On Oct 11, 2012, at 8:42 AM, Katy P wrote: > > > > > > What? When did this happen? > > > > > > On Oct 11, 2012 8:24 AM, "William Drake" wrote: > > >> > > >> In light of the host country's jaw dropping decision to publicly > > >> disseminate all participants' passport numbers, I hope whoever we > > >> have speaking in the opening an closing will emphasize the centrality > > >> of personal privacy protection in Internet governance. > > >> > > >> Best > > >> > > >> Bill > > >> > > >> On Oct 10, 2012, at 5:10 AM, Nnenna wrote: > > >> > > >> +1 On each of the points below. I am currently in the Côte d'Ivoire > > >> Internet Governance Forum and my drafting capacity is limited. > > >> However, I would like to see a line that extends > > >> "Multistakeholderism" down to active national participation of all > > >> stakeholders. AFAIK, in as much as in some countries, the government > > >> is weighing in, in ways that may appear overbearing, in others, the > > >> decision-makers are actually note interested or think it is an NGO > > thing. > > >> > > >> Can we have a "Development Agenda" paragraph? I am also thinking that > > >> "Participation" may also need to be a paragraph of its own > > >> > > >> Best > > >> > > >> Nnenna > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants > > >> Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for > > >> Development Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 > > >> |Mob. 07416820 > > >> Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| > > >> http://www.nnenna.org nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | > > >> nnennaorg.blogspot.com > > >> > > >> ________________________________ > > >> From: Milton L Mueller > > >> To: 'Ginger Paque' ; > > "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > > >> > > >> Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 9:07 PM > > >> Subject: RE: [governance] CS Speakers for Baku > > >> > > >> > > >> From: gpaque at gmail.com [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ginger > > >> Paque > > >> > > >> I think that both points are important... I would say 'in addition > > >> to' not 'rather than'. Whom we choose sends a signal as sometimes as > > >> significant as their words, and we tend to know their general > > >> positions as well as speaking abilities when we nominate them. > > >> > > >> Ginger and colleagues: > > >> Yes, of course it is "in addition to" not "rather than" - but has > > >> there been any substantive discussion yet? Frankly I think what they > > >> say is more important than who we choose, but agree that in some > > >> cases "the medium is the message." At any rate we are long on "who" > > and rather short on "what" > > >> at the moment, so. > > >> > > >> let me throw out three short statements on issues that I passionately > > >> believe should be addressed. In doing so, I will make an attempt to > > >> address them in a way that takes into account the differences among > > >> us and hope others do so in the same spirit. Other candidate topics > > >> would include IPR, development.I defer to others there. > > >> > > >> Human rights > > >> CS believes that the absence of gatekeepers and the open, global > > >> communication enabled by the Internet realizes the promise of Article > > >> 19 of the UN UDHR. To erect (national) legal barriers to the free > > >> flow of information is a bad idea and contrary to the individual > > >> human right to freedom of expression. We therefore oppose efforts to > > >> create "national Internets," or to block and filter internet access > > >> in ways that deny individuals access to applications, content and > > services of their choice. > > >> All attempts to deem certain forms of communication and information > > >> illegal and remove them must follow established, transparent > > >> processes of law and should not involve prior restraint. > > >> > > >> Security and Securitization > > >> CS opposes efforts to militarize the Internet, or any actions that > > >> would foster a destructive and wasteful cyber arms race among > > >> governments and/or private actors. We consider the surreptitious use > > >> of exploits and malware for surveillance or attacks to be criminal > > >> regardless of whether they are deployed by governments, private > > >> corporations or organized criminals. We are skeptical of efforts to > > >> subordinate the design and use of information and communication > > >> technology to "national security" agendas. We believe that Internet > > >> security will be achieved primarily at the operational level and that > > >> national security and military agendas often work against rather than > > for users' security needs. > > >> > > >> Multistakeholderism > > >> Global governance institutions should not be restricted to states, so > > >> CS welcomes the additional participation in global policy making that > > >> multi-stakeholder processes provide. But CS cautions that > > >> multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself. Opening up > > >> global governance institutions to additional voices from civil > > >> society and business does not by itself ensure that individual rights > > >> are adequately protected or that the best substantive policies are > > >> developed and enforced. In the informal spaces created by MS > > >> institutions, it is possible that powerful governmental and corporate > > actors can make deals contrary to the interests of Internet users. > > >> MS processes must incorporate and institutionalize concepts of due > > >> process, separation of powers and user's inalienable civil and > > political rights. > > >> > > >> Milton L. Mueller > > >> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet > > >> Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > >> > > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > >> > > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >> > > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > >> > > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > >> > > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > >> > > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > >> > > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >> > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > >> Izumi Aizu << > > > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > > Japan > > * * * * * > > << Writing the Future of the History >> > > www.anr.org > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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 Thu Nov 1 18:15:07 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 22:15:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] Sandy and the internet infrastructure In-Reply-To: <047101cdb72f$fab7fc40$f027f4c0$@gmail.com> References: <047101cdb72f$fab7fc40$f027f4c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2278739@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> So if you actually read the article, it says that internet infrastructure in NEW YORK CITY, USA has been messed up by Sandy. So apparently Mr. Michael “US-hegemony” Gurstein believes that New York _is_ the Internet. Go get him, Parminder. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 2:21 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Sandy and the internet infrastructure Superstorm Sandy wreaks havoc on internet infrastructure http://t.co/8I34uSWD http://gigaom.com/cloud/superstorm-sandy-wreaks-havoc-on-internet-infrastructure/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 1 18:32:01 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 22:32:01 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: Reasons for 'Internet Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance" products Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD227875B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Fouad: Your answer to David's question reveals a lot of confusion, in my opinion. Markets respond to supply and demand. It is a simple and predictable feature of markets that businesses (whether in the US or anywhere else) will try to sell their products to people who want to use them and have the money to pay for them. So we have a shared responsibility: for DPI and related surveillance and content-filtering equipment, the demand is created by authoritarian governments who want to control the Internet in their country, while the supply comes from profit-motivated businesses who can meet that demand. Many of these suppliers, by the way, are NOT from the U.S.; many are from Europe, and some are from China or elsewhere. Don't blame the US advocates of FoE for that. As for the "dual FoE internet policy," well, it's time to grow up and look at states, including the US state, as self-interested actors and stop believing in the fairy tale that they magically embody the public interest or the people's will. It's also time for you to recognize that nearly all states have contradictory political pressures on them; just as the Pakistani govt doesn't want to alienate the hardcore islamists while continuing to receive $$$ from the US, the US govt (specifically, the State Dept) wants to promote internet freedom while some Congressional pressures want us to withhold nearly all technology from "enemies" or repressive states, and some business-centric agencies and congresspeople want us to expand our market share in foreign countries' technology purchases by selling them more equipment. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Fouad Bajwa Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 7:14 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: David Conrad Subject: Re: Reasons for 'Internet Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance" products (was Re: [governance] speaker at the opening ceremony?) Let me try to answer the confusion quickly while I am multitasking between packing and documentation: I'd rather remain implicit. I am sure many of my colleagues from developing countries can list a long list of issues that their countries are concerned about and may be sharing during the WCIT meet and that this list has been discussing in numerous ITR related threads etc. at the end of the day it is more or less around US centric IRM and the challenges of censorship and content filtering. Its not just about iran, russia and china, there are more than a hundred other countries out of which a majority are developing regions and imposing various forms of censorship. My confusion stands around the dual FoE internet policy of these countries that requires some responsibility. Okay, its not only boeing/narus, cisco or sandvine selling censorship but we have huwae in the league of traffic intelligence and DPI as well. Alright, it may be business as usual but this is giving some countries to show and tell the amazing censorship they have implemented. Yes there are jurisdiction issues at play here but then some countries believe in resorting to censorship, blocking and filtering. On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: Or is it fouads argument that sandvine gear was bought specifically to censor any discussion of the cir process? I don't quite understand the logic here either --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "David Conrad" > To: > Subject: Reasons for 'Internet Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance" products (was Re: [governance] speaker at the opening ceremony?) Date: Tue, Oct 30, 2012 9:01 PM Fouad, On Oct 30, 2012, at 6:20 AM, Fouad Bajwa > wrote: > The fact remains that as US-Centric Internet Resource Management remains, countries have been sold various Internet Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance systems by US and Canadian companies. An evident example is the use of Sandvine traffic intelligence by PTCL Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited. PTCL is the largest ICT/Telecom provider in the country and manages the Internet trunks. I'm curious: how does "US-Centric Internet Resource Management" cause PTCL (et al) to purchase products like Sandvine's? Thanks, -drc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Regards. -------------------------- Foo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From brett at accessnow.org Thu Nov 1 19:31:53 2012 From: brett at accessnow.org (Brett Solomon) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 19:31:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] Panels at the IGF you may be interested in Message-ID: Hey there, Hoping to see many of you in Baku. It will be the fourth year that Access has been at the IGF (that happened fast!!!). Below is a list of panels we're involved with. Please join us if you are in Baku or participate remotely via the IGF websitewhere possible. *How to engage users on Internet Policies? (WS 120) Nov 6th (Day 1) | 14:30-16:00 | Conf. Room 3 | * 2012 has witnessed an incredible galvanization of internet users who were often politically uninvolved, but now are rising up and taking an interest in what was once arcane internet policy. Engaging these users has allowed political and human rights activists to make real progress against threats to digital rights and other key freedoms. This panel will examine why and how this happened and what governments and corporations can do to more proactively and positively engage users in the future. Panelists: Joana Varon Ferraz, FGV/CTS; Jochai Ben-Avie, Access; Smàri MacCarthy, innovator and information activist, Iceland; Farid Alakbarov, Wikipedia Azerbaijan; João Carlos Caribé, Meganão Movement; Max Senges, Google Is access to the Internet a human right? (WS 157) *Nov 7th (Day 2) | 14:30 - 16:00 | Conf. Room 2 | * The Internet has increasingly become a fundamental medium for trade, education, government-citizen interaction, as well as individual communication needs. Though some critics strongly criticize any technology or medium being given the status of basic human right, such centrality poses the question if every individual should have a right to access the Internet. Panelists: Vint Cerf, Google; Frank La Rue, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression; Richard Allan Policy Director, Europe, Facebook; Allon Bar, Odyssey / IRP Coalition; Brett Solomon, Access (moderator); Elvin Mejidov, Azerbaijan; Alice Munyua, Kenyan government *Conflict in the Cloud - Policy Challenges for Stakeholders & Practical Solutions for Sustainable Economic Growth (WS 77) **Nov 7th (Day 2) | 16:30-18:00 | Conf. Room 7 | * Cloud computing is the natural evolution of the continued growth and advancement of the internet. However, the dialogue around cloud computing is currently moving to the next level. We intuitively know that cloud computing is a huge economic driver of growth and advancement in developing countries. How can cloud computing provide for sustainable economic growth, particularly in light of potential conflicts of national and regional laws involving privacy and government requests (for example the PATRIOT Act in the United States and other similar laws in other countries)? And are these national laws in effect trade barriers? Panelists: Marc Crandall, Google; Scott Marcus, Wissenschaftliches Institut fuer Infrastructur und Kommunikationsdienste; Bertrand de la Chapelle, Academie Diplomatique Internationale; Nii Quaynor, Ghana Dot Com Ltd; Jochai Ben-Avie, Access; Alejandro Pisanty, Universidad Autonoma de Mexico A plan for rights-respecting telecoms (WS 98) Nov 8th (Day 3) | 14:30 - 16:00 | Conf. Room 3 | With great new powers over information dissemination and communications networks, telecom companies are facing new responsibilities to governments, customers, and investors. This discussion will help map the options for sustainable, rights-respecting service and infrastructure provision by the private companies in varying situations. Panelists: David Sullivan, GNI; Johan Hallenborg, Swedish Gov’t; Veridiana Alimonti, Brazilian Consumer Defense Institute (IDEC); Antoaneta Angelova-Krasteva, European Commission; Patrick Hiselius, TeliaSonera; Vivek Krishnamurthy, Foley Hoag LLP; Brett Solomon, Access (moderator) *WS 102 Spectrum for democracy and development (WS 102) Nov 9th (Day 4) | 09.00 - 10:30 | Conf. Room 2 | * Democratic spectrum regulation can lead to growth in broadband internet penetration, widespread sharing of information and exchange of ideas, technological innovation, and long-term economic growth. This panel will explore ways in which spectrum policy can be reshaped to suit a new and global democratic era and further development. Panelists: Kate Coyer, Central European University; Gary Fowlie, ITU; Jeff Brueggeman, AT&T; Moez Chakchouk, ATI; Paul Mitchell, Microsoft; Jochai Ben-Avie, Access Brett -- Brett Solomon Executive Director | Access accessnow.org | rightscon.org skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow Key ID: 0x312B641A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Thu Nov 1 21:59:16 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 07:29:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] On the eve of IGF Azerbaijani parliament proposes to toughen legislation surrounding freedom of assembly In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hope they're not trying to cause trouble for the IGF. Fingers crossed all goes well. -C On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Narine Khachatryan < ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com> wrote: > *On the eve of IGF Azerbaijani parliament proposes to toughen > legislation surrounding freedom of assembly * > > On Tuesday, October 23 Azerbaijani parliamentarians suggested to toughen > the legislation surrounding freedom of assembly in the country, Caucasus > Elections Watch wrote. ( > http://electionswatch.org/2012/10/30/ahead-of-presidential-elections-in-2013-azerbaijani-government-proposes-to-toughen-legislation-on-public-protests/ > ). During a joint session held by parliamentary committees for “Legal > Policy and State building”, and “Human Rights” parliamentarians expressed > their concerns that so-called “unauthorised actions”, which have been on > the rise in recent years in Azerbaijan, have had a negative impact on > Azerbaijan’s international image. This trend, the lawmakers say, is > likely a result of the fact that the penalties are not a big enough > deterrent for protesters.The lawmakers suggested to increase the fines > for participating in unsanctioned mobilizations up to 5000 and 8000 > manat (up to 7-9 thousand USD). The proposed amendments to be sent to > parliament for further deliberation. > > Opposition argues these amendments do not comply with country’s > obligations before Council of Europe and OSCE, contradict the European > Convention on Human Rights and Freedoms, the OSCE Copenhagen Document, the > Council of Europe’s basic principles on freedom of expression and freedom > of association. Read more… > > > http://electionswatch.org/2012/10/30/ahead-of-presidential-elections-in-2013-azerbaijani-government-proposes-to-toughen-legislation-on-public-protests/#more-961 > > Narine Khachatryan > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Nov 1 22:53:32 2012 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 03:53:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGF 2012 - Bilateral meeting In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22786E4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.sy r.edu> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD3EC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22786E4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: At 23:04 01/11/2012, Milton L Mueller wrote: >5 or 6 people, max? Ridiculous. This is an inherently bad, >undemocratic method. >Governments such as the EC try to impose false notions of >"representation" on civil societty, by seeking a few "spokespersons" >or "representatives." Their only real object is to make their job >easier. We should decline to cooperate with this political version >of artificial scarcity, and just insist on an open meeting. I am >serious. If you are so flattered that they asked for your opinion, >but go along with their attempt to reduce civil society to a few >privileged voices, you are completely missing the point. +1 However, these people most probably only want to be clearly taught in an open minded meeting (they cannot negociate anything with the civil society except through a constitutional referendum) . A way to deal with this could be for you to ask them the topics they would like to cover. So you may also organize the meeting and introduce you as expert in civil society positions as by its very civil (not organized nature) civil society has no representative. Try to explain them that is the same as if we asked them to coordinate 3 or 4 European States to meet with us. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Nov 2 01:40:58 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 07:40:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGF 2012 - Bilateral meeting In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22786E4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD3EC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22786E4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <000001cdb8bc$a3d52630$eb7f7290$@gmail.com> Ah, Milton at his counter-hegemonic best. :) In solidarity, M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 12:04 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Fouad Bajwa; Izumi AIZU Subject: RE: [governance] Fwd: IGF 2012 - Bilateral meeting 5 or 6 people, max? Ridiculous. This is an inherently bad, undemocratic method. Governments such as the EC try to impose false notions of "representation" on civil society, by seeking a few "spokespersons" or "representatives." Their only real object is to make their job easier. We should decline to cooperate with this political version of artificial scarcity, and just insist on an open meeting. I am serious. If you are so flattered that they asked for your opinion, but go along with their attempt to reduce civil society to a few privileged voices, you are completely missing the point. On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: Following the one in Nairobi last year, European commission and European Parliament people want to hold an informal meeting with civil society members and asked Wolfgang to coordinate. Since this is an informal meeting with limited space, we need to find and decide who will be there. Around 5 or 6 people, max. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 2 02:32:10 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 07:32:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGF 2012 - Bilateral meeting In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22786E4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD3EC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22786E4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: (Speaking with the "European Commission official" hat here). Let's not blow things out of proportion. There is no attempt at "imposing false notions of representations" for the simple reason that in the dark corridors of Mordor, I mean Brussels, we are perfectly aware "civil society" is a rather fluid concept and it is difficult to identify "spokesperson" or "representatives" (which, incidentally, also means that when any of the various persons or organisations in the "civil society" galaxy claims to "represent" anything, our usual reaction is one of skepticism. You can't have it both ways I guess). Frankly,anyway, I do not quite understand why it is ok for the IGC to have "co-coordinators" which *de facto* speak on behalf of the IGC in several occasions, and for members of this list to choose a speaker that will *de facto* represent them at the opening session (if I understood well); but when other parties ask whether there are NGOs et al that would like to have an *informal* chat with people from the European Commission and the European Parliament, all hell breaks loose. But I guess that since the EU's final plan is to take over the Internet and impose automatic translation of all websites in 22 languages, we can't possibly be trusted. More practically, if you can find a venue large enough for an open meeting (we couldn't) why not propose a larger set-up? Best, Andrea On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > 5 or 6 people, max? Ridiculous. This is an inherently bad, undemocratic > method. **** > > Governments such as the EC try to impose false notions of “representation” > on civil society, by seeking a few “spokespersons” or “representatives.” > Their only real object is to make their job easier. We should decline to > cooperate with this political version of artificial scarcity, and just > insist on an open meeting. I am serious. If you are so flattered that they > asked for your opinion, but go along with their attempt to reduce civil > society to a few privileged voices, you are completely missing the point. > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:**** > > Following the one in Nairobi last year, European commission and > European Parliament **** > > people want to hold an informal meeting with civil society members and *** > * > > asked Wolfgang to coordinate.**** > > ** ** > > Since this is an informal meeting with limited space, we need to find and > decide who will**** > > be there. Around 5 or 6 people, max.**** > > ** ** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Nov 2 02:32:39 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 11:32:39 +0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Reasons for 'Internet Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance" products In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD227875B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD227875B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear Milton, Your comments are welcome as always! One has to add the element of confusion not to be re-quoted intentionally or unintentionally where such authoritarian regimes are at play and one may be prone to concerns! My previous comments are based upon facts that I hear occasionally quoted during US leadership statements on online FoE and protection of pluralism and at the end of the day companies from that country are on the forefront of bidding and deploying traffic intelligence Okay, these companies operate in a free market environment but then the credibility of such statements collapse amidst surveillance cooperation even if its done by companies from that region. I have always felt that the US has mixed market dynamics and regulators do keep an eye and do not tend to overlook the fact that their companies do have country level offices that can independently participate in government contracts outside the US. I will have to differ here that devoted support for US and Canadian traffic monitoring and intelligence companies that they are not involved in censorship because I have witnessed credible information. I must point out that your defense for the Northern American companies argument depicts the traditional free market support whereas I am inclined to believe that its a mixed market approach because the government diplomacy in terms of Foreign Policy and economic drives cannot be completely ignorant of a key component of its globalization agenda/strategy of which Internet is an important tool and catalyst of a global world order. Anyways, these are from the airport, do I see you in Baku? Best Fouad On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 3:32 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Fouad:**** > > Your answer to David’s question reveals a lot of confusion, in my opinion. > **** > > ** ** > > Markets respond to supply and demand. It is a simple and predictable > feature of markets that businesses (whether in the US or anywhere else) > will try to sell their products to people who want to use them and have the > money to pay for them. So we have a shared responsibility: for DPI and > related surveillance and content-filtering equipment, the *demand* is > created by authoritarian governments who want to control the Internet in > their country, while the *supply* comes from profit-motivated businesses > who can meet that demand. Many of these suppliers, by the way, are NOT from > the U.S.; many are from Europe, and some are from China or elsewhere. **** > > ** ** > > Don’t blame the US advocates of FoE for that. **** > > ** ** > > As for the “dual FoE internet policy,” well, it’s time to grow up and look > at states, including the US state, as self-interested actors and stop > believing in the fairy tale that they magically embody the public interest > or the people’s will. It’s also time for you to recognize that nearly all > states have contradictory political pressures on them; just as the > Pakistani govt doesn’t want to alienate the hardcore islamists while > continuing to receive $$$ from the US, the US govt (specifically, the State > Dept) wants to promote internet freedom while some Congressional pressures > want us to withhold nearly all technology from “enemies” or repressive > states, and some business-centric agencies and congresspeople want us to > expand our market share in foreign countries’ technology purchases by > selling them more equipment. **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Fouad Bajwa > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 30, 2012 7:14 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian > *Cc:* David Conrad > *Subject:* Re: Reasons for 'Internet Traffic Intelligence and > Surveillance" products (was Re: [governance] speaker at the opening > ceremony?)**** > > ** ** > > Let me try to answer the confusion quickly while I am multitasking between > packing and documentation:**** > > ** ** > > I'd rather remain implicit. I am sure many of my colleagues from > developing countries can list a long list of issues that their countries > are concerned about and may be sharing during the WCIT meet and that this > list has been discussing in numerous ITR related threads etc. at the end of > the day it is more or less around US centric IRM and the challenges of > censorship and content filtering. Its not just about iran, russia and > china, there are more than a hundred other countries out of which a > majority are developing regions and imposing various forms of censorship.* > *** > > ** ** > > My confusion stands around the dual FoE internet policy of these countries > that requires some responsibility. Okay, its not only boeing/narus, cisco > or sandvine selling censorship but we have huwae in the league of > traffic intelligence and DPI as well. Alright, it may be business as usual > but this is giving some countries to show and tell the amazing censorship > they have implemented. **** > > ** ** > > Yes there are jurisdiction issues at play here but then some countries > believe in resorting to censorship, blocking and filtering.**** > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote:**** > > Or is it fouads argument that sandvine gear was bought specifically to > censor any discussion of the cir process? I don't quite understand the > logic here either > > --srs (htc one x)**** > > > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "David Conrad" > To: > Subject: Reasons for 'Internet Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance" > products (was Re: [governance] speaker at the opening ceremony?) > Date: Tue, Oct 30, 2012 9:01 PM**** > > > Fouad, > > On Oct 30, 2012, at 6:20 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > The fact remains that as US-Centric Internet Resource Management > remains, countries have been sold various Internet Traffic Intelligence and > Surveillance systems by US and Canadian companies. An evident example is > the use of Sandvine traffic intelligence by PTCL Pakistan Telecommunication > Company Limited. PTCL is the largest ICT/Telecom provider in the country > and manages the Internet trunks.**** > > I'm curious: how does "US-Centric Internet Resource Management" cause PTCL > (et al) to purchase products like Sandvine's?**** > > Thanks, > -drc > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t**** > > > > **** > > ** ** > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Foo**** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 2 03:30:41 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 13:00:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGF 2012 - Bilateral meeting In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD3EC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22786E4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Sauces for the goose, and for the gander :) Very well put - and I share your skepticism about "civil society consensus", informed consensus at any rate, for an audience that is larger than the typical igov involved civ soc organization crowd --srs (iPad) On 02-Nov-2012, at 12:02, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > (Speaking with the "European Commission official" hat here). > > Let's not blow things out of proportion. There is no attempt at "imposing false notions of representations" for the simple reason that in the dark corridors of Mordor, I mean Brussels, we are perfectly aware "civil society" is a rather fluid concept and it is difficult to identify "spokesperson" or "representatives" (which, incidentally, also means that when any of the various persons or organisations in the "civil society" galaxy claims to "represent" anything, our usual reaction is one of skepticism. You can't have it both ways I guess). > > Frankly,anyway, I do not quite understand why it is ok for the IGC to have "co-coordinators" which de facto speak on behalf of the IGC in several occasions, and for members of this list to choose a speaker that will de facto represent them at the opening session (if I understood well); but when other parties ask whether there are NGOs et al that would like to have an informal chat with people from the European Commission and the European Parliament, all hell breaks loose. > > But I guess that since the EU's final plan is to take over the Internet and impose automatic translation of all websites in 22 languages, we can't possibly be trusted. > > More practically, if you can find a venue large enough for an open meeting (we couldn't) why not propose a larger set-up? > > Best, > > Andrea > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> 5 or 6 people, max? Ridiculous. This is an inherently bad, undemocratic method. >> >> Governments such as the EC try to impose false notions of “representation” on civil society, by seeking a few “spokespersons” or “representatives.” Their only real object is to make their job easier. We should decline to cooperate with this political version of artificial scarcity, and just insist on an open meeting. I am serious. If you are so flattered that they asked for your opinion, but go along with their attempt to reduce civil society to a few privileged voices, you are completely missing the point. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >> Following the one in Nairobi last year, European commission and European Parliament >> >> people want to hold an informal meeting with civil society members and >> >> asked Wolfgang to coordinate. >> >> >> >> Since this is an informal meeting with limited space, we need to find and decide who will >> >> be there. Around 5 or 6 people, max. >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Nov 2 08:37:33 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 07:37:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGF 2012 - Bilateral meeting In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD3EC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22786E4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Andrea, thanks for your input. I the strong response to this invitation can be seen as giving importance to this exchange. I understood the meeting to be a 'sampling' for idea exchange, not a 'representation'. Possibly this kind of invitation could be made more informally (not on the list) to avoid misunderstanding and overwhelming requests to attend. If anything, I think tension has been fostered by good intentions to be inclusive in what is meant to be a small, diverse brainstorming session. Perhaps we should pick up on Andrea's suggestion to request a larger meeting for brainstorming? Positive energy for communication is important. Safe travels, Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig ** ** On 2 November 2012 02:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Sauces for the goose, and for the gander :) > > Very well put - and I share your skepticism about "civil society > consensus", informed consensus at any rate, for an audience that is larger > than the typical igov involved civ soc organization crowd > > --srs (iPad) > > On 02-Nov-2012, at 12:02, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > (Speaking with the "European Commission official" hat here). > > Let's not blow things out of proportion. There is no attempt at "imposing > false notions of representations" for the simple reason that in the dark > corridors of Mordor, I mean Brussels, we are perfectly aware "civil > society" is a rather fluid concept and it is difficult to identify > "spokesperson" or "representatives" (which, incidentally, also means that > when any of the various persons or organisations in the "civil society" > galaxy claims to "represent" anything, our usual reaction is one of > skepticism. You can't have it both ways I guess). > > Frankly,anyway, I do not quite understand why it is ok for the IGC to have > "co-coordinators" which *de facto* speak on behalf of the IGC in several > occasions, and for members of this list to choose a speaker that will *de > facto* represent them at the opening session (if I understood well); but > when other parties ask whether there are NGOs et al that would like to have > an *informal* chat with people from the European Commission and the > European Parliament, all hell breaks loose. > > But I guess that since the EU's final plan is to take over the Internet > and impose automatic translation of all websites in 22 languages, we can't > possibly be trusted. > > More practically, if you can find a venue large enough for an open meeting > (we couldn't) why not propose a larger set-up? > > Best, > > Andrea > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> 5 or 6 people, max? Ridiculous. This is an inherently bad, undemocratic >> method. **** >> >> Governments such as the EC try to impose false notions of >> “representation” on civil society, by seeking a few “spokespersons” or >> “representatives.” Their only real object is to make their job easier. We >> should decline to cooperate with this political version of artificial >> scarcity, and just insist on an open meeting. I am serious. If you are so >> flattered that they asked for your opinion, but go along with their attempt >> to reduce civil society to a few privileged voices, you are completely >> missing the point. ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:**** >> >> Following the one in Nairobi last year, European commission and >> European Parliament **** >> >> people want to hold an informal meeting with civil society members and ** >> ** >> >> asked Wolfgang to coordinate.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Since this is an informal meeting with limited space, we need to find and >> decide who will**** >> >> be there. Around 5 or 6 people, max.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Fri Nov 2 11:02:20 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 08:02:20 -0700 Subject: [governance] Reasons for 'Internet Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance" products In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD227875B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Fouad, Your initial note asserted that the US government's role in Internet Resource Management was somehow responsible for folks like PCTL purchasing Internet Traffic and Surveillance systems created by US (or Canada) based companies. I'm still trying to understand the relationship. The use of DPI tools to censor the Internet appears to me to be largely orthogonal Internet Resource Management, regardless of who is in charge. Do you believe that if (say) the ITU globally or alternatively each government on the planet were responsible for Internet Resource Management in their country, that this would somehow lessen the demand for Internet Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance products? Or are you saying that because the US has an oversight role of ICANN to ensure some level of accountability in ICANN operations, US (and Canada?) based companies should not be allowed to create products that meet the demand for Internet Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance? Thanks, -drc On Nov 1, 2012, at 11:32 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > My previous comments are based upon facts that I hear occasionally quoted during US leadership statements on online FoE and protection of pluralism and at the end of the day companies from that country are on the forefront of bidding and deploying traffic intelligence Okay, these companies operate in a free market environment but then the credibility of such statements collapse amidst surveillance cooperation even if its done by companies from that region. > > I have always felt that the US has mixed market dynamics and regulators do keep an eye and do not tend to overlook the fact that their companies do have country level offices that can independently participate in government contracts outside the US. > > I will have to differ here that devoted support for US and Canadian traffic monitoring and intelligence companies that they are not involved in censorship because I have witnessed credible information. > > I must point out that your defense for the Northern American companies argument depicts the traditional free market support whereas I am inclined to believe that its a mixed market approach because the government diplomacy in terms of Foreign Policy and economic drives cannot be completely ignorant of a key component of its globalization agenda/strategy of which Internet is an important tool and catalyst of a global world order. Anyways, these are from the airport, do I see you in Baku? > > Best > > Fouad > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 3:32 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Fouad: > > Your answer to David’s question reveals a lot of confusion, in my opinion. > > > > Markets respond to supply and demand. It is a simple and predictable feature of markets that businesses (whether in the US or anywhere else) will try to sell their products to people who want to use them and have the money to pay for them. So we have a shared responsibility: for DPI and related surveillance and content-filtering equipment, the demand is created by authoritarian governments who want to control the Internet in their country, while the supply comes from profit-motivated businesses who can meet that demand. Many of these suppliers, by the way, are NOT from the U.S.; many are from Europe, and some are from China or elsewhere. > > > > Don’t blame the US advocates of FoE for that. > > > > As for the “dual FoE internet policy,” well, it’s time to grow up and look at states, including the US state, as self-interested actors and stop believing in the fairy tale that they magically embody the public interest or the people’s will. It’s also time for you to recognize that nearly all states have contradictory political pressures on them; just as the Pakistani govt doesn’t want to alienate the hardcore islamists while continuing to receive $$$ from the US, the US govt (specifically, the State Dept) wants to promote internet freedom while some Congressional pressures want us to withhold nearly all technology from “enemies” or repressive states, and some business-centric agencies and congresspeople want us to expand our market share in foreign countries’ technology purchases by selling them more equipment. > > > > > > > > > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Fouad Bajwa > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 7:14 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian > Cc: David Conrad > Subject: Re: Reasons for 'Internet Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance" products (was Re: [governance] speaker at the opening ceremony?) > > > > Let me try to answer the confusion quickly while I am multitasking between packing and documentation: > > > > I'd rather remain implicit. I am sure many of my colleagues from developing countries can list a long list of issues that their countries are concerned about and may be sharing during the WCIT meet and that this list has been discussing in numerous ITR related threads etc. at the end of the day it is more or less around US centric IRM and the challenges of censorship and content filtering. Its not just about iran, russia and china, there are more than a hundred other countries out of which a majority are developing regions and imposing various forms of censorship. > > > > My confusion stands around the dual FoE internet policy of these countries that requires some responsibility. Okay, its not only boeing/narus, cisco or sandvine selling censorship but we have huwae in the league of traffic intelligence and DPI as well. Alright, it may be business as usual but this is giving some countries to show and tell the amazing censorship they have implemented. > > > > Yes there are jurisdiction issues at play here but then some countries believe in resorting to censorship, blocking and filtering. > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Or is it fouads argument that sandvine gear was bought specifically to censor any discussion of the cir process? I don't quite understand the logic here either > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "David Conrad" > To: > Subject: Reasons for 'Internet Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance" products (was Re: [governance] speaker at the opening ceremony?) > Date: Tue, Oct 30, 2012 9:01 PM > > > Fouad, > > On Oct 30, 2012, at 6:20 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > The fact remains that as US-Centric Internet Resource Management remains, countries have been sold various Internet Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance systems by US and Canadian companies. An evident example is the use of Sandvine traffic intelligence by PTCL Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited. PTCL is the largest ICT/Telecom provider in the country and manages the Internet trunks. > > I'm curious: how does "US-Centric Internet Resource Management" cause PTCL (et al) to purchase products like Sandvine's? > > Thanks, > -drc > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Foo > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 2 11:02:53 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 00:02:53 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGF 2012 - Bilateral meeting In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD3EC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22786E4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi, So far some 12 people on this list indicated that they want to join this meeting. Given limited resources myself can spend for the remaining hour before taking flight to Baku, only 13 hours from now including my sleep tonight, I am not going to try to find any large room for this meeting. If someone on this list takes the responsibility, negotiate with either the local host or IGF secretariat, that will be great. Otherwise, I still suggest that we will be around six people. I feel at least one of co-cos should be there even this is an informal meeting. The leaves five. I like to consult with my colleague Sala to make the final selection, as coordinators duty. Sorry guys, but sometimes we need to make a practical choice in an imperfect manner. I also understand that the organizer is European Commission and the European Parliament, not us, we are just invited as guests, and they do have other channels for civil societies, NGOs, etc, outside IGC, which is, for me perfectly fine. The meeting is scheduled on Nov 8, but they do not plan to announce this publicly. I am aware the even putting this on to his list has certain announcement effect, but, in the interest of openness, at least within IGC, I put it here. Similar meeting happened in Kenya last year with US government. We so far have received no invitation from USG or any other parties, but as far as I am concerned, being the servant of the IGC, I am happy to liaise, or coordinate. I love the diversity, different ideas and positions, and am still happy to coordinate. But I also ask you guys to sometimes share the responsibility and burdens collectively, or at least understand these sometimes delicate and difficult limitations we all have. best, and see you there for those coming, and see you there online participant though they are labeled "remote", let's feel closer together. izumi 2012/11/2 Ginger Paque : > Andrea, thanks for your input. I the strong response to this invitation can > be seen as giving importance to this exchange. I understood the meeting to > be a 'sampling' for idea exchange, not a 'representation'. Possibly this > kind of invitation could be made more informally (not on the list) to avoid > misunderstanding and overwhelming requests to attend. If anything, I think > tension has been fostered by good intentions to be inclusive in what is > meant to be a small, diverse brainstorming session. > > Perhaps we should pick up on Andrea's suggestion to request a larger meeting > for brainstorming? Positive energy for communication is important. > > Safe travels, > Ginger > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > Diplo Foundation > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > > > > On 2 November 2012 02:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >> Sauces for the goose, and for the gander :) >> >> Very well put - and I share your skepticism about "civil society >> consensus", informed consensus at any rate, for an audience that is larger >> than the typical igov involved civ soc organization crowd >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 02-Nov-2012, at 12:02, Andrea Glorioso wrote: >> >> (Speaking with the "European Commission official" hat here). >> >> Let's not blow things out of proportion. There is no attempt at "imposing >> false notions of representations" for the simple reason that in the dark >> corridors of Mordor, I mean Brussels, we are perfectly aware "civil society" >> is a rather fluid concept and it is difficult to identify "spokesperson" or >> "representatives" (which, incidentally, also means that when any of the >> various persons or organisations in the "civil society" galaxy claims to >> "represent" anything, our usual reaction is one of skepticism. You can't >> have it both ways I guess). >> >> Frankly,anyway, I do not quite understand why it is ok for the IGC to have >> "co-coordinators" which de facto speak on behalf of the IGC in several >> occasions, and for members of this list to choose a speaker that will de >> facto represent them at the opening session (if I understood well); but when >> other parties ask whether there are NGOs et al that would like to have an >> informal chat with people from the European Commission and the European >> Parliament, all hell breaks loose. >> >> But I guess that since the EU's final plan is to take over the Internet >> and impose automatic translation of all websites in 22 languages, we can't >> possibly be trusted. >> >> More practically, if you can find a venue large enough for an open meeting >> (we couldn't) why not propose a larger set-up? >> >> Best, >> >> Andrea >> >> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>> 5 or 6 people, max? Ridiculous. This is an inherently bad, undemocratic >>> method. >>> >>> Governments such as the EC try to impose false notions of >>> “representation” on civil society, by seeking a few “spokespersons” or >>> “representatives.” Their only real object is to make their job easier. We >>> should decline to cooperate with this political version of artificial >>> scarcity, and just insist on an open meeting. I am serious. If you are so >>> flattered that they asked for your opinion, but go along with their attempt >>> to reduce civil society to a few privileged voices, you are completely >>> missing the point. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >>> >>> Following the one in Nairobi last year, European commission and European >>> Parliament >>> >>> people want to hold an informal meeting with civil society members and >>> >>> asked Wolfgang to coordinate. >>> >>> >>> >>> Since this is an informal meeting with limited space, we need to find and >>> decide who will >>> >>> be there. Around 5 or 6 people, max. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 gpaque at gmail.com Fri Nov 2 11:17:09 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 10:17:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGF 2012 - Bilateral meeting In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD3EC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22786E4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Izumi said: best, and see you there for those coming, and see you there online participant though they are labeled "remote", let's feel closer together. GINGER: Beautiful, Izumi -- I don't think it could be said any better. See you all online--I do hope we will form a Skype group for common 'corridor conversations'. Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig ** ** On 2 November 2012 10:02, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Hi, > So far some 12 people on this list indicated that they want to join > this meeting. > > Given limited resources myself can spend for the remaining hour before > taking > flight to Baku, only 13 hours from now including my sleep tonight, I > am not going > to try to find any large room for this meeting. If someone on this list > takes > the responsibility, negotiate with either the local host or IGF > secretariat, that will > be great. > > Otherwise, I still suggest that we will be around six people. I feel at > least > one of co-cos should be there even this is an informal meeting. The leaves > five. I like to consult with my colleague Sala to make the final selection, > as coordinators duty. Sorry guys, but sometimes we need to make a > practical choice in an imperfect manner. > > I also understand that the organizer is European Commission and the > European > Parliament, not us, we are just invited as guests, and they do have other > channels for civil societies, NGOs, etc, outside IGC, which is, for me > perfectly > fine. > > The meeting is scheduled on Nov 8, but they do not plan to announce this > publicly. I am aware the even putting this on to his list has certain > announcement > effect, but, in the interest of openness, at least within IGC, I put it > here. > > Similar meeting happened in Kenya last year with US government. We so far > have received no invitation from USG or any other parties, but as far as I > am > concerned, being the servant of the IGC, I am happy to liaise, or > coordinate. > > I love the diversity, different ideas and positions, and am still > happy to coordinate. > But I also ask you guys to sometimes share the responsibility and burdens > collectively, or at least understand these sometimes delicate and > difficult limitations > we all have. > > best, and see you there for those coming, and see you there online > participant > though they are labeled "remote", let's feel closer together. > > izumi > > > > > > 2012/11/2 Ginger Paque : > > Andrea, thanks for your input. I the strong response to this invitation > can > > be seen as giving importance to this exchange. I understood the meeting > to > > be a 'sampling' for idea exchange, not a 'representation'. Possibly this > > kind of invitation could be made more informally (not on the list) to > avoid > > misunderstanding and overwhelming requests to attend. If anything, I > think > > tension has been fostered by good intentions to be inclusive in what is > > meant to be a small, diverse brainstorming session. > > > > Perhaps we should pick up on Andrea's suggestion to request a larger > meeting > > for brainstorming? Positive energy for communication is important. > > > > Safe travels, > > Ginger > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > Diplo Foundation > > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > > > > > > > > > On 2 November 2012 02:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > >> > >> Sauces for the goose, and for the gander :) > >> > >> Very well put - and I share your skepticism about "civil society > >> consensus", informed consensus at any rate, for an audience that is > larger > >> than the typical igov involved civ soc organization crowd > >> > >> --srs (iPad) > >> > >> On 02-Nov-2012, at 12:02, Andrea Glorioso > wrote: > >> > >> (Speaking with the "European Commission official" hat here). > >> > >> Let's not blow things out of proportion. There is no attempt at > "imposing > >> false notions of representations" for the simple reason that in the dark > >> corridors of Mordor, I mean Brussels, we are perfectly aware "civil > society" > >> is a rather fluid concept and it is difficult to identify > "spokesperson" or > >> "representatives" (which, incidentally, also means that when any of the > >> various persons or organisations in the "civil society" galaxy claims to > >> "represent" anything, our usual reaction is one of skepticism. You can't > >> have it both ways I guess). > >> > >> Frankly,anyway, I do not quite understand why it is ok for the IGC to > have > >> "co-coordinators" which de facto speak on behalf of the IGC in several > >> occasions, and for members of this list to choose a speaker that will de > >> facto represent them at the opening session (if I understood well); but > when > >> other parties ask whether there are NGOs et al that would like to have > an > >> informal chat with people from the European Commission and the European > >> Parliament, all hell breaks loose. > >> > >> But I guess that since the EU's final plan is to take over the Internet > >> and impose automatic translation of all websites in 22 languages, we > can't > >> possibly be trusted. > >> > >> More practically, if you can find a venue large enough for an open > meeting > >> (we couldn't) why not propose a larger set-up? > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Andrea > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: > >>> > >>> 5 or 6 people, max? Ridiculous. This is an inherently bad, undemocratic > >>> method. > >>> > >>> Governments such as the EC try to impose false notions of > >>> “representation” on civil society, by seeking a few “spokespersons” or > >>> “representatives.” Their only real object is to make their job easier. > We > >>> should decline to cooperate with this political version of artificial > >>> scarcity, and just insist on an open meeting. I am serious. If you are > so > >>> flattered that they asked for your opinion, but go along with their > attempt > >>> to reduce civil society to a few privileged voices, you are completely > >>> missing the point. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >>> > >>> Following the one in Nairobi last year, European commission and > European > >>> Parliament > >>> > >>> people want to hold an informal meeting with civil society members and > >>> > >>> asked Wolfgang to coordinate. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Since this is an informal meeting with limited space, we need to find > and > >>> decide who will > >>> > >>> be there. Around 5 or 6 people, max. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To 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 > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Nov 2 11:20:31 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 20:20:31 +0500 Subject: [governance] Reasons for 'Internet Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance" products In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD227875B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Where did ICANN come in to the discussion? Fouad Bajwa On Nov 2, 2012 7:03 PM, "David Conrad" wrote: > Fouad, > > Your initial note asserted that the US government's role in Internet > Resource Management was somehow responsible for folks like PCTL purchasing > Internet Traffic and Surveillance systems created by US (or Canada) based > companies. I'm still trying to understand the relationship. > > The use of DPI tools to censor the Internet appears to me to be largely > orthogonal Internet Resource Management, regardless of who is in charge. Do > you believe that if (say) the ITU globally or alternatively each government > on the planet were responsible for Internet Resource Management in their > country, that this would somehow lessen the demand for Internet Traffic > Intelligence and Surveillance products? > > Or are you saying that because the US has an oversight role of ICANN to > ensure some level of accountability in ICANN operations, US (and Canada?) > based companies should not be allowed to create products that meet the > demand for Internet Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance? > > Thanks, > -drc > > On Nov 1, 2012, at 11:32 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > My previous comments are based upon facts that I hear occasionally quoted > during US leadership statements on online FoE and protection of pluralism > and at the end of the day companies from that country are on the forefront > of bidding and deploying traffic intelligence Okay, these companies > operate in a free market environment but then the credibility of such > statements collapse amidst surveillance cooperation even if its done by > companies from that region. > > > I have always felt that the US has mixed market dynamics and regulators do > keep an eye and do not tend to overlook the fact that their companies do > have country level offices that can independently participate in government > contracts outside the US. > > I will have to differ here that devoted support for US and Canadian > traffic monitoring and intelligence companies that they are not involved in > censorship because I have witnessed credible information. > > I must point out that your defense for the Northern American companies > argument depicts the traditional free market support whereas I am inclined > to believe that its a mixed market approach because the government > diplomacy in terms of Foreign Policy and economic drives cannot be > completely ignorant of a key component of its globalization agenda/strategy > of which Internet is an important tool and catalyst of a global world > order. Anyways, these are from the airport, do I see you in Baku? > > Best > > Fouad > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 3:32 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> Fouad:**** >> >> Your answer to David’s question reveals a lot of confusion, in my >> opinion. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Markets respond to supply and demand. It is a simple and predictable >> feature of markets that businesses (whether in the US or anywhere else) >> will try to sell their products to people who want to use them and have the >> money to pay for them. So we have a shared responsibility: for DPI and >> related surveillance and content-filtering equipment, the *demand* is >> created by authoritarian governments who want to control the Internet in >> their country, while the *supply* comes from profit-motivated businesses >> who can meet that demand. Many of these suppliers, by the way, are NOT from >> the U.S.; many are from Europe, and some are from China or elsewhere. *** >> * >> >> ** ** >> >> Don’t blame the US advocates of FoE for that. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> As for the “dual FoE internet policy,” well, it’s time to grow up and >> look at states, including the US state, as self-interested actors and stop >> believing in the fairy tale that they magically embody the public interest >> or the people’s will. It’s also time for you to recognize that nearly all >> states have contradictory political pressures on them; just as the >> Pakistani govt doesn’t want to alienate the hardcore islamists while >> continuing to receive $$$ from the US, the US govt (specifically, the State >> Dept) wants to promote internet freedom while some Congressional pressures >> want us to withhold nearly all technology from “enemies” or repressive >> states, and some business-centric agencies and congresspeople want us to >> expand our market share in foreign countries’ technology purchases by >> selling them more equipment. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: >> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Fouad Bajwa >> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 30, 2012 7:14 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian >> *Cc:* David Conrad >> *Subject:* Re: Reasons for 'Internet Traffic Intelligence and >> Surveillance" products (was Re: [governance] speaker at the opening >> ceremony?)**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Let me try to answer the confusion quickly while I am multitasking >> between packing and documentation:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I'd rather remain implicit. I am sure many of my colleagues from >> developing countries can list a long list of issues that their countries >> are concerned about and may be sharing during the WCIT meet and that this >> list has been discussing in numerous ITR related threads etc. at the end of >> the day it is more or less around US centric IRM and the challenges of >> censorship and content filtering. Its not just about iran, russia and >> china, there are more than a hundred other countries out of which a >> majority are developing regions and imposing various forms of censorship. >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> My confusion stands around the dual FoE internet policy of these >> countries that requires some responsibility. Okay, its not only >> boeing/narus, cisco or sandvine selling censorship but we have huwae in the >> league of traffic intelligence and DPI as well. Alright, it may be business >> as usual but this is giving some countries to show and tell the amazing >> censorship they have implemented. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Yes there are jurisdiction issues at play here but then some countries >> believe in resorting to censorship, blocking and filtering.**** >> >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian < >> suresh at hserus.net> wrote:**** >> >> Or is it fouads argument that sandvine gear was bought specifically to >> censor any discussion of the cir process? I don't quite understand the >> logic here either >> >> --srs (htc one x)**** >> >> >> >> >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "David Conrad" >> To: >> Subject: Reasons for 'Internet Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance" >> products (was Re: [governance] speaker at the opening ceremony?) >> Date: Tue, Oct 30, 2012 9:01 PM**** >> >> >> Fouad, >> >> On Oct 30, 2012, at 6:20 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> > The fact remains that as US-Centric Internet Resource Management >> remains, countries have been sold various Internet Traffic Intelligence and >> Surveillance systems by US and Canadian companies. An evident example is >> the use of Sandvine traffic intelligence by PTCL Pakistan Telecommunication >> Company Limited. PTCL is the largest ICT/Telecom provider in the country >> and manages the Internet trunks.**** >> >> I'm curious: how does "US-Centric Internet Resource Management" cause >> PTCL (et al) to purchase products like Sandvine's?**** >> >> Thanks, >> -drc >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t**** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> -- >> Regards. >> -------------------------- >> Foo**** >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 2 11:20:01 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 00:20:01 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGF 2012 - Bilateral meeting In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD3EC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22786E4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I wish we could HUG online! izumi 2012/11/3 Ginger Paque : > Izumi said: > best, and see you there for those coming, and see you there online > participant > though they are labeled "remote", let's feel closer together. > > GINGER: Beautiful, Izumi -- I don't think it could be said any better. > See you all online--I do hope we will form a Skype group for common > 'corridor conversations'. > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > Diplo Foundation > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > > > > On 2 November 2012 10:02, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >> Hi, >> So far some 12 people on this list indicated that they want to join >> this meeting. >> >> Given limited resources myself can spend for the remaining hour before >> taking >> flight to Baku, only 13 hours from now including my sleep tonight, I >> am not going >> to try to find any large room for this meeting. If someone on this list >> takes >> the responsibility, negotiate with either the local host or IGF >> secretariat, that will >> be great. >> >> Otherwise, I still suggest that we will be around six people. I feel at >> least >> one of co-cos should be there even this is an informal meeting. The leaves >> five. I like to consult with my colleague Sala to make the final >> selection, >> as coordinators duty. Sorry guys, but sometimes we need to make a >> practical choice in an imperfect manner. >> >> I also understand that the organizer is European Commission and the >> European >> Parliament, not us, we are just invited as guests, and they do have other >> channels for civil societies, NGOs, etc, outside IGC, which is, for me >> perfectly >> fine. >> >> The meeting is scheduled on Nov 8, but they do not plan to announce this >> publicly. I am aware the even putting this on to his list has certain >> announcement >> effect, but, in the interest of openness, at least within IGC, I put it >> here. >> >> Similar meeting happened in Kenya last year with US government. We so far >> have received no invitation from USG or any other parties, but as far as I >> am >> concerned, being the servant of the IGC, I am happy to liaise, or >> coordinate. >> >> I love the diversity, different ideas and positions, and am still >> happy to coordinate. >> But I also ask you guys to sometimes share the responsibility and burdens >> collectively, or at least understand these sometimes delicate and >> difficult limitations >> we all have. >> >> best, and see you there for those coming, and see you there online >> participant >> though they are labeled "remote", let's feel closer together. >> >> izumi >> >> >> >> >> >> 2012/11/2 Ginger Paque : >> > Andrea, thanks for your input. I the strong response to this invitation >> > can >> > be seen as giving importance to this exchange. I understood the meeting >> > to >> > be a 'sampling' for idea exchange, not a 'representation'. Possibly this >> > kind of invitation could be made more informally (not on the list) to >> > avoid >> > misunderstanding and overwhelming requests to attend. If anything, I >> > think >> > tension has been fostered by good intentions to be inclusive in what is >> > meant to be a small, diverse brainstorming session. >> > >> > Perhaps we should pick up on Andrea's suggestion to request a larger >> > meeting >> > for brainstorming? Positive energy for communication is important. >> > >> > Safe travels, >> > Ginger >> > >> > Ginger (Virginia) Paque >> > >> > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu >> > Diplo Foundation >> > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme >> > www.diplomacy.edu/ig >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 2 November 2012 02:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Sauces for the goose, and for the gander :) >> >> >> >> Very well put - and I share your skepticism about "civil society >> >> consensus", informed consensus at any rate, for an audience that is >> >> larger >> >> than the typical igov involved civ soc organization crowd >> >> >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> >> >> On 02-Nov-2012, at 12:02, Andrea Glorioso >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> (Speaking with the "European Commission official" hat here). >> >> >> >> Let's not blow things out of proportion. There is no attempt at >> >> "imposing >> >> false notions of representations" for the simple reason that in the >> >> dark >> >> corridors of Mordor, I mean Brussels, we are perfectly aware "civil >> >> society" >> >> is a rather fluid concept and it is difficult to identify >> >> "spokesperson" or >> >> "representatives" (which, incidentally, also means that when any of the >> >> various persons or organisations in the "civil society" galaxy claims >> >> to >> >> "represent" anything, our usual reaction is one of skepticism. You >> >> can't >> >> have it both ways I guess). >> >> >> >> Frankly,anyway, I do not quite understand why it is ok for the IGC to >> >> have >> >> "co-coordinators" which de facto speak on behalf of the IGC in several >> >> occasions, and for members of this list to choose a speaker that will >> >> de >> >> facto represent them at the opening session (if I understood well); but >> >> when >> >> other parties ask whether there are NGOs et al that would like to have >> >> an >> >> informal chat with people from the European Commission and the European >> >> Parliament, all hell breaks loose. >> >> >> >> But I guess that since the EU's final plan is to take over the Internet >> >> and impose automatic translation of all websites in 22 languages, we >> >> can't >> >> possibly be trusted. >> >> >> >> More practically, if you can find a venue large enough for an open >> >> meeting >> >> (we couldn't) why not propose a larger set-up? >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Andrea >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Milton L Mueller >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> 5 or 6 people, max? Ridiculous. This is an inherently bad, >> >>> undemocratic >> >>> method. >> >>> >> >>> Governments such as the EC try to impose false notions of >> >>> “representation” on civil society, by seeking a few “spokespersons” or >> >>> “representatives.” Their only real object is to make their job easier. >> >>> We >> >>> should decline to cooperate with this political version of artificial >> >>> scarcity, and just insist on an open meeting. I am serious. If you are >> >>> so >> >>> flattered that they asked for your opinion, but go along with their >> >>> attempt >> >>> to reduce civil society to a few privileged voices, you are completely >> >>> missing the point. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Following the one in Nairobi last year, European commission and >> >>> European >> >>> Parliament >> >>> >> >>> people want to hold an informal meeting with civil society members and >> >>> >> >>> asked Wolfgang to coordinate. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Since this is an informal meeting with limited space, we need to find >> >>> and >> >>> decide who will >> >>> >> >>> be there. Around 5 or 6 people, max. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>> >> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>> To 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 >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To 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 > > -- >> 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 drc at virtualized.org Fri Nov 2 11:32:06 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 08:32:06 -0700 Subject: [governance] Reasons for 'Internet Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance" products In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD227875B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Fouad, As far as I am aware, the US government's role in Internet Resource Management is via its oversight of ICANN. Perhaps this is where the disconnect occurs: what is your view of "US-centric Internet Resource Management"? Thanks, -drc On Nov 2, 2012, at 8:20 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Where did ICANN come in to the discussion? > > Fouad Bajwa > > On Nov 2, 2012 7:03 PM, "David Conrad" wrote: > Fouad, > > Your initial note asserted that the US government's role in Internet Resource Management was somehow responsible for folks like PCTL purchasing Internet Traffic and Surveillance systems created by US (or Canada) based companies. I'm still trying to understand the relationship. > > The use of DPI tools to censor the Internet appears to me to be largely orthogonal Internet Resource Management, regardless of who is in charge. Do you believe that if (say) the ITU globally or alternatively each government on the planet were responsible for Internet Resource Management in their country, that this would somehow lessen the demand for Internet Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance products? > > Or are you saying that because the US has an oversight role of ICANN to ensure some level of accountability in ICANN operations, US (and Canada?) based companies should not be allowed to create products that meet the demand for Internet Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance? > > Thanks, > -drc > > On Nov 1, 2012, at 11:32 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> My previous comments are based upon facts that I hear occasionally quoted during US leadership statements on online FoE and protection of pluralism and at the end of the day companies from that country are on the forefront of bidding and deploying traffic intelligence Okay, these companies operate in a free market environment but then the credibility of such statements collapse amidst surveillance cooperation even if its done by companies from that region. >> >> I have always felt that the US has mixed market dynamics and regulators do keep an eye and do not tend to overlook the fact that their companies do have country level offices that can independently participate in government contracts outside the US. >> >> I will have to differ here that devoted support for US and Canadian traffic monitoring and intelligence companies that they are not involved in censorship because I have witnessed credible information. >> >> I must point out that your defense for the Northern American companies argument depicts the traditional free market support whereas I am inclined to believe that its a mixed market approach because the government diplomacy in terms of Foreign Policy and economic drives cannot be completely ignorant of a key component of its globalization agenda/strategy of which Internet is an important tool and catalyst of a global world order. Anyways, these are from the airport, do I see you in Baku? >> >> Best >> >> Fouad >> >> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 3:32 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> Fouad: >> >> Your answer to David’s question reveals a lot of confusion, in my opinion. >> >> >> >> Markets respond to supply and demand. It is a simple and predictable feature of markets that businesses (whether in the US or anywhere else) will try to sell their products to people who want to use them and have the money to pay for them. So we have a shared responsibility: for DPI and related surveillance and content-filtering equipment, the demand is created by authoritarian governments who want to control the Internet in their country, while the supply comes from profit-motivated businesses who can meet that demand. Many of these suppliers, by the way, are NOT from the U.S.; many are from Europe, and some are from China or elsewhere. >> >> >> >> Don’t blame the US advocates of FoE for that. >> >> >> >> As for the “dual FoE internet policy,” well, it’s time to grow up and look at states, including the US state, as self-interested actors and stop believing in the fairy tale that they magically embody the public interest or the people’s will. It’s also time for you to recognize that nearly all states have contradictory political pressures on them; just as the Pakistani govt doesn’t want to alienate the hardcore islamists while continuing to receive $$$ from the US, the US govt (specifically, the State Dept) wants to promote internet freedom while some Congressional pressures want us to withhold nearly all technology from “enemies” or repressive states, and some business-centric agencies and congresspeople want us to expand our market share in foreign countries’ technology purchases by selling them more equipment. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Fouad Bajwa >> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 7:14 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian >> Cc: David Conrad >> Subject: Re: Reasons for 'Internet Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance" products (was Re: [governance] speaker at the opening ceremony?) >> >> >> >> Let me try to answer the confusion quickly while I am multitasking between packing and documentation: >> >> >> >> I'd rather remain implicit. I am sure many of my colleagues from developing countries can list a long list of issues that their countries are concerned about and may be sharing during the WCIT meet and that this list has been discussing in numerous ITR related threads etc. at the end of the day it is more or less around US centric IRM and the challenges of censorship and content filtering. Its not just about iran, russia and china, there are more than a hundred other countries out of which a majority are developing regions and imposing various forms of censorship. >> >> >> >> My confusion stands around the dual FoE internet policy of these countries that requires some responsibility. Okay, its not only boeing/narus, cisco or sandvine selling censorship but we have huwae in the league of traffic intelligence and DPI as well. Alright, it may be business as usual but this is giving some countries to show and tell the amazing censorship they have implemented. >> >> >> >> Yes there are jurisdiction issues at play here but then some countries believe in resorting to censorship, blocking and filtering. >> >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >> Or is it fouads argument that sandvine gear was bought specifically to censor any discussion of the cir process? I don't quite understand the logic here either >> >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> >> >> >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "David Conrad" >> To: >> Subject: Reasons for 'Internet Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance" products (was Re: [governance] speaker at the opening ceremony?) >> Date: Tue, Oct 30, 2012 9:01 PM >> >> >> Fouad, >> >> On Oct 30, 2012, at 6:20 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> > The fact remains that as US-Centric Internet Resource Management remains, countries have been sold various Internet Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance systems by US and Canadian companies. An evident example is the use of Sandvine traffic intelligence by PTCL Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited. PTCL is the largest ICT/Telecom provider in the country and manages the Internet trunks. >> >> I'm curious: how does "US-Centric Internet Resource Management" cause PTCL (et al) to purchase products like Sandvine's? >> >> Thanks, >> -drc >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Regards. >> -------------------------- >> Foo >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 ccianet.org Fri Nov 2 13:19:11 2012 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 18:19:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Reasons for 'Internet Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance" products In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD227875B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7512503234645386515@unknownmsgid> Dear Fouad, Whatever kind of market economy the US has (or any other for that matter does not alter The fundamental point that a demand for a product will find someone somewhere ready to supply it. While it is important to deal with the supply, you will never completely eliminate it until you deal with the demand. Sent from one of my handheld thingies, please forgive linguistic mangling On 2 Nov 2012, at 07:33, Fouad Bajwa wrote: Dear Milton, Your comments are welcome as always! One has to add the element of confusion not to be re-quoted intentionally or unintentionally where such authoritarian regimes are at play and one may be prone to concerns! My previous comments are based upon facts that I hear occasionally quoted during US leadership statements on online FoE and protection of pluralism and at the end of the day companies from that country are on the forefront of bidding and deploying traffic intelligence Okay, these companies operate in a free market environment but then the credibility of such statements collapse amidst surveillance cooperation even if its done by companies from that region. I have always felt that the US has mixed market dynamics and regulators do keep an eye and do not tend to overlook the fact that their companies do have country level offices that can independently participate in government contracts outside the US. I will have to differ here that devoted support for US and Canadian traffic monitoring and intelligence companies that they are not involved in censorship because I have witnessed credible information. I must point out that your defense for the Northern American companies argument depicts the traditional free market support whereas I am inclined to believe that its a mixed market approach because the government diplomacy in terms of Foreign Policy and economic drives cannot be completely ignorant of a key component of its globalization agenda/strategy of which Internet is an important tool and catalyst of a global world order. Anyways, these are from the airport, do I see you in Baku? Best Fouad On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 3:32 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Fouad:**** > > Your answer to David’s question reveals a lot of confusion, in my opinion. > **** > > ** ** > > Markets respond to supply and demand. It is a simple and predictable > feature of markets that businesses (whether in the US or anywhere else) > will try to sell their products to people who want to use them and have the > money to pay for them. So we have a shared responsibility: for DPI and > related surveillance and content-filtering equipment, the *demand* is > created by authoritarian governments who want to control the Internet in > their country, while the *supply* comes from profit-motivated businesses > who can meet that demand. Many of these suppliers, by the way, are NOT from > the U.S.; many are from Europe, and some are from China or elsewhere. **** > > ** ** > > Don’t blame the US advocates of FoE for that. **** > > ** ** > > As for the “dual FoE internet policy,” well, it’s time to grow up and look > at states, including the US state, as self-interested actors and stop > believing in the fairy tale that they magically embody the public interest > or the people’s will. It’s also time for you to recognize that nearly all > states have contradictory political pressures on them; just as the > Pakistani govt doesn’t want to alienate the hardcore islamists while > continuing to receive $$$ from the US, the US govt (specifically, the State > Dept) wants to promote internet freedom while some Congressional pressures > want us to withhold nearly all technology from “enemies” or repressive > states, and some business-centric agencies and congresspeople want us to > expand our market share in foreign countries’ technology purchases by > selling them more equipment. **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Fouad Bajwa > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 30, 2012 7:14 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian > *Cc:* David Conrad > *Subject:* Re: Reasons for 'Internet Traffic Intelligence and > Surveillance" products (was Re: [governance] speaker at the opening > ceremony?)**** > > ** ** > > Let me try to answer the confusion quickly while I am multitasking between > packing and documentation:**** > > ** ** > > I'd rather remain implicit. I am sure many of my colleagues from > developing countries can list a long list of issues that their countries > are concerned about and may be sharing during the WCIT meet and that this > list has been discussing in numerous ITR related threads etc. at the end of > the day it is more or less around US centric IRM and the challenges of > censorship and content filtering. Its not just about iran, russia and > china, there are more than a hundred other countries out of which a > majority are developing regions and imposing various forms of censorship.* > *** > > ** ** > > My confusion stands around the dual FoE internet policy of these countries > that requires some responsibility. Okay, its not only boeing/narus, cisco > or sandvine selling censorship but we have huwae in the league of > traffic intelligence and DPI as well. Alright, it may be business as usual > but this is giving some countries to show and tell the amazing censorship > they have implemented. **** > > ** ** > > Yes there are jurisdiction issues at play here but then some countries > believe in resorting to censorship, blocking and filtering.**** > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote:**** > > Or is it fouads argument that sandvine gear was bought specifically to > censor any discussion of the cir process? I don't quite understand the > logic here either > > --srs (htc one x)**** > > > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "David Conrad" > To: > Subject: Reasons for 'Internet Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance" > products (was Re: [governance] speaker at the opening ceremony?) > Date: Tue, Oct 30, 2012 9:01 PM**** > > > Fouad, > > On Oct 30, 2012, at 6:20 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > The fact remains that as US-Centric Internet Resource Management > remains, countries have been sold various Internet Traffic Intelligence and > Surveillance systems by US and Canadian companies. An evident example is > the use of Sandvine traffic intelligence by PTCL Pakistan Telecommunication > Company Limited. PTCL is the largest ICT/Telecom provider in the country > and manages the Internet trunks.**** > > I'm curious: how does "US-Centric Internet Resource Management" cause PTCL > (et al) to purchase products like Sandvine's?**** > > Thanks, > -drc > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t**** > > > > **** > > ** ** > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Foo**** > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Nov 2 13:41:37 2012 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 22:41:37 +0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGF 2012 - Bilateral meeting In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD3EC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22786E4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: +2 add myself and Maliha On 2 November 2012 20:02, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Hi, > So far some 12 people on this list indicated that they want to join > this meeting. > > Given limited resources myself can spend for the remaining hour before > taking > flight to Baku, only 13 hours from now including my sleep tonight, I > am not going > to try to find any large room for this meeting. If someone on this list > takes > the responsibility, negotiate with either the local host or IGF > secretariat, that will > be great. > > Otherwise, I still suggest that we will be around six people. I feel at > least > one of co-cos should be there even this is an informal meeting. The leaves > five. I like to consult with my colleague Sala to make the final selection, > as coordinators duty. Sorry guys, but sometimes we need to make a > practical choice in an imperfect manner. > > I also understand that the organizer is European Commission and the > European > Parliament, not us, we are just invited as guests, and they do have other > channels for civil societies, NGOs, etc, outside IGC, which is, for me > perfectly > fine. > > The meeting is scheduled on Nov 8, but they do not plan to announce this > publicly. I am aware the even putting this on to his list has certain > announcement > effect, but, in the interest of openness, at least within IGC, I put it > here. > > Similar meeting happened in Kenya last year with US government. We so far > have received no invitation from USG or any other parties, but as far as I > am > concerned, being the servant of the IGC, I am happy to liaise, or > coordinate. > > I love the diversity, different ideas and positions, and am still > happy to coordinate. > But I also ask you guys to sometimes share the responsibility and burdens > collectively, or at least understand these sometimes delicate and > difficult limitations > we all have. > > best, and see you there for those coming, and see you there online > participant > though they are labeled "remote", let's feel closer together. > > izumi > > > > > > 2012/11/2 Ginger Paque : > > Andrea, thanks for your input. I the strong response to this invitation > can > > be seen as giving importance to this exchange. I understood the meeting > to > > be a 'sampling' for idea exchange, not a 'representation'. Possibly this > > kind of invitation could be made more informally (not on the list) to > avoid > > misunderstanding and overwhelming requests to attend. If anything, I > think > > tension has been fostered by good intentions to be inclusive in what is > > meant to be a small, diverse brainstorming session. > > > > Perhaps we should pick up on Andrea's suggestion to request a larger > meeting > > for brainstorming? Positive energy for communication is important. > > > > Safe travels, > > Ginger > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > Diplo Foundation > > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > > > > > > > > > On 2 November 2012 02:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > >> > >> Sauces for the goose, and for the gander :) > >> > >> Very well put - and I share your skepticism about "civil society > >> consensus", informed consensus at any rate, for an audience that is > larger > >> than the typical igov involved civ soc organization crowd > >> > >> --srs (iPad) > >> > >> On 02-Nov-2012, at 12:02, Andrea Glorioso > wrote: > >> > >> (Speaking with the "European Commission official" hat here). > >> > >> Let's not blow things out of proportion. There is no attempt at > "imposing > >> false notions of representations" for the simple reason that in the dark > >> corridors of Mordor, I mean Brussels, we are perfectly aware "civil > society" > >> is a rather fluid concept and it is difficult to identify > "spokesperson" or > >> "representatives" (which, incidentally, also means that when any of the > >> various persons or organisations in the "civil society" galaxy claims to > >> "represent" anything, our usual reaction is one of skepticism. You can't > >> have it both ways I guess). > >> > >> Frankly,anyway, I do not quite understand why it is ok for the IGC to > have > >> "co-coordinators" which de facto speak on behalf of the IGC in several > >> occasions, and for members of this list to choose a speaker that will de > >> facto represent them at the opening session (if I understood well); but > when > >> other parties ask whether there are NGOs et al that would like to have > an > >> informal chat with people from the European Commission and the European > >> Parliament, all hell breaks loose. > >> > >> But I guess that since the EU's final plan is to take over the Internet > >> and impose automatic translation of all websites in 22 languages, we > can't > >> possibly be trusted. > >> > >> More practically, if you can find a venue large enough for an open > meeting > >> (we couldn't) why not propose a larger set-up? > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Andrea > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: > >>> > >>> 5 or 6 people, max? Ridiculous. This is an inherently bad, undemocratic > >>> method. > >>> > >>> Governments such as the EC try to impose false notions of > >>> “representation” on civil society, by seeking a few “spokespersons” or > >>> “representatives.” Their only real object is to make their job easier. > We > >>> should decline to cooperate with this political version of artificial > >>> scarcity, and just insist on an open meeting. I am serious. If you are > so > >>> flattered that they asked for your opinion, but go along with their > attempt > >>> to reduce civil society to a few privileged voices, you are completely > >>> missing the point. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >>> > >>> Following the one in Nairobi last year, European commission and > European > >>> Parliament > >>> > >>> people want to hold an informal meeting with civil society members and > >>> > >>> asked Wolfgang to coordinate. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Since this is an informal meeting with limited space, we need to find > and > >>> decide who will > >>> > >>> be there. Around 5 or 6 people, max. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To 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 > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To 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 > > -- *Follow me @* * **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 katycarvt at gmail.com Fri Nov 2 16:09:58 2012 From: katycarvt at gmail.com (Katy P) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 13:09:58 -0700 Subject: [governance] From Twitter Message-ID: swdp: Van driver apparently has orders not to let us out to get out of the van and in a local cab. #IGF12 #problems withconferencesindictatorships Original Tweet: http://twitter.com/swdp/status/264412914990059520 Sent via TweetDeck (www.tweetdeck.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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Nov 2 21:34:56 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 06:34:56 +0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Reasons for 'Internet Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance" products In-Reply-To: <7512503234645386515@unknownmsgid> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD227875B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <7512503234645386515@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: A very valid point Nick. Equal footing will always be a challenge to counter such. Foo On Nov 2, 2012 9:19 PM, "Nick Ashton-Hart" wrote: > Dear Fouad, > > Whatever kind of market economy the US has (or any other for that matter > does not alter The fundamental point that a demand for a product will find > someone somewhere ready to supply it. While it is important to deal with > the supply, you will never completely eliminate it until you deal with the > demand. > > Sent from one of my handheld thingies, please forgive linguistic mangling > > On 2 Nov 2012, at 07:33, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > Dear Milton, > > Your comments are welcome as always! One has to add the element of > confusion not to be re-quoted intentionally or unintentionally where such > authoritarian regimes are at play and one may be prone to concerns! > > My previous comments are based upon facts that I hear occasionally quoted > during US leadership statements on online FoE and protection of pluralism > and at the end of the day companies from that country are on the forefront > of bidding and deploying traffic intelligence Okay, these companies > operate in a free market environment but then the credibility of such > statements collapse amidst surveillance cooperation even if its done by > companies from that region. > > I have always felt that the US has mixed market dynamics and regulators do > keep an eye and do not tend to overlook the fact that their companies do > have country level offices that can independently participate in government > contracts outside the US. > > I will have to differ here that devoted support for US and Canadian > traffic monitoring and intelligence companies that they are not involved in > censorship because I have witnessed credible information. > > I must point out that your defense for the Northern American companies > argument depicts the traditional free market support whereas I am inclined > to believe that its a mixed market approach because the government > diplomacy in terms of Foreign Policy and economic drives cannot be > completely ignorant of a key component of its globalization agenda/strategy > of which Internet is an important tool and catalyst of a global world > order. Anyways, these are from the airport, do I see you in Baku? > > Best > > Fouad > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 3:32 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> Fouad:**** >> >> Your answer to David’s question reveals a lot of confusion, in my >> opinion. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Markets respond to supply and demand. It is a simple and predictable >> feature of markets that businesses (whether in the US or anywhere else) >> will try to sell their products to people who want to use them and have the >> money to pay for them. So we have a shared responsibility: for DPI and >> related surveillance and content-filtering equipment, the *demand* is >> created by authoritarian governments who want to control the Internet in >> their country, while the *supply* comes from profit-motivated businesses >> who can meet that demand. Many of these suppliers, by the way, are NOT from >> the U.S.; many are from Europe, and some are from China or elsewhere. *** >> * >> >> ** ** >> >> Don’t blame the US advocates of FoE for that. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> As for the “dual FoE internet policy,” well, it’s time to grow up and >> look at states, including the US state, as self-interested actors and stop >> believing in the fairy tale that they magically embody the public interest >> or the people’s will. It’s also time for you to recognize that nearly all >> states have contradictory political pressures on them; just as the >> Pakistani govt doesn’t want to alienate the hardcore islamists while >> continuing to receive $$$ from the US, the US govt (specifically, the State >> Dept) wants to promote internet freedom while some Congressional pressures >> want us to withhold nearly all technology from “enemies” or repressive >> states, and some business-centric agencies and congresspeople want us to >> expand our market share in foreign countries’ technology purchases by >> selling them more equipment. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: >> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Fouad Bajwa >> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 30, 2012 7:14 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian >> *Cc:* David Conrad >> *Subject:* Re: Reasons for 'Internet Traffic Intelligence and >> Surveillance" products (was Re: [governance] speaker at the opening >> ceremony?)**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Let me try to answer the confusion quickly while I am multitasking >> between packing and documentation:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I'd rather remain implicit. I am sure many of my colleagues from >> developing countries can list a long list of issues that their countries >> are concerned about and may be sharing during the WCIT meet and that this >> list has been discussing in numerous ITR related threads etc. at the end of >> the day it is more or less around US centric IRM and the challenges of >> censorship and content filtering. Its not just about iran, russia and >> china, there are more than a hundred other countries out of which a >> majority are developing regions and imposing various forms of censorship. >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> My confusion stands around the dual FoE internet policy of these >> countries that requires some responsibility. Okay, its not only >> boeing/narus, cisco or sandvine selling censorship but we have huwae in the >> league of traffic intelligence and DPI as well. Alright, it may be business >> as usual but this is giving some countries to show and tell the amazing >> censorship they have implemented. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Yes there are jurisdiction issues at play here but then some countries >> believe in resorting to censorship, blocking and filtering.**** >> >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian < >> suresh at hserus.net> wrote:**** >> >> Or is it fouads argument that sandvine gear was bought specifically to >> censor any discussion of the cir process? I don't quite understand the >> logic here either >> >> --srs (htc one x)**** >> >> >> >> >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "David Conrad" >> To: >> Subject: Reasons for 'Internet Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance" >> products (was Re: [governance] speaker at the opening ceremony?) >> Date: Tue, Oct 30, 2012 9:01 PM**** >> >> >> Fouad, >> >> On Oct 30, 2012, at 6:20 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> > The fact remains that as US-Centric Internet Resource Management >> remains, countries have been sold various Internet Traffic Intelligence and >> Surveillance systems by US and Canadian companies. An evident example is >> the use of Sandvine traffic intelligence by PTCL Pakistan Telecommunication >> Company Limited. PTCL is the largest ICT/Telecom provider in the country >> and manages the Internet trunks.**** >> >> I'm curious: how does "US-Centric Internet Resource Management" cause >> PTCL (et al) to purchase products like Sandvine's?**** >> >> Thanks, >> -drc >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t**** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> -- >> Regards. >> -------------------------- >> Foo**** >> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 2 22:12:08 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 03:12:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] India & IGF References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD227875B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD57D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Interesting departure of the Indian government from the CIRP proposal http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kapil-sibal-to-engage-global-leaders-on-multistakeholder-governance-of-internet/article4059282.ece 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Nov 2 22:14:29 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 07:14:29 +0500 Subject: [governance] From Twitter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is there more advice on this? Already on the ground here in Baku with many other of our members..... Fouad Bajwa On Nov 3, 2012 12:10 AM, "Katy P" wrote: > swdp: Van driver apparently has orders not to let us out to get out of the > van and in a local cab. #IGF12 #problems withconferencesindictatorships > > Original Tweet: http://twitter.com/swdp/status/264412914990059520 > > Sent via TweetDeck (www.tweetdeck.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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 2 22:23:14 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 19:23:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] India & IGF In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD57D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD227875B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD57D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <20121103022314.GB3399@hserus.net> I was actually at this event in Delhi mentioned in the article. India seems to be a bit conflicted - they talk about treaty level agreements - and they're also talking about multistakeholder, so huge delegations both to budapest recently, and to WCIT. I'd personally wait for what they actually come out with "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [03/11/12 03:12 +0100]: >Interesting departure of the Indian government from the CIRP proposal > >http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kapil-sibal-to-engage-global-leaders-on-multistakeholder-governance-of-internet/article4059282.ece > > >wolfgang > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Nov 2 22:24:22 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 06:24:22 +0400 Subject: [governance] Arrived in good order in Baku Message-ID: <033801cdb96a$58c8a9b0$0a59fd10$@gmail.com> I arrived yesterday midday ontime (Turkish Airlines via Istanbul) and after a wee bit of to-ing and fro-ing around the visa (they didn't seem to have the procedures quite worked out for IGF folks but nothing major) and was very kindly escorted to a waiting van (Parminder had arrived earlier and was waiting for us to arrive in the van). They then drove us into town and directly to the apartment that I had rented in the centre (through AirBnB) where the young lady (she spoke excellent English) helped us get comfortably settled into the apartment. Everything worked quite well, with reasonable efficiency and sufficient good humour and would wish the same for everyone else. (Took a taxi last night to go to dinner with a friend--taxi driver didn't seem to know the city at all and drove around and around (I had negotiated a price with him before we started). Ended up about 10 minutes walk from where we started The friend knew a marvellous if fairly expensive 500 (?) year old restaurant with fantastic food and traditional Azari music in the old city very near to where we have rented the apartment.) M From: bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Brett Solomon Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 2:36 AM To: Claudio Ruiz Cc: Ginger Paque; Jeremy Malcolm; Subject: Re: Best wishes for Best Bits without me I just got here (18 hours late) - the visa situation was interesting, but got through unscathed. Now to brave the taxis at 2am :) Brett On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Claudio Ruiz wrote: I'm in the same situation. I'm in London because of my Baku flight was cancelled. I'm arriving tomorrow night. -c El viernes, 2 de noviembre de 2012 a las 12:58, Ginger Paque escribió: Sorry to hear this, Jeremy! However, I do think you have organized so well that, indeed, the meeting will be a great success and a solid, productive start to the IGF. See you online in remote participation! Best wishes and safe travels to all. Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig On 2 November 2012 06:23, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: I am writing from Dubai airport, where I am likely to be staying until tomorrow having missed my connecting flight due to a flight delay. Therefore, I don't expect to be at Best Bits tomorrow. Obviously this is a great disappointment to me personally, but since my involvement in Best Bits has been mostly behind the scenes, I don't expect that it need have any effect on the success of your discussions and deliberations tomorrow. Andrew has the details of how to establish the web conference - though he may ask one of you to lend him your webcam-enabled computer to use for this - and so I may even be able to connect to Best Bits remotely before I arrive in person. All the best to each of you, and I look forward to hearing how you made this a great meeting in my absence. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' -- Brett Solomon Executive Director | Access accessnow.org | rightscon.org +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow Key ID: 0x312B641A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From toml at communisphere.com Fri Nov 2 23:52:16 2012 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 23:52:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] Ronald J. Deibert - 18 Minutes on Cyber Defense, Privacy, and Rights In-Reply-To: <509491FE.7050102@communisphere.com> References: <509491FE.7050102@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <509494F0.5090305@communisphere.com> Fellow List Participants, I just watched an 18 minute video that those in Baku should see. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XDgH0FshUXI#! Tom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Nov 3 05:16:18 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 13:16:18 +0400 Subject: [governance] Invitation: National IG Mechanisms - Looking at Some Key Design Issues Message-ID: <03b801cdb9a3$f274a170$d75de450$@gmail.com> You are cordially invited to Workshop discussing National IG Mechanisms - Looking at Some Key Design Issues to be held on Day 3--Nov. 8, 14.30 to 16.00. Such is the unique nature of the Internet that its governance often calls for institutional innovations. The proposed workshop will look at a range of national level IG mechanisms across the world. While the discussion will refer to good models and practices in different countries, it will not be organized around simple show-casing of different national IG mechanisms. The discussion will centre around key contexts, requirements, challenges and possibilities. It will be directed towards examining key institutional design issues, functions and outcomes with regard to national level IG mechanisms with the purpose to help countries make appropriate decisions in their specific contexts. Some of these are; - How should the national commons of Internet resources be managed? - What kinds of mechanisms are appropriate for technical matters, what for those that are partly technical and partly social, and what for larger public policy matters, requiring more political responses? - Should there be a common single mechanism to address all the above kinds of issues, or different ones? How to coordinate different mechanisms, and different parts of the national governance machinery dealing with different aspects or kinds of IG issues? - How to ensure meaningful participation of all stakeholders in a manner that focuses on public interest? - How can the surplus from domain name registration fees etc collected by national IG agencies be employed for public interest purposes, especially, for taking up Internet related research. Organiser(s) Name: Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore - Civil Society Brazilian Internet Steering Committee - National level governance body Institute for System Analysis, Russian Academy of Sciences - Academic Insitution Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training (CCIRDT), Vancouver, BC CANADA - Civil Society Instituto NUPEF , Rio de Janeiro - Civil Society IT for Change, Bangalore - Civil Society Carlos Afonso, Insituto NUPEF, Board Member, Brazilian Steering Commitee Emily Taylor, Independent Consultant, Formerly with NOMINET Alice Munya, Chairperson, Kenya Internet Steering Commitee Victor Tishchenko, Institute of Advanced Systems, Russian Academy of Sciences, Sunil Abraham, Centre for Internet and Society, Moderator, Michael Gurstein, Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training, Canada Concise Description of Workshop: Such is the unique nature of the Internet that its governance often calls for institutional innovations. The proposed workshop will look at a range of national level IG mechanisms across the world. While the discussion will refer to good models and practices in different countries, it will not be organized around simple show-casing of different national IG mechanisms. The discussion will centre around key contexts, requirements, challenges and possibilities. It will be directed towards examining key institutional design issues, functions and outcomes with regard to national level IG mechanisms with the purpose to help countries make appropriate decisions in their specific contexts. Some of these are; - How should the national commons of Internet resources be managed? - What kinds of mechanisms are appropriate for technical matters, what for those that are partly technical and partly social, and what for larger public policy matters, requiring more political responses? - Should there be a common single mechanism to address all the above kinds of issues, or different ones? How to coordinate different mechanisms, and different parts of the national governance machinery dealing with different aspects or kinds of IG issues? - How to ensure meaningful participation of all stakeholders in a manner that focuses on public interest? - How can the surplus from domain name registration fees etc collected by national IG agencies be employed for public interest purposes, especially, for taking up Internet related research. Organiser(s) Name: Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore - Civil Society Brazilian Internet Steering Committee - National level governance body Institute for System Analysis, Russian Academy of Sciences - Academic Insitution Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training (CCIRDT), Vancouver, BC CANADA - Civil Society Instituto NUPEF , Rio de Janeiro - Civil Society IT for Change, Bangalore - Civil Society Carlos Afonso, Insituto NUPEF, Board Member, Brazilian Steering Commitee Emily Taylor, Independent Consultant, Formerly with NOMINET Alice Munya, Chairperson, Kenya Internet Steering Commitee Victor Tishchenko, Institute of Advanced Systems, Russian Academy of Sciences, Sunil Abraham, Centre for Internet and Society, Moderator, Michael Gurstein, Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training, Canada -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 3 05:18:31 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 22:18:31 +1300 Subject: [governance] Absence [Physically from the IGF in Baku] Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, I regret to advise that I will not be in Baku for the IGF but will be streaming in. I will be available online as always. For those who are going please lend Izumi your continued support and I would like to wish Jeremy well with the "Best Bits". Best Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Sat Nov 3 05:38:16 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 05:38:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: From Twitter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I had a pleasant, albeit long ride from the airport to my hotel last night. A bit exhausted from the journey, but that's all Treated well by the welcome committee at the airport, shuttle and hotel staff. Have had none of the issues Sam DuPont mentioned in his tweet lat night Looking forward to walking off the jet lag and engaging with the pre-igf activities and meetings that have already started Robert On Saturday, November 3, 2012, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Is there more advice on this? Already on the ground here in Baku with many > other of our members..... > > Fouad Bajwa > On Nov 3, 2012 12:10 AM, "Katy P" 'cvml', 'katycarvt at gmail.com');>> wrote: > >> swdp: Van driver apparently has orders not to let us out to get out of >> the van and in a local cab. #IGF12 #problems withconferencesindictatorships >> >> Original Tweet: http://twitter.com/swdp/status/264412914990059520 >> >> Sent via TweetDeck (www.tweetdeck.com) >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> -- Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos or brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com Sat Nov 3 17:44:02 2012 From: ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com (Narine Khachatryan) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 01:44:02 +0400 Subject: [governance] Human Rights Watch Calls on Azerbaijani Government to Release Jailed Activists as Country Hosts IGF Message-ID: Human Rights Watch Calls on Azerbaijani Government to Release Jailed Activists as Country Hosts Internet Governance Forum - November 2, 2012 (Berlin) – At least eight journalists and three human rights defenders are in jail, and freedom of expression is severely limited in Azerbaijan , the host of the upcoming United Nations-sponsored IGF, Human Rights Watch said in a briefing paper http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/related_material/2012_Azerbaijan_Media_Freedom.pdf pu blished today. As IGF host, and as a sign of commitment to the IG F’’s multi-stakeholder mandate and human development focus, the government of Azerbaijan should use this opportunity to · Release journalists, human rights defenders, and social media activists whose cases are described in this briefing paper; · Introduce legislative amendments to decriminalize libel and introduce a reasonable monetary cap in civil defamation cases; · End the effective blanket ban on freedom of assembly in Baku ’’s center and end the use of excessive police force to disperse unsanctioned protests. The 10-page briefing paper describes Azerbaijan’s record of imprisoning journalists, human rights defenders, and political opposition activists, in most cases on bogus criminal charges, in apparent retaliation for their investigative journalism or political activism. As the formal convener of the Internet Governance Forum, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon should remind the Azerbaijan government of its human rights obligations, Human Rights Watch said. Human Rights Watch called on governments attending the forum to raise freedom of expression concerns directly with the Azerbaijani authorities. http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/11/02/azerbaijan-shrinking-space-media-freedom Narine Khachatryan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Sun Nov 4 01:41:49 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 14:41:49 +0900 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Reminder_for_Our_workshop_at_IGF_-_?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Quo_Vadis_IGF_=96_or_Evolution_of_IGF?= Message-ID: Dear list, This is the reminder for the coming workshop at Baku IGF - "Quo Vadis IGF – or Evolution of IGF" It will be on the Day 2, Wednesday, November 7, 11:00 - 12:30, Room #5. Jointly organized with the following organizations, we will continue the discussion around the "IGF improvement" earlier reported from the CSTD WG to CSTD/ECOSOC process this year. I think we should not have to confine our discussion with CSTD improvement per se but also include EC, and CIRP proposals etc. Organizers: Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus Consumer International Diplo Foundation Government of Finland Internet Society Institute for InfoSocinomics, Tama University IT for Change Speakers: Mr. Peter Major, Chair, CSTD Working Group on IGF Improvement, Special Advisor, Permanent Mission of Hungary to the United Nations in Geneva [Confirmed, Government, WEOG] Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Professor for International Communication Policy and Regulation, University of Aarhus [Confirmed, Civil Society, WEOG] Ms. Mervi Kultamaa, Counsellor, Information Society & Trade Facilitation, Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, Department for External Economic Relations [Government, WEOG, TBC] Mr. Markus Kummer, Vice President of Public Policy, Internet Society [Confirmed, Technical Community, WEOG] Moderator: Izumi Aizu, Senior Research Fellow, Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University [Confirmed, Civil Society, Asia Pacific] Remote Moderator(s): Ms. Avri Doria, [Civil Society, WEOG] http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/w2012/proposals Unfoturnately, as is the case for many, this will clash with the CIR Main session. Anyway, I hope may will join the lively discussion, best, izumi -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Sun Nov 4 03:57:08 2012 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 12:57:08 +0400 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Reminder_for_Our_workshop_at_IG?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?F_-_Quo_Vadis_IGF_=96_or_Evolution_of_IGF?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I will be Baudouin 2012/11/4 Izumi AIZU > Dear list, > This is the reminder for the coming workshop at Baku IGF - "Quo Vadis > IGF – or Evolution of IGF" > > It will be on the Day 2, Wednesday, November 7, 11:00 - 12:30, Room #5. > > Jointly organized with the following organizations, we will continue > the discussion around the "IGF improvement" earlier reported from the > CSTD WG to CSTD/ECOSOC process this year. I think we should not have > to confine our discussion with CSTD improvement per se but also > include EC, and CIRP proposals etc. > > > Organizers: > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > Consumer International > Diplo Foundation > Government of Finland > Internet Society > Institute for InfoSocinomics, Tama University > IT for Change > > Speakers: > Mr. Peter Major, Chair, CSTD Working Group on IGF Improvement, Special > Advisor, Permanent Mission of Hungary to the United Nations in Geneva > [Confirmed, Government, WEOG] > > Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Professor for International Communication > Policy and Regulation, University of Aarhus [Confirmed, Civil Society, > WEOG] > > Ms. Mervi Kultamaa, Counsellor, Information Society & Trade > Facilitation, Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, Department for > External Economic Relations [Government, WEOG, TBC] > > Mr. Markus Kummer, Vice President of Public Policy, Internet Society > [Confirmed, Technical Community, WEOG] > Moderator: Izumi Aizu, Senior Research Fellow, Institute for > InfoSocionomics, Tama University [Confirmed, Civil Society, Asia > Pacific] > > > Remote Moderator(s): > Ms. Avri Doria, [Civil Society, WEOG] > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/w2012/proposals > > Unfoturnately, as is the case for many, this will clash with the CIR > Main session. > > Anyway, I hope may will join the lively discussion, > > best, > > 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 > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ ACADEMIE DES TIC FACILITATEUR GAID/AFRIQUE Membre At-Large Member NCSG Member email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com baudouin.schombe at ticafrica.net tél:+243998983491 skype:b.schombe wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Sun Nov 4 04:50:04 2012 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 13:50:04 +0400 Subject: [governance] Invitation: National IG Mechanisms - Looking at Some Key Design Issues In-Reply-To: <03b801cdb9a3$f274a170$d75de450$@gmail.com> References: <03b801cdb9a3$f274a170$d75de450$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thnaks Michael, I will be SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2012/11/3 michael gurstein > You are cordially invited to Workshop discussing National IG Mechanisms - > Looking at Some Key Design Issues to be held on Day 3--Nov. 8, 14.30 to > 16.00. > > Such is the unique nature of the Internet that its governance often calls > for institutional innovations. The proposed workshop will look at a range > of > national level IG mechanisms across the world. While the discussion will > refer to good models and practices in different countries, it will not be > organized around simple show-casing of different national IG mechanisms. > The > discussion will centre around key contexts, requirements, challenges and > possibilities. It will be directed towards examining key institutional > design issues, functions and outcomes with regard to national level IG > mechanisms with the purpose to help countries make appropriate decisions in > their specific contexts. > > Some of these are; > - How should the national commons of Internet resources be managed? > - What kinds of mechanisms are appropriate for technical matters, what for > those that are partly technical and partly social, and what for larger > public policy matters, requiring more political responses? > - Should there be a common single mechanism to address all the above kinds > of issues, or different ones? How to coordinate different mechanisms, and > different parts of the national governance machinery dealing with different > aspects or kinds of IG issues? > > - How to ensure meaningful participation of all stakeholders in a manner > that focuses on public interest? > - How can the surplus from domain name registration fees etc collected by > national IG agencies be employed for public interest purposes, especially, > for taking up Internet related research. > > Organiser(s) Name: > Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore - Civil Society > Brazilian Internet Steering Committee - National level governance body > Institute for System Analysis, Russian Academy of Sciences - Academic > Insitution > Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training > (CCIRDT), Vancouver, BC CANADA - Civil Society > Instituto NUPEF , Rio de Janeiro - Civil Society > IT for Change, Bangalore - Civil Society > > Carlos Afonso, Insituto NUPEF, Board Member, Brazilian Steering Commitee > Emily Taylor, Independent Consultant, Formerly with NOMINET > Alice Munya, Chairperson, Kenya Internet Steering Commitee > Victor Tishchenko, Institute of Advanced Systems, Russian Academy of > Sciences, > Sunil Abraham, Centre for Internet and Society, > Moderator, Michael Gurstein, Centre for Community Informatics Research, > Development and Training, Canada > > Concise Description of Workshop: > > Such is the unique nature of the Internet that its governance often calls > for institutional innovations. The proposed workshop will look at a range > of > national level IG mechanisms across the world. While the discussion will > refer to good models and practices in different countries, it will not be > organized around simple show-casing of different national IG mechanisms. > The > discussion will centre around key contexts, requirements, challenges and > possibilities. It will be directed towards examining key institutional > design issues, functions and outcomes with regard to national level IG > mechanisms with the purpose to help countries make appropriate decisions in > their specific contexts. > > Some of these are; > - How should the national commons of Internet resources be managed? > - What kinds of mechanisms are appropriate for technical matters, what for > those that are partly technical and partly social, and what for larger > public policy matters, requiring more political responses? > - Should there be a common single mechanism to address all the above kinds > of issues, or different ones? How to coordinate different mechanisms, and > different parts of the national governance machinery dealing with different > aspects or kinds of IG issues? > > - How to ensure meaningful participation of all stakeholders in a manner > that focuses on public interest? > - How can the surplus from domain name registration fees etc collected by > national IG agencies be employed for public interest purposes, especially, > for taking up Internet related research. > > Organiser(s) Name: > Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore - Civil Society > Brazilian Internet Steering Committee - National level governance body > Institute for System Analysis, Russian Academy of Sciences - Academic > Insitution > Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training > (CCIRDT), Vancouver, BC CANADA - Civil Society > Instituto NUPEF , Rio de Janeiro - Civil Society > IT for Change, Bangalore - Civil Society > > Carlos Afonso, Insituto NUPEF, Board Member, Brazilian Steering Commitee > Emily Taylor, Independent Consultant, Formerly with NOMINET > Alice Munya, Chairperson, Kenya Internet Steering Commitee > Victor Tishchenko, Institute of Advanced Systems, Russian Academy of > Sciences, > Sunil Abraham, Centre for Internet and Society, > Moderator, Michael Gurstein, Centre for Community Informatics Research, > Development and Training, Canada > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Nov 4 10:37:17 2012 From: y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu (Yuliya Morenets) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2012 15:37:17 +0000 Subject: [governance] Invitation WS168: Capacity building Initiatives In-Reply-To: <509494F0.5090305@communisphere.com> Message-ID: Dear all, I would like to communicate this information and invite all to attend (physically or remotely) the workshop TaC organizes in Baku, WS 168, Capacity building Initiatives for better economic and social inclusion of vulnerable people in the Information society, that will take place on the 7th of November, 11:00-12:30, room 10. The detailed flyer is attached. I hope that this list members will find the subject interesting. The workshop speakers are: Mr Zahid U. Jamil- Co-moderator, Barrister Esq.

, Director, Developing Country Center for Cybercrime & Law - Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law (confirmed) Ms Yuliya Morenets- Co-moderator, TaC-Together against Cybercrime (confirmed) Mr Wolf Ludwig- Euralo/ICANN (confirmed) Mr Khaled Fattal- Multilingual Internet Group (confirmed) Ms Danielle de Groot Msc- Council of Chiefs of Police, Netherlands (confirmed) Ms Lara Pace-COMNET (confirmed) Mr Pavan Duggal- President, Cyberlaws.net, The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (confirmed) Ms Barbara-Chiara Ubaldi- OECD (confirmed) Mr Stuart Hamilton- IFLA-International federation of Library Associations and Institutions (confirmed) African Union Representative (confirmed) Ms Roxana Radu- remote moderator (confirmed) With best regards, Yuliya Morenets -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGF Baku_WS168_Flyer.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2801060 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 me at benakoh.com Sun Nov 4 10:54:25 2012 From: me at benakoh.com (Ben Akoh) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2012 09:54:25 -0600 Subject: [governance] Invitation to IGF Workshop 68: Multi-stakeholder Internet Public Policy: Toolkit for internet public policy practitioners Message-ID: <50968FB1.50607@benakoh.com> Hi all, If you are in Baku (or connecting via remote participation), you are invited to the Workshop No 68: Multi-stakeholder Internet Public Policy: Toolkit for internet public policy practitioners (http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/content/no68-multi-stakeholder-internet-public-policy-toolkit-internet-public-policy-practitioners). Also find link to the downloadable Toolkit document that has resulted from our experience of facilitating internet public policy dialogue in developed and developing countries and regions: http://www.iisd.org/publications/pub.aspx?pno=1619. The tools identified in the toolkit may have been employed in your region or country to foster public policy dialogue. We would like you to share those experiences, and the potential they have/had at influencing policy. Best regards, Ben Details of the workshop can be found below: (No.68) Multi-stakeholder Internet Public Policy: Toolkit for internet public policy practitioners Status: Accepted Workshop Theme: Internet Governance for Development [IG4D] Theme Question: Security, Openness and Privacy Q5; IG4D, Enabling Environment Thematic Cluster: Q2, Infrastructure Cluster: Q1 Concise Description of Workshop: At the “Multi-stakeholder Internet Public Policy Dialogue: Lessons Learned and Best Practice Examples of Local to Global Policy Making” organized by IISD at the Nairobi IGF, and involving a rich panel consisting of coordinators of the Canadian, UK, Brazilian/South American, East African, Togo National IGFs, and the UNDP, certain key messages emerged that recognized: • the relationships between global and public spheres in policy making • The importance of awareness raising, representation, partnership, auditing and tracking of the policy making process • The need for evidence and consent in public policy The outcome from this session, and other national and regional process that IISD has been involved with has helped to shape the production of a toolkit that is about supporting and building the capacity of stakeholder dialogue and engagement. The toolkit is a subset of what might constitute a much broader range of activities related to internet public policy development. Elements in this toolkit will be used to guide the discussion at this workshop which aims to: • Build and support stakeholder dialogue and engagement, and of public consultation forums and the various processes for developing public policy as a shared responsibility. Through a well moderated panel dialogue and broad open discussions, experts, practitioners and stakeholders will engage on the good practices and lessons learned at various national and regional public consultations forums and how the tools in the toolkit can be adopted and adapted for their own use. The project specifically falls within the IGF theme of Internet Governance for Development because it equips local practitioners especially those in developing countries to better engage in global public policy spaces. The workshop intends to address the “Internet Governance for Development” main theme question that explores the kinds of support needed to help communities, NGOs and businesses from the developing world to participate in the IG process. It also explores the security, openness and privacy question on policies and practices that can assist in making the internet and effective multistakeholder model for national and regional issues that developing countries can benefit. The discussion will be guided by other sub questions in each of the following thematic areas: Internet Governance for Development Question: • Enabling Environment Thematic Cluster: Question 2: What does it take in terms of IG policy, legal and regulatory approaches? What are the challenges to and opportunities for participation of stakeholders from developing countries with a special focus on increasing participation by youth and women participation in IG from Least Developed Countries? • Infrastructure Cluster: Question 1:What are the key concerns regarding Internet infrastructure from developing countries' experiences and how can new technologies and the Global Internet Governance mechanisms address limitations, offer opportunities and enable development? Security, Openness and Privacy Question: • Question 5: What policies and practices that can assist in making the Internet an effective multistakeholder model to discuss national & regional issues and what best practices developing countries can benefit from. Organiser(s) Name: International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) Nominet Previous Workshop(s): http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=W... http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=W... Submitted Workshop Panelists: • Alice Munyua, EAIGF • Anju Mangal, SIDs Pacific IGF • Nnenna Nwakanma, WAIGF • Heather Creech, IISD • Mark Carvell, UK IGF • Towela Nyirenda, Southern African IGF • Sahr Gborie, Sierra Leone IGF • Abdullai Kamara, Liberian IGF Name of Remote Moderator(s): Ben Akoh -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Nov 4 10:57:21 2012 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:57:21 +0500 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Reminder_for_Our_workshop_at_IG?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?F_-_Quo_Vadis_IGF_=96_or_Evolution_of_IGF?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am baku, what are the plan, count me in. Regards Asif Kabani On 4 November 2012 13:57, Baudouin Schombe wrote: > I will be > > Baudouin > > 2012/11/4 Izumi AIZU > >> Dear list, >> This is the reminder for the coming workshop at Baku IGF - "Quo Vadis >> IGF – or Evolution of IGF" >> >> It will be on the Day 2, Wednesday, November 7, 11:00 - 12:30, Room #5. >> >> Jointly organized with the following organizations, we will continue >> the discussion around the "IGF improvement" earlier reported from the >> CSTD WG to CSTD/ECOSOC process this year. I think we should not have >> to confine our discussion with CSTD improvement per se but also >> include EC, and CIRP proposals etc. >> >> >> Organizers: >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus >> Consumer International >> Diplo Foundation >> Government of Finland >> Internet Society >> Institute for InfoSocinomics, Tama University >> IT for Change >> >> Speakers: >> Mr. Peter Major, Chair, CSTD Working Group on IGF Improvement, Special >> Advisor, Permanent Mission of Hungary to the United Nations in Geneva >> [Confirmed, Government, WEOG] >> >> Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Professor for International Communication >> Policy and Regulation, University of Aarhus [Confirmed, Civil Society, >> WEOG] >> >> Ms. Mervi Kultamaa, Counsellor, Information Society & Trade >> Facilitation, Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, Department for >> External Economic Relations [Government, WEOG, TBC] >> >> Mr. Markus Kummer, Vice President of Public Policy, Internet Society >> [Confirmed, Technical Community, WEOG] >> Moderator: Izumi Aizu, Senior Research Fellow, Institute for >> InfoSocionomics, Tama University [Confirmed, Civil Society, Asia >> Pacific] >> >> >> Remote Moderator(s): >> Ms. Avri Doria, [Civil Society, WEOG] >> >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/w2012/proposals >> >> Unfoturnately, as is the case for many, this will clash with the CIR >> Main session. >> >> Anyway, I hope may will join the lively discussion, >> >> best, >> >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ > ACADEMIE DES TIC > FACILITATEUR GAID/AFRIQUE Membre > At-Large Member > NCSG Member > > email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com > baudouin.schombe at ticafrica.net > tél:+243998983491 > skype:b.schombe > wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net > blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Follow me @* * **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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun Nov 4 14:31:50 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 11:31:50 -0800 Subject: [governance] URGENT- meeting with the Indian minister Message-ID: <7ec29a619dcfb65e02aecea972251c9f.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Dear All The Indian minister for IT will like to meet civil members tomorrow morning at 930 AM at the Park Hyatt Hotel, here in Baku. I know this is pretty late to inform you about it but \i have personally invited almost all civil society guys who are already at Baku for the bestbits meeting. However, there may be others who may have reached Baku and be interested to meet the minister, in which case please do consider yourself invited, in case you can make it to Park Hyatt by 930 AM. parminder -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Nov 4 14:47:37 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 08:47:37 +1300 Subject: [governance] URGENT- meeting with the Indian minister In-Reply-To: <7ec29a619dcfb65e02aecea972251c9f.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> References: <7ec29a619dcfb65e02aecea972251c9f.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear All, This is excellent Parminder and a great opportunity to engage in dialogue. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 8:31 AM, wrote: > > > Dear All > > The Indian minister for IT will like to meet civil members tomorrow > morning at 930 AM at the Park Hyatt Hotel, here in Baku. > > I know this is pretty late to inform you about it but \i have personally > invited almost all civil society guys who are already at Baku for the > bestbits meeting. However, there may be others who may have reached Baku > and be interested to meet the minister, in which case please do consider > yourself invited, in case you can make it to Park Hyatt by 930 AM. > > parminder > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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 Sun Nov 4 14:35:33 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2012 20:35:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Reasons for 'Internet Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance" products In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD227875B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <7512503234645386515@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <5096C385.9070402@gmail.com> Foo With governance arrangements (and a large part of innovation) in the US, there are synergies that are created... which kinda improves the US comparative advantage in competition on this issue... now is that a level playing field? Are transaction costs lower for US suppliers? How can barriers to entry be dealt with... this aside from the ethics of such products which as Auerbach said may be necessary for smooth operations? Riaz On 2012/11/03 02:34 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > A very valid point Nick. Equal footing will always be a challenge to > counter such. > > Foo > > On Nov 2, 2012 9:19 PM, "Nick Ashton-Hart" > wrote: > > Dear Fouad, > > Whatever kind of market economy the US has (or any other for that > matter does not alter The fundamental point that a demand for a > product will find someone somewhere ready to supply it. While it > is important to deal with the supply, you will never completely > eliminate it until you deal with the demand. > > Sent from one of my handheld thingies, please forgive linguistic > mangling > > On 2 Nov 2012, at 07:33, Fouad Bajwa > wrote: > >> Dear Milton, >> >> Your comments are welcome as always! One has to add the element >> of confusion not to be re-quoted intentionally or unintentionally >> where such authoritarian regimes are at play and one may be prone >> to concerns! >> >> My previous comments are based upon facts that I hear >> occasionally quoted during US leadership statements on online FoE >> and protection of pluralism and at the end of the day companies >> from that country are on the forefront of bidding and deploying >> traffic intelligence Okay, these companies operate in a free >> market environment but then the credibility of such statements >> collapse amidst surveillance cooperation even if its done by >> companies from that region. >> >> I have always felt that the US has mixed market dynamics and >> regulators do keep an eye and do not tend to overlook the fact >> that their companies do have country level offices that can >> independently participate in government contracts outside the US. >> >> I will have to differ here that devoted support for US and >> Canadian traffic monitoring and intelligence companies that they >> are not involved in censorship because I have witnessed credible >> information. >> >> I must point out that your defense for the Northern American >> companies argument depicts the traditional free market support >> whereas I am inclined to believe that its a mixed market approach >> because the government diplomacy in terms of Foreign Policy and >> economic drives cannot be completely ignorant of a key component >> of its globalization agenda/strategy of which Internet is an >> important tool and catalyst of a global world order. Anyways, >> these are from the airport, do I see you in Baku? >> >> Best >> >> Fouad >> >> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 3:32 AM, Milton L Mueller > > wrote: >> >> Fouad: >> >> Your answer to David’s question reveals a lot of confusion, >> in my opinion. >> >> Markets respond to supply and demand. It is a simple and >> predictable feature of markets that businesses (whether in >> the US or anywhere else) will try to sell their products to >> people who want to use them and have the money to pay for >> them. So we have a shared responsibility: for DPI and related >> surveillance and content-filtering equipment, the *demand* is >> created by authoritarian governments who want to control the >> Internet in their country, while the *supply* comes from >> profit-motivated businesses who can meet that demand. Many of >> these suppliers, by the way, are NOT from the U.S.; many are >> from Europe, and some are from China or elsewhere. >> >> Don’t blame the US advocates of FoE for that. >> >> As for the “dual FoE internet policy,” well, it’s time to >> grow up and look at states, including the US state, as >> self-interested actors and stop believing in the fairy tale >> that they magically embody the public interest or the >> people’s will. It’s also time for you to recognize that >> nearly all states have contradictory political pressures on >> them; just as the Pakistani govt doesn’t want to alienate the >> hardcore islamists while continuing to receive $$$ from the >> US, the US govt (specifically, the State Dept) wants to >> promote internet freedom while some Congressional pressures >> want us to withhold nearly all technology from “enemies” or >> repressive states, and some business-centric agencies and >> congresspeople want us to expand our market share in foreign >> countries’ technology purchases by selling them more equipment. >> >> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> ] *On Behalf Of >> *Fouad Bajwa >> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 30, 2012 7:14 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> ; Suresh Ramasubramanian >> *Cc:* David Conrad >> *Subject:* Re: Reasons for 'Internet Traffic Intelligence and >> Surveillance" products (was Re: [governance] speaker at the >> opening ceremony?) >> >> Let me try to answer the confusion quickly while I am >> multitasking between packing and documentation: >> >> I'd rather remain implicit. I am sure many of my colleagues >> from developing countries can list a long list of issues that >> their countries are concerned about and may be sharing during >> the WCIT meet and that this list has been discussing in >> numerous ITR related threads etc. at the end of the day it is >> more or less around US centric IRM and the challenges of >> censorship and content filtering. Its not just about iran, >> russia and china, there are more than a hundred other >> countries out of which a majority are developing regions and >> imposing various forms of censorship. >> >> My confusion stands around the dual FoE internet policy of >> these countries that requires some responsibility. Okay, its >> not only boeing/narus, cisco or sandvine selling censorship >> but we have huwae in the league of traffic intelligence and >> DPI as well. Alright, it may be business as usual but this is >> giving some countries to show and tell the amazing censorship >> they have implemented. >> >> Yes there are jurisdiction issues at play here but then some >> countries believe in resorting to censorship, blocking and >> filtering. >> >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> > wrote: >> >> Or is it fouads argument that sandvine gear was bought >> specifically to censor any discussion of the cir process? I >> don't quite understand the logic here either >> >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> >> >> >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "David Conrad" > > >> To: > > >> Subject: Reasons for 'Internet Traffic Intelligence and >> Surveillance" products (was Re: [governance] speaker at the >> opening ceremony?) >> Date: Tue, Oct 30, 2012 9:01 PM >> >> >> Fouad, >> >> On Oct 30, 2012, at 6:20 AM, Fouad Bajwa >> > wrote: >> > The fact remains that as US-Centric Internet Resource >> Management remains, countries have been sold various Internet >> Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance systems by US and >> Canadian companies. An evident example is the use of Sandvine >> traffic intelligence by PTCL Pakistan Telecommunication >> Company Limited. PTCL is the largest ICT/Telecom provider in >> the country and manages the Internet trunks. >> >> I'm curious: how does "US-Centric Internet Resource >> Management" cause PTCL (et al) to purchase products like >> Sandvine's? >> >> Thanks, >> -drc >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> -- >> Regards. >> -------------------------- >> Foo >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 4 19:08:17 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 05:38:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Reasons for 'Internet Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance" products In-Reply-To: <5096C385.9070402@gmail.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD227875B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <7512503234645386515@unknownmsgid> <5096C385.9070402@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2555C12A-E722-49CD-A1A7-96A95289A4EF@hserus.net> Which still doesn't address how you manage to connect that to Internet resource management --srs (iPad) On 05-Nov-2012, at 1:05, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Foo > > With governance arrangements (and a large part of innovation) in the US, there are synergies that are created... which kinda improves the US comparative advantage in competition on this issue... now is that a level playing field? Are transaction costs lower for US suppliers? How can barriers to entry be dealt with... this aside from the ethics of such products which as Auerbach said may be necessary for smooth operations? > > Riaz > > > On 2012/11/03 02:34 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> A very valid point Nick. Equal footing will always be a challenge to counter such. >> >> Foo >> >> On Nov 2, 2012 9:19 PM, "Nick Ashton-Hart" wrote: >>> Dear Fouad, >>> >>> Whatever kind of market economy the US has (or any other for that matter does not alter The fundamental point that a demand for a product will find someone somewhere ready to supply it. While it is important to deal with the supply, you will never completely eliminate it until you deal with the demand. >>> >>> Sent from one of my handheld thingies, please forgive linguistic mangling >>> >>> On 2 Nov 2012, at 07:33, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Milton, >>>> >>>> Your comments are welcome as always! One has to add the element of confusion not to be re-quoted intentionally or unintentionally where such authoritarian regimes are at play and one may be prone to concerns! >>>> >>>> My previous comments are based upon facts that I hear occasionally quoted during US leadership statements on online FoE and protection of pluralism and at the end of the day companies from that country are on the forefront of bidding and deploying traffic intelligence Okay, these companies operate in a free market environment but then the credibility of such statements collapse amidst surveillance cooperation even if its done by companies from that region. >>>> >>>> I have always felt that the US has mixed market dynamics and regulators do keep an eye and do not tend to overlook the fact that their companies do have country level offices that can independently participate in government contracts outside the US. >>>> >>>> I will have to differ here that devoted support for US and Canadian traffic monitoring and intelligence companies that they are not involved in censorship because I have witnessed credible information. >>>> >>>> I must point out that your defense for the Northern American companies argument depicts the traditional free market support whereas I am inclined to believe that its a mixed market approach because the government diplomacy in terms of Foreign Policy and economic drives cannot be completely ignorant of a key component of its globalization agenda/strategy of which Internet is an important tool and catalyst of a global world order. Anyways, these are from the airport, do I see you in Baku? >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Fouad >>>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 3:32 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>>> Fouad: >>>>> >>>>> Your answer to David’s question reveals a lot of confusion, in my opinion. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Markets respond to supply and demand. It is a simple and predictable feature of markets that businesses (whether in the US or anywhere else) will try to sell their products to people who want to use them and have the money to pay for them. So we have a shared responsibility: for DPI and related surveillance and content-filtering equipment, the demand is created by authoritarian governments who want to control the Internet in their country, while the supply comes from profit-motivated businesses who can meet that demand. Many of these suppliers, by the way, are NOT from the U.S.; many are from Europe, and some are from China or elsewhere. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Don’t blame the US advocates of FoE for that. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As for the “dual FoE internet policy,” well, it’s time to grow up and look at states, including the US state, as self-interested actors and stop believing in the fairy tale that they magically embody the public interest or the people’s will. It’s also time for you to recognize that nearly all states have contradictory political pressures on them; just as the Pakistani govt doesn’t want to alienate the hardcore islamists while continuing to receive $$$ from the US, the US govt (specifically, the State Dept) wants to promote internet freedom while some Congressional pressures want us to withhold nearly all technology from “enemies” or repressive states, and some business-centric agencies and congresspeople want us to expand our market share in foreign countries’ technology purchases by selling them more equipment. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Fouad Bajwa >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 7:14 PM >>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian >>>>> Cc: David Conrad >>>>> Subject: Re: Reasons for 'Internet Traffic Intelligence and Surveillance" products (was Re: [governance] speaker at the opening ceremony?) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Let me try to answer the confusion quickly while I am multitasking between packing and documentation: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'd rather remain implicit. I am sure many of my colleagues from developing countries can list a long list of issues that their countries are concerned about and may be sharing during the WCIT meet and that this list has been discussing in numerous ITR related threads etc. at the end of the day it is more or less around US centric IRM and the challenges of censorship and content filtering. Its not just about iran, russia and china, there are more than a hundred other countries out of which a majority are developing regions and imposing various forms of censorship. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My confusion stands around the dual FoE internet policy of these countries that requires some responsibility. Okay, its not only boeing/narus, cisco or sandvine selling censorship but we have huwae in the league of traffic intelligence and DPI as well. Alright, it may be business as usual but this is giving some countries to show and tell t >>>>> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Sun Nov 4 23:45:20 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 10:15:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] URGENT- meeting with the Indian minister In-Reply-To: References: <7ec29a619dcfb65e02aecea972251c9f.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: +1 Great stuff Parminder! I'm assuming there will be some sort of summary/minutes of the meeting so the rest of us have an idea of what the good minister's plans are for the future. -C On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > This is excellent Parminder and a great opportunity to engage in dialogue. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 8:31 AM, wrote: > >> >> >> Dear All >> >> The Indian minister for IT will like to meet civil members tomorrow >> morning at 930 AM at the Park Hyatt Hotel, here in Baku. >> >> I know this is pretty late to inform you about it but \i have personally >> invited almost all civil society guys who are already at Baku for the >> bestbits meeting. However, there may be others who may have reached Baku >> and be interested to meet the minister, in which case please do consider >> yourself invited, in case you can make it to Park Hyatt by 930 AM. >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji 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 fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Mon Nov 5 01:12:51 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 08:12:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Facebook Flaw Bypasses Password Protections Message-ID: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20180229 Facebook has moved quickly to shut down a loophole which made some accounts accessible without a password. Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Mon Nov 5 01:16:08 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 08:16:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] Summly: Teenager Launches Top-Selling News App Message-ID: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20181537 A smartphone app which provides summaries of news stories soared to number nine in Apple's app store just two hours after its release in the US. Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Mon Nov 5 01:32:55 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 08:32:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] Apple Ordered to Re-Write 'Inaccurate' Samsung Statement Message-ID: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20165664 Apple has 48 hours to re-write a statement on its website relating to its design rights dispute with Samsung, UK judges have ruled. Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Mon Nov 5 01:35:48 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 08:35:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Government IT Projects: UK Adopts Open Technology Standards Message-ID: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20178175 The UK government is drawing up a set of open technology standards all future IT projects must comply with. Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Mon Nov 5 01:39:56 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 08:39:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] Kim Dotcom Reveals Mega to Replace Megaupload File-Sharing Site Message-ID: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20165657 Kim Dotcom has announced plans for Mega, a service to replace his shut down file-sharing website Megaupload. Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Mon Nov 5 01:46:54 2012 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 10:46:54 +0400 Subject: [governance] Invitation WS168: Capacity building Initiatives In-Reply-To: References: <509494F0.5090305@communisphere.com> Message-ID: bonjour Yuliya, compte surtf moi, je suis interesse par cet atelier Baudouin 2012/11/4 Yuliya Morenets > Dear all, > > I would like to communicate this information and invite all to attend > (physically or remotely) the workshop TaC organizes in Baku, > > WS 168, Capacity building Initiatives for better economic and social > inclusion of vulnerable people in the Information society, that will take > place on the 7th of November, 11:00-12:30, room 10. > > The detailed flyer is attached. > > I hope that this list members will find the subject interesting. > > The workshop speakers are: > Mr Zahid U. Jamil- Co-moderator, Barrister Esq.

, Director, > Developing Country Center for Cybercrime & Law - Jamil & Jamil > Barristers-at-law (confirmed) > Ms Yuliya Morenets- Co-moderator, TaC-Together against Cybercrime > (confirmed) > > Mr Wolf Ludwig- Euralo/ICANN (confirmed) > Mr Khaled Fattal- Multilingual Internet Group (confirmed) > Ms Danielle de Groot Msc- Council of Chiefs of Police, Netherlands > (confirmed) > Ms Lara Pace-COMNET (confirmed) > Mr Pavan Duggal- President, Cyberlaws.net, The Associated Chambers of > Commerce and Industry of India (confirmed) > Ms Barbara-Chiara Ubaldi- OECD (confirmed) > Mr Stuart Hamilton- IFLA-International federation of Library Associations > and Institutions (confirmed) > African Union Representative (confirmed) > > Ms Roxana Radu- remote moderator (confirmed) > > With best regards, > Yuliya Morenets > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ ACADEMIE DES TIC FACILITATEUR GAID/AFRIQUE Membre At-Large Member NCSG Member email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com baudouin.schombe at ticafrica.net tél:+243998983491 skype:b.schombe wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bnkuerbi at syr.edu Mon Nov 5 04:09:04 2012 From: bnkuerbi at syr.edu (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 04:09:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] Invitation to Workshop 163: Governing Identity on the Internet Message-ID: FYI, hope you'll join us. #IGF12 WorkShop 163: “GOVERNING IDENTITY ON THE INTERNET” THR NOV 8, 2012 | 11:00-12:30 | Conf. Room 9 From single-sign-on to federated systems to WHOIS data associated with Internet resources, countless individuals, business and government organizations have a stake in Internet identity information and its governance. A workshop on “Governing Identity on the Internet” will be held on Thursday, November 8, 2012 from 11:00-12:30 (local Baku time) in Conference Room 9 (click here to see other time zones and add the event to your calendar) at the upcoming Internet Governance Forum in Baku, Azerbaijan. Moderated by Postdoctoral Fellow Brenden Kuerbis, the workshop is co-organized by the The Citizen Lab at University of Toronto and the Internet Society. Remote participation link for this session can be found here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/remote-participation/connect-now While territorially-based governments have historically played a central role in their citizens’ identity, it is private service providers and individual users that might be considered the de facto managers of Internet identity information. Private, rule-based arrangements (e.g., “trust frameworks”) have emerged in many industry sectors to help manage Internet identity transactions. Nonetheless, many states are actively pursuing digital identity efforts (OECD 2011), including the United States government’s National Strategy for Trusted Identity in Cyberspace (NSTIC) which is standing up a governance body and the European Commission’s proposed regulation on electronic identification and trusted services for electronic transactions. These efforts seek to promote greater adoption and interoperability of Internet identity solutions. What are the appropriate roles of governments, the private sector and individuals in Internet identity? Are there benefits or risks of various Internet identity governance solutions being proposed? How compatible are they with the transnational nature of the Internet? Which stakeholders will determine the standards and policies for how Internet identity information is created, transmitted, utilized, or protected? Panelists include: - Naomi Lefkovitz, Senior Privacy Advisor, National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace (NSTIC) National Program Office, NIST, United States Dept of Commerce (pre-recorded) - Andrea Servida, Head of Task Force “Legislation Team (eIDAS)”, European Commission (remote) - Robin Wilton, Technical Outreach for Identity and Privacy, Internet Society - Malavika Jayaram, Fellow, Centre for Internet & Society - Mawaki Chango, Africa Internet Policy Coordinator, Association for Progressive Communications - Marc Crandall, Google - Bill Smith, Technology Evangelist, Paypal This workshop feeds into the main session discussion on Security, Openness, and Privacy on Thursday, Nov 8 from 15:00-18:00 (local Baku 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 suresh at hserus.net Mon Nov 5 05:36:26 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 16:06:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] ITRs In-Reply-To: <5090834B.4020409@gmx.net> References: <508E3DFE.90606@itforchange.net> <508F7E73.70307@cavebear.com> <8A9113EA-A478-4093-94BE-4A1A8C6B4910@virtualized.org> <5090834B.4020409@gmx.net> Message-ID: "excessive interest in minor details" .. ah, a pedant, to be sure. But yes, that's pejorative to an extent. It would certainly help if more geeks (there, another pejorative word) take a broader interest in policy .. as it would if more policy wonks actually knew some of the fundamentals of routing, peering, IP allocation etc before they started commenting on internet governance. --srs (iPad) On 31-Oct-2012, at 7:17, Norbert Klein wrote: > On 10/30/2012 10:48 PM, [somebody] wrote: >> wonk code > Have mercy with us who are still not native speakers of the language of the Angels=Anglish-English: > > = = > wonk > Concise Oxford English Dictionary © 2008 Oxford University Press: > wonk/wɒŋk/ > ▶noun N. Amer. informal, derogatory > 1 a studious or hard-working person. > ■ (often policy wonk) a person who takes an excessive interest in minor details of political policy. > > 2 nautical slang an incompetent or inexperienced sailor, especially a naval cadet. > – derivatives > wonkish adjective. > – origin 1920s: of unknown origin. > = = > > Do I now understand this sentence: > > "I suspect this is policy wonk code for national-level control/administration of RPKI/BGPSEC." > > Somewhat. - Not really. > > > Norbert Klein > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 5 06:35:52 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 15:35:52 +0400 Subject: [governance] Meeting with US gov In-Reply-To: <50538B18.8070204@apc.org> References: <2FFF6C8B-AB51-44C3-9F4A-59B48F743D4B@apc.org> <50536371.6020100@apc.org> <8CF60B72476B741-128C-62EFC@webmail-m155.sysops.aol.com> <50538B18.8070204@apc.org> Message-ID: <91CE1491-95FB-4271-BE12-9406B9EBEAFA@uzh.ch> Hello I'm organizing a meeting between a few CS people from the US WCIT del etc with Larry Strickling (Asst. Secretary of Commerce), Fiona Alexander (head of international at NTIA), Terry Kramer (US Ambassaor to WCIT), and Manu Bhardwaj (Dept. of State). This will be 18:00 tomorrow, Tuesday at the IGF site. It looks like the room they've given us is big enough to accommodate more CS people, so if anyone would like to join, please contact me off list. Best Bill ***************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Nov 5 07:05:00 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:05:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] Meeting with US gov References: <2FFF6C8B-AB51-44C3-9F4A-59B48F743D4B@apc.org> <50536371.6020100@apc.org> <8CF60B72476B741-128C-62EFC@webmail-m155.sysops.aol.com> <50538B18.8070204@apc.org> <91CE1491-95FB-4271-BE12-9406B9EBEAFA@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD593@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> I plan too come w -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org on behalf of William Drake Sent: Mon 11/5/2012 12:35 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Meeting with US gov Hello I'm organizing a meeting between a few CS people from the US WCIT del etc with Larry Strickling (Asst. Secretary of Commerce), Fiona Alexander (head of international at NTIA), Terry Kramer (US Ambassaor to WCIT), and Manu Bhardwaj (Dept. of State). This will be 18:00 tomorrow, Tuesday at the IGF site. It looks like the room they've given us is big enough to accommodate more CS people, so if anyone would like to join, please contact me off list. Best Bill ***************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 5 07:18:42 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 21:18:42 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: members for EU/EP meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear list, Now I made the selection, was difficult, yes indeed. Based on gender, regional and sub-regoinal balances, and first-come basis combined within the same regional folks, the following six people are selected: Baudouin Schembe Tijani BEN JEMAA YJ Park Oksana Prykhodko Wolfgang Benedek Sivasubramanian M There were two females and 9 males, 6 from Asia Pacific, 3 from Africa, and 2 from Europe. There are also sub-regional components. I excluded former co-coordinators and MAG members, with my discretion, since their voices are relatively well-heard compared with others within IGF community. I am sorry to those who were not included, but since the organizer told us 5-6 is the max number, we have to narrow them down, as described in the first place of this thread. Of course, this is not be the perfect selection, but I hope you all to understand and support this under the very tight situation. Many thanks, izumi, came to Baku late last night -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 5 07:25:00 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 16:25:00 +0400 Subject: [governance] ITRs In-Reply-To: <5090834B.4020409@gmx.net> References: <508E3DFE.90606@itforchange.net> <508F7E73.70307@cavebear.com> <8A9113EA-A478-4093-94BE-4A1A8C6B4910@virtualized.org> <5090834B.4020409@gmx.net> Message-ID: <089a01cdbb50$951e9680$bf5bc380$@gmail.com> Think "nerd"… M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Klein Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 5:48 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] ITRs On 10/30/2012 10:48 PM, [somebody] wrote: wonk code Have mercy with us who are still not native speakers of the language of the Angels=Anglish-English: = = wonk Concise Oxford English Dictionary © 2008 Oxford University Press: wonk/wɒŋk/ ▶noun N. Amer. informal, derogatory * 1 a studious or hard-working person. ■ (often policy wonk) a person who takes an excessive interest in minor details of political policy. * 2 nautical slang an incompetent or inexperienced sailor, especially a naval cadet. – derivatives wonkish adjective. – origin 1920s: of unknown origin. = = Do I now understand this sentence: "I suspect this is policy wonk code for national-level control/administration of RPKI/BGPSEC." Somewhat. - Not really. Norbert Klein -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 5 08:21:36 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 22:21:36 +0900 Subject: [governance] Meeting with US gov In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD593@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2FFF6C8B-AB51-44C3-9F4A-59B48F743D4B@apc.org> <50536371.6020100@apc.org> <8CF60B72476B741-128C-62EFC@webmail-m155.sysops.aol.com> <50538B18.8070204@apc.org> <91CE1491-95FB-4271-BE12-9406B9EBEAFA@uzh.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD593@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Thanks Bill for your effort. I also plan to come, and then to Gala reception starting at 7 pm? izumi 2012/11/5 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" : > > I plan too come w > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org on behalf of William Drake > Sent: Mon 11/5/2012 12:35 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] Meeting with US gov > > Hello > > I'm organizing a meeting between a few CS people from the US WCIT del etc with Larry Strickling (Asst. Secretary of Commerce), Fiona Alexander (head of international at NTIA), Terry Kramer (US Ambassaor to WCIT), and Manu Bhardwaj (Dept. of State). This will be 18:00 tomorrow, Tuesday at the IGF site. It looks like the room they've given us is big enough to accommodate more CS people, so if anyone would like to join, please contact me off list. > > Best > > Bill > > ***************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow > 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 > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Nov 5 08:33:21 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 02:33:21 +1300 Subject: [governance] Update from the Pacific Message-ID: Dear All, I wish you well in the course of your discussions, dialogue in what is possibly the most interesting junction in Internet Governance. I am excited to see the diverse workshops and people being activated from within the IGC and beyond. I am also encouraged to see the likes of the Ministers who are giving the opportunity for continued dialogue and it signals to me the desire to listen and hear which is always a good sign. The future of Internet Governance is no doubt a challenging one. In all my participation, it has often pained me to see the lack of participation from my side of the world particularly from the Pacific. My time and energy is being consumed in designing a sustainable model that will encourage and provide empowerment for the Pacific in preparation greater policy immersion, participation and involvement. We are organising a Youth Tech Camp in Fiji, see: http://youthtechcamp.brightpathfoundation.org/ for the Pacific youth (15 years to 35 years). I will be streaming into the IGF and participating in 3 workshops, one with the RIRs on Critical Internet Resources (Transitioning to IPv6), the other one on Small Island Development States and their Issues and thirdly the Commonwealth Cyber Crime session organised by Lara Pace. I wish you all well. With every best wish, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Nov 5 10:47:37 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 19:47:37 +0400 Subject: [governance] Censorship of postcards at the IGF References: Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > From: "Donny B.U." > Date: 5 November, 2012 7:17:03 PM GMT+04:00 > To: Arthit Suriyawongkul > Cc: Valeria Betancourt , Veridiana Alimonti , Ginger Paque , "Carlos A. Afonso" , Pranesh Prakash , "" > Subject: sorry, OOT --> Re: WCIT Statement > sorry, oot. > > just want to give update, these 2 type of postcards from indonesia civil society are not allowed to be distributed at igf2012 baku by un officer. the postcards message about #censorship that could makes (any) certain government unhappy, according to UN officer. and any materials distributed in the UN jurisdiction/event, such as IGF, must get approval 1st by UN or IGF committee. that's the rule and written, as they said to me, couple moment ago. > > f-dbu- > > On Monday, November 5, 2012, Arthit Suriyawongkul wrote: >> Pranesh, >> >> Thai Netizen Network endorse this statement as well. >> >> Thanks everybody for all the efforts. >> >> cheers, >> Art >> >> >> >> -- >> เครือข่ายพลเมืองเน็ต -- "เปิดเน็ต เปิดใจ" >> Thai Netizen Network -- "Open Net. Open Mind." >> https://www.facebook.com/thainetizen > > > -- > e: dbu at donnybu.com | t: @donnybu | f: donnybu | w: donnybu.com | p: +62818930932 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: photo.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 43844 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 admin at alkasir.com Mon Nov 5 10:49:29 2012 From: admin at alkasir.com (Walid AL-SAQAF ) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 16:49:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] Censorship of postcards at the IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Jeremy, Kind of reminds of the 2005 WSIS conference in Tunis. History does repeat itself though in different places and contexts! Sincerely, Walid ----------------- Walid Al-Saqaf Founder & Administrator alkasir for mapping and circumventing cyber censorship https://alkasir.com On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Begin forwarded message: > > *From:* "Donny B.U." > *Date:* 5 November, 2012 7:17:03 PM GMT+04:00 > *To:* Arthit Suriyawongkul > *Cc:* Valeria Betancourt , Veridiana Alimonti < > veridiana at idec.org.br>, Ginger Paque , "Carlos A. > Afonso" , Pranesh Prakash , "< > bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org>" > *Subject:* *sorry, OOT --> Re: WCIT Statement* > > sorry, oot. > > just want to give update, these 2 type of postcards from indonesia civil > society are not allowed to be distributed at igf2012 baku by un officer. > the postcards message about #censorship that could makes (any) certain > government unhappy, according to UN officer. and any materials distributed > in the UN jurisdiction/event, such as IGF, must get approval 1st by UN or > IGF committee. that's the rule and written, as they said to me, couple > moment ago. > > f-dbu- > > On Monday, November 5, 2012, Arthit Suriyawongkul wrote: > >> Pranesh, >> >> Thai Netizen Network endorse this statement as well. >> >> Thanks everybody for all the efforts. >> >> cheers, >> Art >> >> >> >> -- >> เครือข่ายพลเมืองเน็ต -- "เปิดเน็ต เปิดใจ" >> Thai Netizen Network -- "Open Net. Open Mind." >> https://www.facebook.com/thainetizen >> > > > -- > e: dbu at donnybu.com | t: @donnybu | f: donnybu | w: donnybu.com | p: > +62818930932 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, 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: photo.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 43844 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 tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Mon Nov 5 11:29:03 2012 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 17:29:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] AFRALO Workshop @ IGF 2012 in Baku In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6e51ee5e-1f9c-433c-b9f3-e83f69c2ccc2@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 drc at virtualized.org Mon Nov 5 11:34:12 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 08:34:12 -0800 Subject: [governance] ITRs In-Reply-To: <5090834B.4020409@gmx.net> References: <508E3DFE.90606@itforchange.net> <508F7E73.70307@cavebear.com> <8A9113EA-A478-4093-94BE-4A1A8C6B4910@virtualized.org> <5090834B.4020409@gmx.net> Message-ID: Norbert, On Oct 30, 2012, at 6:47 PM, Norbert Klein wrote: > On 10/30/2012 10:48 PM, [somebody] wrote: >> wonk code > Have mercy with us who are still not native speakers of the language of the Angels=Anglish-English: Sincere apologies. I had thought 'policy wonk' was a common term of art on this list. My interpretation of that term is an individual who focuses on/has deep interest in/lives and breathes the creation of policy. > Do I now understand this sentence: > > "I suspect this is policy wonk code for national-level control/administration of RPKI/BGPSEC." > > Somewhat. - Not really. A bit of high level background (skip if you know what RPKI/BGPSEC is): One of the biggest security weaknesses on the internet today is the routing system. Some folks call the way the current routing system works as "routing by rumor" -- ISPs trust that the routing information they get from their peers is sane, implicitly trusting that information even if it is obtained from their peers' peers with whom they have no direct relationship/no way to verify sanity (and their peers' peers' peers, and so on). This leads to (not infrequent) events where bad routing information is propagated (the Pakistan Telecom/YouTube incident is one example), bad guys pop up on stolen address space to blast out spam, "man in the middle" attacks, etc. RPKI/BGPSEC is a set of technologies currently being specified/developed/tested/deployed within the IETF, the RIRs, the router vendors, and (some) ISPs to improve the security of the routing system. These technologies provides for a way of tying resources (e.g., address blocks) to the entity to which the resources have been allocated. This allows software to be written that can (e.g.) help an ISP verify that the address space their customer just presented to them is actually address space that the customer is documented as having, ensure that routing information hasn't been tampered with in transit, etc. RPKI (Resource Public Key Infrastructure) does the tying using strong cryptographic certificates (using X.509, the same technology used in SSL/HTTPS). BGPSEC (Border Gateway Protocol Security) is a way to secure the routing information using the resource/resource "owner" relationships defined by RPKI. As currently specified by the IETF, RPKI assumes the certification of "ownership" of resources strictly follows the allocation hierarchy, that is IANA gives the "title" of resources to the RIRs, the RIRs gives the title of resources to ISPs, and ISPs gives the title of resources to their customers (I'll skip over the part where the IANA isn't actually participating as yet as it just spikes my blood pressure). BGPSEC is intended to be advisory, allowing ISPs to set up filters of routing information based on local policy that would (presumably) include whether the RPKI information they receive from their customers and peers validates correctly. So, with the RPKI/BGPSEC stuff understood: My suspicion is that there are folks within (or more likely consulting to) governments that are aware of RPKI/BGPSEC efforts and the implications of those technologies and are trying to insert wording into the ITRs that will allow for national-level control/administration of RPKI/BGPSEC. However, RPKI/BGPSEC is far too technical for the ITRs, so more general, higher level language ("policy wonk code") is used instead. As Alejandro suggests, I may be giving the folks proposing that language too much credit. However, the alternative would (as Karl aptly described) imply a level of ignorance in the way the Internet works that I would find ... depressing. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Mon Nov 5 13:02:01 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 20:02:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] Censorship of postcards at the IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Rumor has it that Indonesia is expected to host the 8th IGF meeting in Jakarta. Such banners seem weird for a country willing to host this annual event (unless the rumor is a wrong one or has been amended over time). Fahd On Nov 5, 2012 6:47 PM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > Begin forwarded message: > > *From:* "Donny B.U." > *Date:* 5 November, 2012 7:17:03 PM GMT+04:00 > *To:* Arthit Suriyawongkul > *Cc:* Valeria Betancourt , Veridiana Alimonti < > veridiana at idec.org.br>, Ginger Paque , "Carlos A. > Afonso" , Pranesh Prakash , "< > bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org>" > *Subject:* *sorry, OOT --> Re: WCIT Statement* > > sorry, oot. > > just want to give update, these 2 type of postcards from indonesia civil > society are not allowed to be distributed at igf2012 baku by un officer. > the postcards message about #censorship that could makes (any) certain > government unhappy, according to UN officer. and any materials distributed > in the UN jurisdiction/event, such as IGF, must get approval 1st by UN or > IGF committee. that's the rule and written, as they said to me, couple > moment ago. > > f-dbu- > > On Monday, November 5, 2012, Arthit Suriyawongkul wrote: > >> Pranesh, >> >> Thai Netizen Network endorse this statement as well. >> >> Thanks everybody for all the efforts. >> >> cheers, >> Art >> >> >> >> -- >> เครือข่ายพลเมืองเน็ต -- "เปิดเน็ต เปิดใจ" >> Thai Netizen Network -- "Open Net. Open Mind." >> https://www.facebook.com/thainetizen >> > > > -- > e: dbu at donnybu.com | t: @donnybu | f: donnybu | w: donnybu.com | p: > +62818930932 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, 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: photo.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 43844 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 apisan at unam.mx Mon Nov 5 14:22:45 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 19:22:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] URGENT- meeting with the Indian minister In-Reply-To: References: <7ec29a619dcfb65e02aecea972251c9f.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> , Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D59F292A2@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Chaitanya, the most interesting aspect of this meeting with the Indian Minister for IT will be to see if there remains any endorsement for CIRP after today's meeting on enhanced cooperation, particularly any official endorsement from the Indian Government. When will trustworthy notes from that meeting be released? What representation of the official position of the government of India is authoritative? (Parminder, your complaint that governments are not well coordinated would be most pertinent here, if I understood/recall it well.) Parminder, could you ratify/clarify a statement you made at the end, just because the microphones were turned off? I heard you say "maybe the oversight part should not be included". This - for those not present - was after Parminder said that the CIRP proposal does not affect any existing Internet Governance mechanisms, and Bill Drake read text (which was also readable in the rolling transcript) proving that it does, and does more, like propose CIRP to perform arbitration and other functions. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Chaitanya Dhareshwar [chaitanyabd at gmail.com] Enviado el: domingo, 04 de noviembre de 2012 22:45 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro CC: parminder at itforchange.net Asunto: Re: [governance] URGENT- meeting with the Indian minister +1 Great stuff Parminder! I'm assuming there will be some sort of summary/minutes of the meeting so the rest of us have an idea of what the good minister's plans are for the future. -C On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: Dear All, This is excellent Parminder and a great opportunity to engage in dialogue. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 8:31 AM, > wrote: Dear All The Indian minister for IT will like to meet civil members tomorrow morning at 930 AM at the Park Hyatt Hotel, here in Baku. I know this is pretty late to inform you about it but \i have personally invited almost all civil society guys who are already at Baku for the bestbits meeting. However, there may be others who may have reached Baku and be interested to meet the minister, in which case please do consider yourself invited, in case you can make it to Park Hyatt by 930 AM. parminder ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Mon Nov 5 20:46:33 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 02:46:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] members for EU/EP meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Izumi. No problem with the selection. Have the selected ones committed to produce a report, and when ? Louis - - - On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear list, > Now I made the selection, was difficult, yes indeed. > > Based on gender, regional and sub-regoinal balances, and first-come > basis combined within the same regional folks, the following six > people are selected: > > Baudouin Schembe > Tijani BEN JEMAA > YJ Park > Oksana Prykhodko > Wolfgang Benedek > Sivasubramanian M > > There were two females and 9 males, 6 from Asia Pacific, 3 from > Africa, and 2 from Europe. There are also sub-regional components. > > I excluded former co-coordinators and MAG members, with my discretion, > since their voices are relatively well-heard compared with others > within IGF community. > > I am sorry to those who were not included, but since the organizer > told us 5-6 is > the max number, we have to narrow them down, as described in the first > place of this > thread. > > Of course, this is not be the perfect selection, but I hope you all to > understand and support this under the very tight situation. > > Many thanks, > > izumi, came to Baku late last night > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Mon Nov 5 22:27:33 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 08:57:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] URGENT- meeting with the Indian minister In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D59F292A2@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <7ec29a619dcfb65e02aecea972251c9f.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D59F292A2@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Alex, the way I see it the whole point of having Kapil Sibal ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapil_Sibal) be there would be to represent the government and the government's interests (yes I remember 'government' having 'interests' is not particularly positive from a previous discussion - but bear with me here). It's very true that governments are not well coordinated - I mean the minister for IT visiting an international conference (and representing 'India' instead of 'indian government') IMHO should have been in the papers a week before the fact (because it's a big positive step/attitude change). And he should make a formal statement when he comes back about where they see India in the future and how we can do better, key learnings, etc. I'm sure there will be good notes and as we discuss them here we'll naturally come to understand if anything has been 'edited' out. I don't think that'll be such a problem.... Still rolling with laughter about 'oversight part should not be included'... -C On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 12:52 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < apisan at unam.mx> wrote: > Chaitanya, > > the most interesting aspect of this meeting with the Indian Minister for > IT will be to see if there remains any endorsement for CIRP after today's > meeting on enhanced cooperation, particularly any official endorsement from > the Indian Government. When will trustworthy notes from that meeting be > released? What representation of the official position of the government of > India is authoritative? (Parminder, your complaint that governments are not > well coordinated would be most pertinent here, if I understood/recall it > well.) > > Parminder, could you ratify/clarify a statement you made at the end, > just because the microphones were turned off? I heard you say "maybe the > oversight part should not be included". This - for those not present - was > after Parminder said that the CIRP proposal does not affect any existing > Internet Governance mechanisms, and Bill Drake read text (which was also > readable in the rolling transcript) proving that it does, and does more, > like propose CIRP to perform arbitration and other functions. > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > ------------------------------ > *Desde:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Chaitanya Dhareshwar [ > chaitanyabd at gmail.com] > *Enviado el:* domingo, 04 de noviembre de 2012 22:45 > *Hasta:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > *CC:* parminder at itforchange.net > *Asunto:* Re: [governance] URGENT- meeting with the Indian minister > > +1 Great stuff Parminder! I'm assuming there will be some sort of > summary/minutes of the meeting so the rest of us have an idea of what the > good minister's plans are for the future. > > -C > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> This is excellent Parminder and a great opportunity to engage in >> dialogue. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 8:31 AM, wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Dear All >>> >>> The Indian minister for IT will like to meet civil members tomorrow >>> morning at 930 AM at the Park Hyatt Hotel, here in Baku. >>> >>> I know this is pretty late to inform you about it but \i have personally >>> invited almost all civil society guys who are already at Baku for the >>> bestbits meeting. However, there may be others who may have reached Baku >>> and be interested to meet the minister, in which case please do consider >>> yourself invited, in case you can make it to Park Hyatt by 930 AM. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Fiji 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 suresh at hserus.net Mon Nov 5 22:46:10 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 09:16:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] URGENT- meeting with the Indian minister In-Reply-To: References: <7ec29a619dcfb65e02aecea972251c9f.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D59F292A2@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <919CAAE3-B3BA-45CE-9B3D-8FEE4E2FA280@hserus.net> Maybe cirp should just be scrapped .. --srs (iPad) On 06-Nov-2012, at 8:57, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > Alex, the way I see it the whole point of having Kapil Sibal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapil_Sibal) be there would be to represent the government and the government's interests (yes I remember 'government' having 'interests' is not particularly positive from a previous discussion - but bear with me here). It's very true that governments are not well coordinated - I mean the minister for IT visiting an international conference (and representing 'India' instead of 'indian government') IMHO should have been in the papers a week before the fact (because it's a big positive step/attitude change). And he should make a formal statement when he comes back about where they see India in the future and how we can do better, key learnings, etc. > > I'm sure there will be good notes and as we discuss them here we'll naturally come to understand if anything has been 'edited' out. I don't think that'll be such a problem.... > > Still rolling with laughter about 'oversight part should not be included'... > > -C > > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 12:52 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: >> Chaitanya, >> >> the most interesting aspect of this meeting with the Indian Minister for IT will be to see if there remains any endorsement for CIRP after today's meeting on enhanced cooperation, particularly any official endorsement from the Indian Government. When will trustworthy notes from that meeting be released? What representation of the official position of the government of India is authoritative? (Parminder, your complaint that governments are not well coordinated would be most pertinent here, if I understood/recall it well.) >> >> Parminder, could you ratify/clarify a statement you made at the end, just because the microphones were turned off? I heard you say "maybe the oversight part should not be included". This - for those not present - was after Parminder said that the CIRP proposal does not affect any existing Internet Governance mechanisms, and Bill Drake read text (which was also readable in the rolling transcript) proving that it does, and does more, like propose CIRP to perform arbitration and other functions. >> >> Yours, >> >> Alejandro Pisanty >> >> >> ! !! !!! !!!! >> NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO >> >> >> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD >> >> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO >> >> SMS +525541444475 >> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >> UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >> >> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty >> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> >> Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Chaitanya Dhareshwar [chaitanyabd at gmail.com] >> Enviado el: domingo, 04 de noviembre de 2012 22:45 >> Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> CC: parminder at itforchange.net >> Asunto: Re: [governance] URGENT- meeting with the Indian minister >> >> +1 Great stuff Parminder! I'm assuming there will be some sort of summary/minutes of the meeting so the rest of us have an idea of what the good minister's plans are for the future. >> >> -C >> >> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> Dear All, >>> >>> This is excellent Parminder and a great opportunity to engage in dialogue. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Sala >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 8:31 AM, wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear All >>>> >>>> The Indian minister for IT will like to meet civil members tomorrow >>>> morning at 930 AM at the Park Hyatt Hotel, here in Baku. >>>> >>>> I know this is pretty late to inform you about it but \i have personally >>>> invited almost all civil society guys who are already at Baku for the >>>> bestbits meeting. However, there may be others who may have reached Baku >>>> and be interested to meet the minister, in which case please do consider >>>> yourself invited, in case you can make it to Park Hyatt by 930 AM. >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> P.O. Box 17862 >>> Suva >>> Fiji >>> >>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pranesh at cis-india.org Mon Nov 5 22:53:38 2012 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 07:53:38 +0400 Subject: [governance] URGENT- meeting with the Indian minister In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D59F292A2@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <7ec29a619dcfb65e02aecea972251c9f.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> , <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D59F292A2@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <509889C2.3060306@cis-india.org> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch [2012-11-05 23:22]: > the most interesting aspect of this meeting with the Indian Minister > for IT will be to see if there remains any endorsement for CIRP after > today's meeting on enhanced cooperation, particularly any official > endorsement from the Indian Government. When will trustworthy notes > from that meeting be released? What representation of the official > position of the government of India is authoritative? (Parminder, > your complaint that governments are not well coordinated would be > most pertinent here, if I understood/recall it well.) From an article by Shalini Singh in The Hindu: http://goo.gl/04rux [snip] In the run-up to the Budapest meet, a UPA task-force held closed-door consultations involving the Ministry of External Affairs, Ministry of Telecom and IT, industry bodies and others. Latha Reddy, the Deputy National Security Adviser, coordinated this effort. On the issue of India’s earlier UN-CIRP model, Mr. Pilot also confirmed, “We are moving ahead with new proposals. While the existing system certainly needs to be changed, India’s position will include multi-stakeholder involvement and not inter-governmental bodies that may have been proposed in the past.” The Indian government’s changed stance on Internet governance, though subtle, is expected to generate further attention at the upcoming Internet Governance Forum in Baku, Azerbaijan next month, where thousands of delegates representing governments, business, civil society, academia and media from across the world will collect to discuss the issue. [/snip] While I am sure there will be heated disputes on this mailing list over whether this is a "changed stance", etc., I think the most interesting bit is the quote by the then-Minister of State on Communications and IT. Cheers, Pranesh -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 259 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 suresh at hserus.net Mon Nov 5 23:01:12 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 09:31:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] URGENT- meeting with the Indian minister In-Reply-To: <509889C2.3060306@cis-india.org> References: <7ec29a619dcfb65e02aecea972251c9f.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D59F292A2@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <509889C2.3060306@cis-india.org> Message-ID: .. which leaves IT4Change's nose slightly out of joint, but well .. it is nice to hear them advocate multistakeholderism without, so far, any of the usual specious wording (power play dressed up as a north vs south divide) that often accompanies such declarations --srs (iPad) On 06-Nov-2012, at 9:23, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > While I am sure there will be heated disputes on this mailing list over > whether this is a "changed stance", etc., I think the most interesting > bit is the quote by the then-Minister of State on Communications and 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 pranesh at cis-india.org Mon Nov 5 23:28:11 2012 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 08:28:11 +0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Re: UN Censorship In-Reply-To: <50988669.90500@cis-india.org> References: <50988669.90500@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <509891DB.2000604@cis-india.org> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: UN Censorship Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 07:39:21 +0400 From: Pranesh Prakash Organization: Centre for Internet and Society To: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org Here's a draft statement. Please feel free to edit it directly: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/un-censorship-statement A few things we still need to figure out: 1. Who the officials were. 2. Whether the postcards were being handed out of if they were kept at a stall, and in either case, where. 3. What rules, if any, govern the conduct of UN meetings and what may be distributed at such meetings. As far as I know there are different rules of procedure for different UN organizations. And as far as I remember, we were never presented any written rules on this issue in Sharm. 4. What exactly we should be asking for and from whom? 5. Apart from a mere statement, what else should we do? Arthit and Anja suggested that we all hand out these postcards (or photocopies of them) tomorrow. 6. Could we get governments and inter-governmental organizations (and independent rapporteurs, etc.) to endorse a statement or otherwise comment on this incident? 7. Whether these incidents are symptomatic of a larger problem with the IGF being located within the United Nations, or if that feeling is merely over-reaction? ==== Statement of Undersigned [Civil Society Organizations and Members / CS and Industry and Governments and Inter-governmental Organizations] on Restrictions of Freedom of Speech at the Internet Governance Forum On the evening of Monday, November 5, 2012 at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) happening in Baku, attendees from an Indonesian civil society organization (ICT Watch) were prevented from distributing postcards that read "Government Censorship: Protecting You From Reality"[1], and "What if... all the media runs the same story?"[2]. They were prevented from doing so by a person who identified himself as a United Nations official. [Name? Designation?] They were told that these postcards would make [any / some / certain] government[s] "unhappy", and that "written rules" required that any materials distributed at an event organized by the United Nations event, such as the IGF, require prior approval by the UN or the "IGF Committee". Such restrictions on distribution of materials about censorship is highly objectionable and is completely unacceptable. This goes against accepted international principles of human rights, including Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 10 of the European [Convention] on Human Rights. The IGF, as a UN-convened forum, is committed to promotion of all human rights, including the freedom of opinion and expression. Indeed, this principle is reaffirmed in Paragraph 42 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society. [We would like to note that this is not the first time that such a restriction of freedom of expression has taken place at the IGF. At the IGF in Sharm el-Sheikh in 2009, UN officials objected to a poster that referred to censorship in a UN Member State. In the present case, the material did not even refer to specific UN Member States[— indeed even preventing attendees from peacefully distributing materials that name UN Member States amounts to censorship of political views].] This certainly proves the concerns about censorship expressed by various speakers at the IGF, and that content of the postcards in question, were indeed justified and relevant. We urge [ ] to [ ]. -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 259 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 tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Tue Nov 6 00:01:47 2012 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 09:01:47 +0400 Subject: [governance] Censorship of postcards at the IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20121106050147.GA7833@tarvainen.info> On Nov 05 20:02, Fahd A. Batayneh (fahd.batayneh at gmail.com) wrote: > Rumor has it that Indonesia is expected to host the 8th IGF meeting in > Jakarta. Such banners seem weird for a country willing to host this annual > event How so? I would think the opposite: Indonesians protesting against censorship is a good sign. Now if they were protesting against Indonesian government or stopped by them it would be different, but as long as Indonesian government doesn't mind (or at least pretends not to), I think this is a positive indication about freedom of expression in Indonesia and most appropriate for next IGF host. -- Tapani Tarvainen -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 6 00:20:15 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 21:20:15 -0800 Subject: [governance] URGENT- meeting with the Indian minister In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D59F292A2@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <7ec29a619dcfb65e02aecea972251c9f.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> , <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D59F292A2@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Alejandro I know the CIRP proposal well, and know which part speaks of CIR oversight role and which parts are about other things. So, I cannot say that CIRP had nothing to do with the oversight role. I said that is not its big focus as is made out to be, especially by those who would not want to discuss the larger public policy issues part (code word - OECD's CCICP). I would characterize CIRP as 5/6th other things (larger Internet related public policy issues) and just 1/6th about CIR oversight. This would also be clear on reading the CIRP doc as well as joint IBSA statements on enhanced cooperation that were made previous to making the CIRP proposal. However, people want to read and focus on what they want to read and focus on and not much be done about it. As for this great 'surprise' about parminder having said "maybe the oversight part should not be included" and requests for clarification/ ratification, following facts may be (re) illuminating... 1. On the panel at CSTD discussion on enhanced cooperation in May 2012, I made an clear, explicit proposal that CIRP be modified and the oversight function be moved elsewhere (no doubt in urgent need of changeover from US current over-lord-ship, however, it should be dealt by a different mechanism) . The statement is here, and has been shared with this list on a number of occasions. The proposal was specifically noted by the US delegation from the floor, and this fact has also been mentioned here on the list. Not only have I shared this proposal here but tried to initiate discussions a number of times on a possible alternative mechanism to deal with the oversight issue, but in any case to remove it from CIRP's role. I have discussed my proposal in this regard with Indian officials on a few occasions, with some sympathetic nods. 2. My statement in the above regard also came from a campaign that we did just before the May meeting on enhanced cooperation, along with 4 other organisations and supported by more that 65 organisations and many more individuals (I know I need to keep mentioning this over and over again). A joint statement was issued, which suggests separation between the needed mechanism for the oversight issues, and other broader public policy issues. If all those organisations and individuals who supported this campaign were able to come to Baku and speak up, it will be a much bigger meeting that yesterday's meeting on enhanced cooperation, and, as you may suspect, we would have heard very different things. But these organisations and people obviously do not have the support and resources to come, perhaps because they do not say the 'right things'. A new kind of civil society mediated 'manufactured consent' may be being created here. I was surprised (though, well, not that surprised) about the number of 'we have a kind of consensus in the room' kind of statements being made by moderators and others at the meeting. (Will write more about yesterday's meeting later but let me remain focussed on the main issue here.) 3. BTW, in any case, CIRP is an Indian government's proposal and not IT for Change's. At all earlier occasions when IT for Change has demanded a CIRP like body we havent got explicit about the specific roles, which we though need to be discussed and developed. We specifically say, lets first start with something exactly like OECD's CICCP. However, I do understand that when India had to make a specific proposal it needed to do so with much more specificity than what a civil society position paper can afford to do. And in this regard, since 'oversight issue' indeed has been one that developing countires have been united about the need to do something about for many years now, India had to place the oversight role somewhere in its proposal. Also to mention again, the functions that India did propose for CIRP all came from 3 of the four models suggested by the WGIG, which went through considerable multistakehoder discussion at that time. However, as they said in the statement, they were eager to hear other people's views on this, and so if anyone thinks oversight should not be here, tell them where it should be (no, not with the US gov) rather than ridicule everything a 'oh so impertinent' developing country may say. parminder > Chaitanya, > > the most interesting aspect of this meeting with the Indian Minister for > IT will be to see if there remains any endorsement for CIRP after today's > meeting on enhanced cooperation, particularly any official endorsement > from the Indian Government. When will trustworthy notes from that meeting > be released? What representation of the official position of the > government of India is authoritative? (Parminder, your complaint that > governments are not well coordinated would be most pertinent here, if I > understood/recall it well.) > > Parminder, could you ratify/clarify a statement you made at the end, just > because the microphones were turned off? I heard you say "maybe the > oversight part should not be included". This - for those not present - was > after Parminder said that the CIRP proposal does not affect any existing > Internet Governance mechanisms, and Bill Drake read text (which was also > readable in the rolling transcript) proving that it does, and does more, > like propose CIRP to perform arbitration and other functions. > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________ > Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Chaitanya Dhareshwar > [chaitanyabd at gmail.com] > Enviado el: domingo, 04 de noviembre de 2012 22:45 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > CC: parminder at itforchange.net > Asunto: Re: [governance] URGENT- meeting with the Indian minister > > +1 Great stuff Parminder! I'm assuming there will be some sort of > summary/minutes of the meeting so the rest of us have an idea of what the > good minister's plans are for the future. > > -C > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > wrote: > Dear All, > > This is excellent Parminder and a great opportunity to engage in dialogue. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 8:31 AM, > > wrote: > > > Dear All > > The Indian minister for IT will like to meet civil members tomorrow > morning at 930 AM at the Park Hyatt Hotel, here in Baku. > > I know this is pretty late to inform you about it but \i have personally > invited almost all civil society guys who are already at Baku for the > bestbits meeting. However, there may be others who may have reached Baku > and be interested to meet the minister, in which case please do consider > yourself invited, in case you can make it to Park Hyatt by 930 AM. > > parminder > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 6 00:28:31 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:58:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] URGENT- meeting with the Indian minister In-Reply-To: References: <7ec29a619dcfb65e02aecea972251c9f.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D59F292A2@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <2CB5CC5A-085A-417A-859B-E6756C48B6EB@hserus.net> Why, parminder, are you confusing OECD's CICCP with the CIRP proposal? There's no coordination role involved there to start with. There is nothing going on there except production of best practices (white paper recommendations and ministerial briefings at conferences like APEC TEL), joint cybersecurity related policy studies with individual countries, metrics gathering etc. I would hardly call that anything related to "governance" in the sort of overly grand scheme of things that your proposal and the CIRP (or are we talking of one and the same thing) both keep harping on. --srs (iPad) On 06-Nov-2012, at 10:50, parminder at itforchange.net wrote: > > Alejandro > > I know the CIRP proposal well, and know which part speaks of CIR oversight > role and which parts are about other things. So, I cannot say that CIRP > had nothing to do with the oversight role. I said that is not its big > focus as is made out to be, especially by those who would not want to > discuss the larger public policy issues part (code word - OECD's CCICP). > > I would characterize CIRP as 5/6th other things (larger Internet related > public policy issues) and just 1/6th about CIR oversight. This would also > be clear on reading the CIRP doc as well as joint IBSA statements on > enhanced cooperation that were made previous to making the CIRP proposal. > However, people want to read and focus on what they want to read and focus > on and not much be done about it. > > As for this great 'surprise' about parminder having said "maybe the > oversight part should not be included" and requests for clarification/ > ratification, following facts may be (re) illuminating... > > > 1. On the panel at CSTD discussion on enhanced cooperation in May 2012, I > made an clear, explicit proposal that CIRP be modified and the oversight > function be moved elsewhere (no doubt in urgent need of changeover from > US current over-lord-ship, however, it should be dealt by a different > mechanism) . The statement is here, and has been shared with this list on > a number of occasions. The proposal was specifically noted by the US > delegation from the floor, and this fact has also been mentioned here on > the list. Not only have I shared this proposal here but tried to initiate > discussions a number of times on a possible alternative mechanism to deal > with the oversight issue, but in any case to remove it from CIRP's role. I > have discussed my proposal in this regard with Indian officials on a few > occasions, with some sympathetic nods. > > 2. My statement in the above regard also came from a campaign that we did > just before the May meeting on enhanced cooperation, along with 4 other > organisations and supported by more that 65 organisations and many more > individuals (I know I need to keep mentioning this over and over again). A > joint statement was issued, which suggests separation between the needed > mechanism for the oversight issues, and other broader public policy > issues. If all those organisations and individuals who supported this > campaign were able to come to Baku and speak up, it will be a much bigger > meeting that yesterday's meeting on enhanced cooperation, and, as you may > suspect, we would have heard very different things. But these > organisations and people obviously do not have the support and resources > to come, perhaps because they do not say the 'right things'. A new kind of > civil society mediated 'manufactured consent' may be being created here. I > was surprised (though, well, not that surprised) about the number of 'we > have a kind of consensus in the room' kind of statements being made by > moderators and others at the meeting. (Will write more about yesterday's > meeting later but let me remain focussed on the main issue here.) > > 3. BTW, in any case, CIRP is an Indian government's proposal and not IT > for Change's. At all earlier occasions when IT for Change has demanded a > CIRP like body we havent got explicit about the specific roles, which we > though need to be discussed and developed. We specifically say, lets first > start with something exactly like OECD's CICCP. However, I do understand > that when India had to make a specific proposal it needed to do so with > much more specificity than what a civil society position paper can afford > to do. And in this regard, since 'oversight issue' indeed has been one > that developing countires have been united about the need to do something > about for many years now, India had to place the oversight role somewhere > in its proposal. Also to mention again, the functions that India did > propose for CIRP all came from 3 of the four models suggested by the WGIG, > which went through considerable multistakehoder discussion at that time. > However, as they said in the statement, they were eager to hear other > people's views on this, and so if anyone thinks oversight should not be > here, tell them where it should be (no, not with the US gov) rather than > ridicule everything a 'oh so impertinent' developing country may say. > > > parminder > > >> Chaitanya, >> >> the most interesting aspect of this meeting with the Indian Minister for >> IT will be to see if there remains any endorsement for CIRP after today's >> meeting on enhanced cooperation, particularly any official endorsement >> from the Indian Government. When will trustworthy notes from that meeting >> be released? What representation of the official position of the >> government of India is authoritative? (Parminder, your complaint that >> governments are not well coordinated would be most pertinent here, if I >> understood/recall it well.) >> >> Parminder, could you ratify/clarify a statement you made at the end, just >> because the microphones were turned off? I heard you say "maybe the >> oversight part should not be included". This - for those not present - was >> after Parminder said that the CIRP proposal does not affect any existing >> Internet Governance mechanisms, and Bill Drake read text (which was also >> readable in the rolling transcript) proving that it does, and does more, >> like propose CIRP to perform arbitration and other functions. >> >> Yours, >> >> Alejandro Pisanty >> >> >> ! !! !!! !!!! >> NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO >> >> >> >> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD >> >> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO >> >> SMS +525541444475 >> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >> UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >> >> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, >> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty >> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> >> ________________________________ >> Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Chaitanya Dhareshwar >> [chaitanyabd at gmail.com] >> Enviado el: domingo, 04 de noviembre de 2012 22:45 >> Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> CC: parminder at itforchange.net >> Asunto: Re: [governance] URGENT- meeting with the Indian minister >> >> +1 Great stuff Parminder! I'm assuming there will be some sort of >> summary/minutes of the meeting so the rest of us have an idea of what the >> good minister's plans are for the future. >> >> -C >> >> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> > >> wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> This is excellent Parminder and a great opportunity to engage in dialogue. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 8:31 AM, >> > wrote: >> >> >> Dear All >> >> The Indian minister for IT will like to meet civil members tomorrow >> morning at 930 AM at the Park Hyatt Hotel, here in Baku. >> >> I know this is pretty late to inform you about it but \i have personally >> invited almost all civil society guys who are already at Baku for the >> bestbits meeting. However, there may be others who may have reached Baku >> and be interested to meet the minister, in which case please do consider >> yourself invited, in case you can make it to Park Hyatt by 930 AM. >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 00:47:02 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 07:47:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] Censorship of postcards at the IGF In-Reply-To: <20121106050147.GA7833@tarvainen.info> References: <20121106050147.GA7833@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Thank you Tapanai. I agree. It seems that I misinterpreted and misunderstood the banner. Fahd On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Nov 05 20:02, Fahd A. Batayneh (fahd.batayneh at gmail.com) wrote: > > > Rumor has it that Indonesia is expected to host the 8th IGF meeting in > > Jakarta. Such banners seem weird for a country willing to host this > annual > > event > > How so? I would think the opposite: Indonesians protesting against > censorship is a good sign. > > Now if they were protesting against Indonesian government or stopped > by them it would be different, but as long as Indonesian government > doesn't mind (or at least pretends not to), I think this is a positive > indication about freedom of expression in Indonesia and most > appropriate for next IGF host. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 6 01:08:54 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:08:54 +0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TODAY 2.30-4.00 Workshop: National IG Mechanisms - Looking at Some Key Design Issues In-Reply-To: <008901cdbbe0$003eda80$00bc8f80$@gmail.com> References: <008901cdbbe0$003eda80$00bc8f80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001cdbbe5$35694a10$a03bde30$@gmail.com> We just learned of the change in date from Friday at 2.30-4.00 TODAY at 2.30-4.00 (Rm. 10) ... Sorry for any confusion. The broad objective of the Workshop is to explore alternative strategies for managing in the public interest Internet resources at the national level based on the practical experience of several countries in this area--notably Brazil, New Zealand, India, and Kenya. (We would invite others of those with an interest and experience to present/discuss this from their own national experience as well.) 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Nov 6 01:39:46 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:39:46 +0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Censorship of postcards at the IGF References: <2BA01659-8281-47ED-812A-725E656307DF@unog.ch> Message-ID: <4647C94D-5657-42A9-9F98-EA82DCB0F0D5@ciroap.org> So here is the official line. Questions that this opens up: 1. If the issue was with "random placement" of the postcards, it should be fine to distribute the postcards from any booth that is willing to host them within the IGF Village. So, can we test that hypothesis? Donny, can you try that and see what happens? 2. One of the postcards had a specific reference to a country? There is none that I could see, but maybe it is on the reverse side? 3. Like last time, the official rationalisation seems to differ from what the individual concerned was told at the time. This in itself is a problem - they are making up the rules as they go along. I have edited the document on the pad at http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/un-censorship-statement. I think we have enough information now to finalise the statement soon and start gathering support and disseminating it. Do we have any press contacts on this list who could attend the IGF official press conference and raise this matter? Begin forwarded message: > From: Chengetai Masango > Subject: Re: Censorship of postcards at the IGF > Date: 6 November 2012 9:56:06 AM GMT+04:00 > To: jeremy at ciroap.org > > Hi Jeremy, > > The main thing about the postcards is that we discourage the random placement of literature across the IGF venue. We have designated places where people or organisations can deposit their materials for distribution or pick up by interested individuals. > > Of the two post cards that I saw, there was no problem with one but the other had a specific reference to a country, as you know there is a standard UN policy of not singling out specific entities or people but rather to address the issue. (We hold that it is unfair to single out one entity if the issue is not endemic to that particular entity). A perfunctory check is done to make sure that this is not the case. This is done in an effort to enable free, open and respectful discussion, (which in my view is essential in the IGF). > > One of the UN staff had a polite talk with the gentleman distributing the postcards and he seemed to understand. > > Best regards > > Chengetai -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers 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 Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | 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 gideonrop at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 01:40:31 2012 From: gideonrop at gmail.com (Gideon) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 09:40:31 +0300 Subject: [governance] Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change Request Made by DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa Message-ID: Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change Request Made by DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs123/1102516344150/archive/1111325860695.html Gideon Rop -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 6 02:29:48 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 11:29:48 +0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Censorship of postcards at the IGF In-Reply-To: References: <2BA01659-8281-47ED-812A-725E656307DF@unog.ch> <4647C94D-5657-42A9-9F98-EA82DCB0F0D5@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <6A048AB8-D25D-4575-96F1-ED57B751B076@ciroap.org> On 06/11/2012, at 11:17 AM, "Donny B.U." wrote: > i dont want to argue furthermore with the UN officer, also because when he asked me not to distribute the postcards, around me are people from indonesian embassy including the ambasador and from the ict ministry. i have to respect them, as the formal delegation that will fight for the next igf. But you are OK that we raise it as a broader issue? In the latest draft of the statement, I am concluding: "We urge the IGF Secretariat to clarify the position relating to the distribution of written materials at the IGF, and not to inhibit their distribution except in accordance with a clear set of written rules that has been promulgated to all delegates in advance. Such rules should not blindly adhere to the UN protocols that may subsist in intergovernmental fora, given that the IGF is not a UN body but operates on a unique multi-stakeholder basis that encourages free and open discussion." -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers 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 Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 6 02:33:32 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 13:03:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change Request Made by DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: so,,,? does this suddenly award you the .africa TLD or something? --srs (iPad) On 06-Nov-2012, at 12:10, Gideon wrote: > > Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change Request Made by DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa > > http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs123/1102516344150/archive/1111325860695.html > > > > Gideon Rop > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 6 03:00:01 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 08:00:01 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Censorship of postcards at the IGF In-Reply-To: <4647C94D-5657-42A9-9F98-EA82DCB0F0D5@ciroap.org> References: <2BA01659-8281-47ED-812A-725E656307DF@unog.ch>,<4647C94D-5657-42A9-9F98-EA82DCB0F0D5@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D59F294CF@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Hi, daring to intervene here... to the best of my knowledge the core troublesome reference is in the reverse of one of the postcards that calls a country a dangerous place. We have known for long - even in the MAG which is a closed and more relaxed forum - that specific references to countries and certain other entities. So you may refer to "governments" in general - within some pretty broad bounds - but not one in particular. And there's hardly any way the rules allow to single out a country. The subtleties of these rules are often more stifling than an invitation to open free speech but they do allow for lots of creative ways to deliver messages - with broader impact. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org] Enviado el: martes, 06 de noviembre de 2012 00:39 Hasta: Bits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: [governance] Re: Censorship of postcards at the IGF So here is the official line. Questions that this opens up: 1. If the issue was with "random placement" of the postcards, it should be fine to distribute the postcards from any booth that is willing to host them within the IGF Village. So, can we test that hypothesis? Donny, can you try that and see what happens? 2. One of the postcards had a specific reference to a country? There is none that I could see, but maybe it is on the reverse side? 3. Like last time, the official rationalisation seems to differ from what the individual concerned was told at the time. This in itself is a problem - they are making up the rules as they go along. I have edited the document on the pad at http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/un-censorship-statement. I think we have enough information now to finalise the statement soon and start gathering support and disseminating it. Do we have any press contacts on this list who could attend the IGF official press conference and raise this matter? Begin forwarded message: From: Chengetai Masango > Subject: Re: Censorship of postcards at the IGF Date: 6 November 2012 9:56:06 AM GMT+04:00 To: jeremy at ciroap.org Hi Jeremy, The main thing about the postcards is that we discourage the random placement of literature across the IGF venue. We have designated places where people or organisations can deposit their materials for distribution or pick up by interested individuals. Of the two post cards that I saw, there was no problem with one but the other had a specific reference to a country, as you know there is a standard UN policy of not singling out specific entities or people but rather to address the issue. (We hold that it is unfair to single out one entity if the issue is not endemic to that particular entity). A perfunctory check is done to make sure that this is not the case. This is done in an effort to enable free, open and respectful discussion, (which in my view is essential in the IGF). One of the UN staff had a polite talk with the gentleman distributing the postcards and he seemed to understand. Best regards Chengetai -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers 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 Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Tue Nov 6 03:00:53 2012 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 09:00:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change Request Made by DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20121106080052.GA26811@nic.fr> On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 09:40:31AM +0300, Gideon wrote a message of 62 lines which said: > Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change Request Made by > DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa So, incompetence and stupidity are rewarded? Morons can type "dotafrica" instead of "africa" in the form and ICANN allows them to fix their stupid error? What a shame. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 6 03:56:58 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 12:56:58 +0400 Subject: [governance] Meeting with US gov In-Reply-To: <91CE1491-95FB-4271-BE12-9406B9EBEAFA@uzh.ch> References: <2FFF6C8B-AB51-44C3-9F4A-59B48F743D4B@apc.org> <50536371.6020100@apc.org> <8CF60B72476B741-128C-62EFC@webmail-m155.sysops.aol.com> <50538B18.8070204@apc.org> <91CE1491-95FB-4271-BE12-9406B9EBEAFA@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <131861BB-7987-44D5-8A7B-4992BA71C5CC@uzh.ch> Hello I received a couple dozen replies expressing interest in this meeting, which the room is big enough to accommodate. So a general announcement in reply: please come to room G. at 18:10. I'm not sure how long we will have. The Gala Reception begins at 19:00 at the Buta Palace which appears to be near the expo center but I assume they will still want to bus us. I've written to the secretariat and host asking how late the buses will be running between the two spots. In the worst case scenario, there are a lot of taxis around and the ride should be short and cheap, especially if people are sharing the ride. I imagine the main focus of discussion will be the WCIT, but if CS folks have other issues they want to bring up, fine. Best Bill On Nov 5, 2012, at 3:35 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hello > > I'm organizing a meeting between a few CS people from the US WCIT del etc with Larry Strickling (Asst. Secretary of Commerce), Fiona Alexander (head of international at NTIA), Terry Kramer (US Ambassaor to WCIT), and Manu Bhardwaj (Dept. of State). This will be 18:00 tomorrow, Tuesday at the IGF site. It looks like the room they've given us is big enough to accommodate more CS people, so if anyone would like to join, please contact me off list. > > Best > > Bill > > ***************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow > 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Tue Nov 6 07:58:31 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 16:58:31 +0400 Subject: [governance] Meeting with US gov In-Reply-To: <131861BB-7987-44D5-8A7B-4992BA71C5CC@uzh.ch> References: <2FFF6C8B-AB51-44C3-9F4A-59B48F743D4B@apc.org> <50536371.6020100@apc.org> <8CF60B72476B741-128C-62EFC@webmail-m155.sysops.aol.com> <50538B18.8070204@apc.org> <91CE1491-95FB-4271-BE12-9406B9EBEAFA@uzh.ch> <131861BB-7987-44D5-8A7B-4992BA71C5CC@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Workshops running half hour late, meeting will be @ 18:20 On Nov 6, 2012, at 12:56, William Drake wrote: > Hello > > I received a couple dozen replies expressing interest in this meeting, which the room is big enough to accommodate. So a general announcement in reply: please come to room G. at 18:10. I'm not sure how long we will have. The Gala Reception begins at 19:00 at the Buta Palace which appears to be near the expo center but I assume they will still want to bus us. I've written to the secretariat and host asking how late the buses will be running between the two spots. In the worst case scenario, there are a lot of taxis around and the ride should be short and cheap, especially if people are sharing the ride. > > I imagine the main focus of discussion will be the WCIT, but if CS folks have other issues they want to bring up, fine. > > Best > > Bill > > > On Nov 5, 2012, at 3:35 PM, William Drake wrote: > >> Hello >> >> I'm organizing a meeting between a few CS people from the US WCIT del etc with Larry Strickling (Asst. Secretary of Commerce), Fiona Alexander (head of international at NTIA), Terry Kramer (US Ambassaor to WCIT), and Manu Bhardwaj (Dept. of State). This will be 18:00 tomorrow, Tuesday at the IGF site. It looks like the room they've given us is big enough to accommodate more CS people, so if anyone would like to join, please contact me off list. >> >> Best >> >> Bill >> >> ***************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> william.drake at uzh.ch >> www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake >> www.williamdrake.org >> ***************************************************** >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wnew at ip-watch.ch Tue Nov 6 08:54:49 2012 From: wnew at ip-watch.ch (William New) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 14:54:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change Request Made by DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <016b01cdbc26$4a418740$dec495c0$@ip-watch.ch> http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/11/03/top-level-domain-africa-becomes-object-of-bitter-fight/ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 8:34 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Gideon Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change Request Made by DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa so,,,? does this suddenly award you the .africa TLD or something? --srs (iPad) On 06-Nov-2012, at 12:10, Gideon wrote: Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change Request Made by DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs123/1102516344150/archive/1111325860695.html Gideon Rop ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 6 10:30:34 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:30:34 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: TODAY 2.30-4.00 Workshop: National IG Mechanisms - Looking at Some Key Design Issues In-Reply-To: <000001cdbbe5$35694a10$a03bde30$@gmail.com> References: <008901cdbbe0$003eda80$00bc8f80$@gmail.com> <000001cdbbe5$35694a10$a03bde30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: ISOC comissiooned a study on this, just came out at: www.internetsociety.org/assessing_national_IG On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:08 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > We just learned of the change in date from Friday at 2.30-4.00 TODAY at > 2.30-4.00 (Rm. 10) ... Sorry for any confusion. > > The broad objective of the Workshop is to explore alternative strategies for > managing in the public interest Internet resources at the national level > based on the practical experience of several countries in this area--notably > Brazil, New Zealand, India, and Kenya. > > (We would invite others of those with an interest and experience to > present/discuss this from their own national experience as well.) > > Mike > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 6 10:43:13 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 21:13:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change Request Made by DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa Message-ID: Very well put. Thanks for sharing. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "William New" To: , "'Suresh Ramasubramanian'" , "'Gideon'" Subject: [governance] Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change Request Made by DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa Date: Tue, Nov 6, 2012 7:24 PM http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/11/03/top-level-domain-africa-becomes-object-of-bitter-fight/ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 8:34 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Gideon Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change Request Made by DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa so,,,? does this suddenly award you the .africa TLD or something? --srs (iPad) On 06-Nov-2012, at 12:10, Gideon wrote: Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change Request Made by DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs123/1102516344150/archive/1111325860695.html Gideon Rop ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bavouc at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 10:52:05 2012 From: bavouc at gmail.com (Martial Bavou[Private Business Account]) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 16:52:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection Message-ID: Hi, It is quite not easy to get connected remotely, sound like there is something wrong technically, hope this will be sorted out before tomorrow. Possible to have some pictures from those who are on site? Thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Tue Nov 6 11:01:30 2012 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 17:01:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: TODAY 2.30-4.00 Workshop: National IG Mechanisms - Looking at Some Key Design Issues In-Reply-To: <000001cdbbe5$35694a10$a03bde30$@gmail.com> References: <008901cdbbe0$003eda80$00bc8f80$@gmail.com> <000001cdbbe5$35694a10$a03bde30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Great uncle Michael. +1 for the need to share national experience. I have a strong support for enhanced cooperation to move the multi-stakeholders dimension of Internet for all. Sea On Nov 6, 2012 7:10 AM, "michael gurstein" wrote: > We just learned of the change in date from Friday at 2.30-4.00 TODAY at > 2.30-4.00 (Rm. 10) ... Sorry for any confusion. > > The broad objective of the Workshop is to explore alternative strategies > for > managing in the public interest Internet resources at the national level > based on the practical experience of several countries in this > area--notably > Brazil, New Zealand, India, and Kenya. > > (We would invite others of those with an interest and experience to > present/discuss this from their own national experience as well.) > > Mike > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 11:22:06 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 11:22:06 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: TODAY 2.30-4.00 Workshop: National IG Mechanisms - Looking at Some Key Design Issues In-Reply-To: References: <008901cdbbe0$003eda80$00bc8f80$@gmail.com> <000001cdbbe5$35694a10$a03bde30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > Great uncle Michael. > > +1 for the need to share national experience. > > I have a strong support for enhanced cooperation to move the > multi-stakeholders dimension of Internet for all. Isn't "enhanced cooperation" a code phrase (for many folks anyway) for more governmental involvement and less CS influence in IG? -- 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 antoinekantiza at hotmail.com Tue Nov 6 11:31:14 2012 From: antoinekantiza at hotmail.com (ANTOINE KANTIZA) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 16:31:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: TODAY 2.30-4.00 Workshop: National IG Mechanisms - Looking at Some Key Design Issues In-Reply-To: References: <008901cdbbe0$003eda80$00bc8f80$@gmail.com>,<000001cdbbe5$35694a10$a03bde30$@gmail.com>, Message-ID: Dear Michael Gurstein, Warm greeting from Bujumbura, I am ready to share my experience related to the management of public interest resources in Burundi during the forthcoming workshop. . It is worth mentioning that I have an interest in the Internet subject as I am Expert in Internet Governance as well as in Intellectual Property Rights focused on the online content. Best regards, Prof Antoine KANTIZA, Master UTICEF,- Webmaster à la Radio-Télévision Nationale du Burundi http://www.burundi-quotidien.net & http://www.rtnb.bi/ Représentant légal de l'ASBL PLEAD " PROMOTION DE L'EDUCATION A DISTANCE" http://promotioneducationdistance.blogspot.com http://www.linkedin.com/pub/antoine-kantiza/25/603/446 Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 17:01:30 +0100 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; gurstein at gmail.com Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TODAY 2.30-4.00 Workshop: National IG Mechanisms - Looking at Some Key Design Issues Great uncle Michael. +1 for the need to share national experience. I have a strong support for enhanced cooperation to move the multi-stakeholders dimension of Internet for all. Sea On Nov 6, 2012 7:10 AM, "michael gurstein" wrote: We just learned of the change in date from Friday at 2.30-4.00 TODAY at 2.30-4.00 (Rm. 10) ... Sorry for any confusion. The broad objective of the Workshop is to explore alternative strategies for managing in the public interest Internet resources at the national level based on the practical experience of several countries in this area--notably Brazil, New Zealand, India, and Kenya. (We would invite others of those with an interest and experience to present/discuss this from their own national experience as well.) Mike ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From m.ermert at gmx.de Tue Nov 6 11:37:45 2012 From: m.ermert at gmx.de (Monika Ermert) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 17:37:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Censorship of postcards at the IGF In-Reply-To: <4647C94D-5657-42A9-9F98-EA82DCB0F0D5@ciroap.org> References: <2BA01659-8281-47ED-812A-725E656307DF@unog.ch> <4647C94D-5657-42A9-9F98-EA82DCB0F0D5@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <50993CD9.9070608@gmx.de> Hi, i will bring it up at the press conference possibly together with another case i learned of today from some local people that obviously were prevented from distributing material. I got some rough information from a Swedish TV team that is about doing a documentary and tried to help. Still trying to get details and a contact. Best, Monika Am 06.11.2012 07:39, schrieb Jeremy Malcolm: > So here is the official line. Questions that this opens up: > > 1. If the issue was with "random placement" of the postcards, it > should be fine to distribute the postcards from any booth that is > willing to host them within the IGF Village. So, can we test that > hypothesis? Donny, can you try that and see what happens? > > 2. One of the postcards had a specific reference to a country? There > is none that I could see, but maybe it is on the reverse side? > > 3. Like last time, the official rationalisation seems to differ from > what the individual concerned was told at the time. This in itself is > a problem - they are making up the rules as they go along. > > I have edited the document on the pad at > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/un-censorship-statement. I think we have > enough information now to finalise the statement soon and start > gathering support and disseminating it. > > Do we have any press contacts on this list who could attend the IGF > official press conference and raise this matter? > > Begin forwarded message: > >> *From: *Chengetai Masango > >> *Subject: **Re: Censorship of postcards at the IGF* >> *Date: *6 November 2012 9:56:06 AM GMT+04:00 >> *To: *jeremy at ciroap.org >> >> Hi Jeremy, >> >> The main thing about the postcards is that we discourage the random >> placement of literature across the IGF venue. We have designated >> places where people or organisations can deposit their materials for >> distribution or pick up by interested individuals. >> >> Of the two post cards that I saw, there was no problem with one but >> the other had a specific reference to a country, as you know there is >> a standard UN policy of not singling out specific entities or >> people but rather to address the issue. (We hold that it is unfair to >> single out one entity if the issue is not endemic to that particular >> entity). A perfunctory check is done to make sure that this is not >> the case. This is done in an effort to enable free, open and >> respectful discussion, (which in my view is essential in the IGF). >> >> One of the UN staff had a polite talk with the gentleman distributing >> the postcards and he seemed to understand. >> >> Best regards >> >> Chengetai > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > 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 > > *Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:* > http://consint.info/RightsMission > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Nov 6 12:27:19 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 21:27:19 +0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TODAY 2.30-4.00 Workshop: National IG Mechanisms - Looking at Some Key Design Issues Message-ID: Yes, David was at the workshop and presented a short sumary. Thx, McTim. --c.a. Carlos A. AfonsoMcTim escreveu:ISOC comissiooned a study on this, just came out at: www.internetsociety.org/assessing_national_IG On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:08 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > We just learned of the change in date from Friday at 2.30-4.00 TODAY at > 2.30-4.00 (Rm. 10) ... Sorry for any confusion. > > The broad objective of the Workshop is to explore alternative strategies for > managing in the public interest Internet resources at the national level > based on the practical experience of several countries in this area--notably > Brazil, New Zealand, India, and Kenya. > > (We would invite others of those with an interest and experience to > present/discuss this from their own national experience as well.) > > Mike > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- 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 nb at bollow.ch Tue Nov 6 13:34:21 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 19:34:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, as I'm organizing a workshop tomorrow Wednesday, I'd really very much like to know to what extent remote participation was possible today. I mean, what was working technically? Has it been possible for remote people to follow what is going on? Are they able to communicate interventions by voice? Is there at least a wire-based Internet connection for the Remote Moderator so that remote people can comment by irc or twitter or skype and the remote moderator would read it out then? Greetings, Norbert On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Martial Bavou[Private Business Account] wrote: > Hi, > > > > It is quite not easy to get connected remotely, sound like there is > something wrong technically, hope this will be sorted out before tomorrow. > Possible to have some pictures from those who are on site? > > > > Thanks > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 nne75 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 6 13:44:00 2012 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:44:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection Message-ID: <1352227440.97160.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Hi Norbert, I did try my hands on the machines in two rooms. They have wired connection. However, I also got feedback from people who got connected but said they had difficulty in getting sound and video. Maybe I should hear others. But overall, I don't think the RP is the greatest achievement of Baku..... to say the least. Best Nnenna ------------------------------ On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 6:34 PM GMT Norbert Bollow wrote: >Dear all, > > as I'm organizing a workshop tomorrow Wednesday, I'd really very >much like to know to what extent remote participation was possible >today. I mean, what was working technically? Has it been possible for >remote people to follow what is going on? Are they able to communicate >interventions by voice? Is there at least a wire-based Internet >connection for the Remote Moderator so that remote people can comment >by irc or twitter or skype and the remote moderator would read it out >then? > >Greetings, >Norbert > >On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Martial Bavou[Private Business >Account] wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >> >> It is quite not easy to get connected remotely, sound like there is >> something wrong technically, hope this will be sorted out before tomorrow. >> Possible to have some pictures from those who are on site? >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 nne75 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 6 13:44:05 2012 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:44:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection Message-ID: <1352227445.98654.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web120103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Hi Norbert, I did try my hands on the machines in two rooms. They have wired connection. However, I also got feedback from people who got connected but said they had difficulty in getting sound and video. Maybe I should hear others. But overall, I don't think the RP is the greatest achievement of Baku..... to say the least. Best Nnenna ------------------------------ On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 6:34 PM GMT Norbert Bollow wrote: >Dear all, > > as I'm organizing a workshop tomorrow Wednesday, I'd really very >much like to know to what extent remote participation was possible >today. I mean, what was working technically? Has it been possible for >remote people to follow what is going on? Are they able to communicate >interventions by voice? Is there at least a wire-based Internet >connection for the Remote Moderator so that remote people can comment >by irc or twitter or skype and the remote moderator would read it out >then? > >Greetings, >Norbert > >On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Martial Bavou[Private Business >Account] wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >> >> It is quite not easy to get connected remotely, sound like there is >> something wrong technically, hope this will be sorted out before tomorrow. >> Possible to have some pictures from those who are on site? >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 shailam at yahoo.com Tue Nov 6 13:55:43 2012 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:55:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1352228143.46381.YahooMailNeo@web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Hi everyone I too have tried several times to participate. Each time I am sent a different route of downloads and logins , finally leading to a dead end. Please advise what can be done ? Shaila Rao Mistry   The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! ..................... the renaissance of composure ! ________________________________ From: Norbert Bollow To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 10:34 AM Subject: Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection Dear all,   as I'm organizing a workshop tomorrow Wednesday, I'd really very much like to know to what extent remote participation was possible today. I mean, what was working technically? Has it been possible for remote people to follow what is going on? Are they able to communicate interventions by voice? Is there at least a wire-based Internet connection for the Remote Moderator so that remote people can comment by irc or twitter or skype and the remote moderator would read it out then? Greetings, Norbert On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Martial Bavou[Private Business Account] wrote: > Hi, > > > > It is quite not easy to get connected remotely, sound like there is > something wrong technically, hope this will be sorted out before tomorrow. > Possible to have some pictures from those who are on site? > > > > Thanks > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From langdonorr at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 14:03:10 2012 From: langdonorr at gmail.com (Cheryl Langdon-Orr) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 06:03:10 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: Censorship of postcards at the IGF In-Reply-To: <50993CD9.9070608@gmx.de> References: <2BA01659-8281-47ED-812A-725E656307DF@unog.ch> <4647C94D-5657-42A9-9F98-EA82DCB0F0D5@ciroap.org> <50993CD9.9070608@gmx.de> Message-ID: FYI... see what I mean... .. We need to be 'on record in our own files at least' On Nov 6, 2012 8:39 PM, "Monika Ermert" wrote: > Hi, > > i will bring it up at the press conference possibly together with another > case i learned of today from some local people that obviously were > prevented from distributing material. I got some rough information from a > Swedish TV team that is about doing a documentary and tried to help. Still > trying to get details and a contact. > > Best, > > Monika > > Am 06.11.2012 07:39, schrieb Jeremy Malcolm: > > So here is the official line. Questions that this opens up: > > 1. If the issue was with "random placement" of the postcards, it should > be fine to distribute the postcards from any booth that is willing to host > them within the IGF Village. So, can we test that hypothesis? Donny, can > you try that and see what happens? > > 2. One of the postcards had a specific reference to a country? There is > none that I could see, but maybe it is on the reverse side? > > 3. Like last time, the official rationalisation seems to differ from > what the individual concerned was told at the time. This in itself is a > problem - they are making up the rules as they go along. > > I have edited the document on the pad at > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/un-censorship-statement. I think we have > enough information now to finalise the statement soon and start gathering > support and disseminating it. > > Do we have any press contacts on this list who could attend the IGF > official press conference and raise this matter? > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Chengetai Masango > *Subject: **Re: Censorship of postcards at the IGF* > *Date: *6 November 2012 9:56:06 AM GMT+04:00 > *To: *jeremy at ciroap.org > > Hi Jeremy, > > The main thing about the postcards is that we discourage the random > placement of literature across the IGF venue. We have designated places > where people or organisations can deposit their materials for distribution > or pick up by interested individuals. > > Of the two post cards that I saw, there was no problem with one but the > other had a specific reference to a country, as you know there is a > standard UN policy of not singling out specific entities or people but > rather to address the issue. (We hold that it is unfair to single out one > entity if the issue is not endemic to that particular entity). A > perfunctory check is done to make sure that this is not the case. This is > done in an effort to enable free, open and respectful discussion, (which in > my view is essential in the IGF). > > One of the UN staff had a polite talk with the gentleman distributing > the postcards and he seemed to understand. > > Best regards > > Chengetai > > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > 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 > > *Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:* > http://consint.info/RightsMission > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Nov 6 14:04:01 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 06:04:01 +1100 Subject: [governance] Remote Connection In-Reply-To: <1352228143.46381.YahooMailNeo@web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I didn¹t try remote participation but listened in for a while to Opening Ceremony. Webcast was OK, only breaking up occasionally. Ian Peter From: shaila mistry Reply-To: , shaila mistry Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:55:43 -0800 (PST) To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection Hi everyone I too have tried several times to participate. Each time I am sent a different route of downloads and logins , finally leading to a dead end. Please advise what can be done ? Shaila Rao Mistry The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! ..................... the renaissance of composure ! From: Norbert Bollow To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 10:34 AM Subject: Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection Dear all, as I'm organizing a workshop tomorrow Wednesday, I'd really very much like to know to what extent remote participation was possible today. I mean, what was working technically? Has it been possible for remote people to follow what is going on? Are they able to communicate interventions by voice? Is there at least a wire-based Internet connection for the Remote Moderator so that remote people can comment by irc or twitter or skype and the remote moderator would read it out then? Greetings, Norbert On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Martial Bavou[Private Business Account] wrote: > Hi, > > > > It is quite not easy to get connected remotely, sound like there is > something wrong technically, hope this will be sorted out before tomorrow. > Possible to have some pictures from those who are on site? > > > > Thanks > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From admin at alkasir.com Tue Nov 6 14:08:44 2012 From: admin at alkasir.com (Walid AL-SAQAF ) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 20:08:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] Remote Connection In-Reply-To: References: <1352228143.46381.YahooMailNeo@web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I tried the remote participation page but keep getting a remote login page and I have no way to register. Sincerely, Walid ----------------- Walid Al-Saqaf Founder & Administrator alkasir for mapping and circumventing cyber censorship https://alkasir.com On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > I didn’t try remote participation but listened in for a while to Opening > Ceremony. Webcast was OK, only breaking up occasionally. > > Ian Peter > > > ------------------------------ > *From: *shaila mistry > *Reply-To: *, shaila mistry < > shailam at yahoo.com> > *Date: *Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:55:43 -0800 (PST) > *To: *"governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , > Norbert Bollow > *Subject: *Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection > > > Hi everyone > I too have tried several times to participate. Each time I am sent a > different route of downloads and logins , finally leading to a dead end. > Please advise what can be done ? > Shaila Rao Mistry > > *The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! > ..................... the renaissance of composure ! > * > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Norbert Bollow > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 6, 2012 10:34 AM > *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection > > > Dear all, > > as I'm organizing a workshop tomorrow Wednesday, I'd really very > much like to know to what extent remote participation was possible > today. I mean, what was working technically? Has it been possible for > remote people to follow what is going on? Are they able to communicate > interventions by voice? Is there at least a wire-based Internet > connection for the Remote Moderator so that remote people can comment > by irc or twitter or skype and the remote moderator would read it out > then? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Martial Bavou[Private Business > Account] wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > > > > It is quite not easy to get connected remotely, sound like there is > > something wrong technically, hope this will be sorted out before > tomorrow. > > Possible to have some pictures from those who are on site? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Tue Nov 6 14:16:40 2012 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 11:16:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection In-Reply-To: <1352228143.46381.YahooMailNeo@web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1352228143.46381.YahooMailNeo@web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1352229400.49284.YahooMailNeo@web160502.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Hi everyone I too have tried several times to participate. Each time I am sent a different route of downloads and logins , finally leading to a dead end. Please advise what can be done ? Shaila Rao Mistry   The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! ..................... the renaissance of composure ! ________________________________ From: Norbert Bollow To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 10:34 AM Subject: Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection Dear all,   as I'm organizing a workshop tomorrow Wednesday, I'd really very much like to know to what extent remote participation was possible today. I mean, what was working technically? Has it been possible for remote people to follow what is going on? Are they able to communicate interventions by voice? Is there at least a wire-based Internet connection for the Remote Moderator so that remote people can comment by irc or twitter or skype and the remote moderator would read it out then? Greetings, Norbert On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Martial Bavou[Private Business Account] wrote: > Hi, > > > > It is quite not easy to get connected remotely, sound like there is > something wrong technically, hope this will be sorted out before tomorrow. > Possible to have some pictures from those who are on site? > > > > Thanks > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 6 15:04:04 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 21:04:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection In-Reply-To: <1352229400.49284.YahooMailNeo@web160502.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1352228143.46381.YahooMailNeo@web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1352229400.49284.YahooMailNeo@web160502.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:16 PM, shaila mistry wrote: > Hi everyone > I too have tried several times to participate. Each time I am sent a > different route of downloads and logins , finally leading to a dead end. > Please advise what can be done ? > Shaila Rao Mistry Have you tried contacting "Remote Participation general help" ? Do they respond? If yes, what are they saying? If no, let us know, so that we can push locally for those help email addresses to be handled in a meaningful way. In the long run, what we need is funding to put a competent person in charge of ensuring in an ongoing manner (year after year) that IGF remote participation is made available in a way that can be expected to work (which presupposes learning from what went wrong in earlier years, and it presupposes serious testing well before the first day of the IGF). It is simply unacceptable for an entirely new technical team to put in charge of remote participation every year, and the remote participation infrastructure again and again being so absurdly unreliable.) 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 wongc at hrw.org Tue Nov 6 16:26:27 2012 From: wongc at hrw.org (Cynthia Wong) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 21:26:27 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: URGENT : Open Letter of the Expression Online Initiative to Secretariat and Delegates of the 7th IGF Message-ID: All: see below a press release from the Expression Online Initiative, the consortium of Azerbaijan freedom of expression groups: From: Expression Online [mailto:info at expressiononline.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 5:39 AM Subject: URGENT : Open Letter of the Expression Online Initiative to Secretariat and Delegates of the 7th IGF[MARKETING EMAIL] Open Letter of the Expression Online Initiative to Secretariat and Delegates of the 7th Internet Governance Forum The Expression Online Initiative is writing to express serious concerns regarding violations of UN main principles that continue to take place during the seventh annual Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Baku. These violations have included: restrictions on freedom of expression and freedom of association; failure to guarantee equal rights for every participant; and discriminatory practices against local civil society organizations and their representatives. The Expression Online Initiative is a consortium of Azerbaijani freedom of expression organizations including the Human Rights Club, the Azerbaijan Media Center and the Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety. In early July 2012, the coalition sent an official request to the IGF Secretariat to make arrangements for a booth at the IGF village. Despite the fact that we sent several follow-up emails, the Secretariat failed to respond until the week before the IGF. At that stage, the Secretariat agreed to provide a booth for the Expression Online Initiative. Then, two days before the event, the Secretariat informed Expression Online that no booth would be available, stating that “preference is given to international organizations.” This statement contradicts the IGF main principle that guarantees equal participation of all stakeholders. As stated in the “IGF Background Note” from 2010, “the IGF serves as a laboratory, a neutral space, where all actors can table an issue. (…) Its UN mandate gives it convening power and the authority to serve as a neutral space for all actors on an equal footing.” Furthermore, the Secretariat tried to prevent distribution of the Expression Online Initiative’s reports Searching for Freedom: Online Expression in Azerbaijan and The Right to Remain Silent: Freedom of Expression in Azerbaijan ahead of the 7th Internet Governance Forum. The IGF coordinator told our representatives “You are not allowed to distribute these reports within IGF premises.” Our attempt to distribute these reports, which examine issues in Azerbaijan which are directly relevant to the IGF, were perceived by the Secretariat as an attempt to “attack one of the stakeholder group,” i.e. the Azerbaijani government. It is worth mentioning that Secretariat staff did attempt to assist the Expression Online Initiative. They suggested that we seek permission from the Azerbaijani government, specifically the Ministry of Communications and Information Technologies (ICT Ministry), to distribute the report. The Secretariat’s IGF Coordinator said “If your government does not find the content insulting we will provide you with the booth and allow distribution of those two reports.” The Expression Online Initiative considers this requirement to seek permission from the authorities to be an undue exercise of influence from the IGF host country. The matter of the booth was not an isolated incident. Expression Online representatives faced other instances of discriminatory treatment. For example, one representative experienced particular difficulty in attempting to register for the IGF. A representative of UN security subjected him to extensive questioning about his motives for attempting to register and handed his personal ID card to the local authorities. In particular, they asked him whether he planned to stage a protest at the IGF, a question which was again asked by the host country-appointed registration staff. Representatives of the online television station Obyektiv TV, which is affiliated with the Expression Online Initiative, also experienced discriminatory treatment in seeking to register its correspondents for the IGF. Although they were eventually registered, the host country-appointed registration staff attempted to prevent their registration. As grounds for potential refusal, they claimed that the Azerbaijani ICT Ministry did not consider Obyektiv TV to be a media outlet. It should be noted that the registration staff are members of an Azerbaijani pro-governmental youth organization which has a vested interest in interfering with who can attend the IGF. The Expression Online Initiative calls for an immediate investigation into these and other reports of violations of rights and discriminatory treatment, and public clarification about the relevant procedures for registration and dissemination of materials. [http://staticapp.icpsc.com/icp/loadimage.php/mogile/1203606/e540cc4668aa984006923bd65d291310/image/png] Expression Online Initiative Address: 8 R. Behbudov St., Apt. 85/86, Baku, Azerbaijan e-mail: info at expressiononline.net phone : (+99450) 398 48 38 (+99450) 508-78-87 Expression Online Initiative | R.Behbudov 8, apt 85/86 | Baku, Sabael AZ1000, Azerbaijan Email Marketing by [iContact - Try It Free!] Update Profile | Send To a Friend -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 6 16:28:22 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 10:28:22 +1300 Subject: [governance] FW: URGENT : Open Letter of the Expression Online Initiative to Secretariat and Delegates of the 7th IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Cynthia. Dear All - Now would be a great time to release the Statement that we worked earlier in the year. Sala On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Cynthia Wong wrote: > All: see below a press release from the Expression Online Initiative, > the consortium of Azerbaijan freedom of expression groups:**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Expression Online [mailto:info at expressiononline.net] > > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 06, 2012 5:39 AM > *Subject:* URGENT : Open Letter of the Expression Online Initiative to > Secretariat and Delegates of the 7th IGF[MARKETING EMAIL] **** > > ** ** > > **** > > *Open Letter of the Expression Online Initiative to Secretariat and > Delegates of the 7th Internet Governance Forum***** > > **** > > The Expression Online Initiative is writing to express serious concerns > regarding violations of UN main principles that continue to take place > during the seventh annual Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Baku. These > violations have included: restrictions on freedom of expression and freedom > of association; failure to guarantee equal rights for every participant; > and discriminatory practices against local civil society organizations and > their representatives.**** > > **** > > The Expression Online Initiative is a consortium of Azerbaijani freedom of > expression organizations including the Human Rights Club, the Azerbaijan > Media Center and the Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety.**** > > **** > > In early July 2012, the coalition sent an official request to the IGF > Secretariat to make arrangements for a booth at the IGF village. Despite > the fact that we sent several follow-up emails, the Secretariat failed to > respond until the week before the IGF. At that stage, the Secretariat > agreed to provide a booth for the Expression Online Initiative. Then, two > days before the event, the Secretariat informed Expression Online that no > booth would be available, stating that “preference is given to > international organizations.” This statement contradicts the IGF main > principle that guarantees equal participation of all stakeholders. As > stated in the “IGF Background Note” from 2010, “the IGF serves as a > laboratory, a neutral space, where all actors can table an issue. (…) Its > UN mandate gives it convening power and the authority to serve as a neutral > space for all actors on an equal footing.”**** > > **** > > Furthermore, the Secretariat tried to prevent distribution of the > Expression Online Initiative’s reports *Searching for Freedom: Online > Expression in Azerbaijan > * and The Right to Remain Silent: Freedom of Expression in Azerbaijan > ahead of the 7th Internet Governance Forum. > The IGF coordinator told our representatives “You are not allowed to > distribute these reports within IGF premises.” Our attempt to distribute > these reports, which examine issues in Azerbaijan which are directly > relevant to the IGF, were perceived by the Secretariat as an attempt to > “attack one of the stakeholder group,” i.e. the Azerbaijani government.*** > * > > **** > > It is worth mentioning that Secretariat staff did attempt to assist the > Expression Online Initiative. They suggested that we seek permission from > the Azerbaijani government, specifically the Ministry of Communications and > Information Technologies (ICT Ministry), to distribute the report. The > Secretariat’s IGF Coordinator said “If your government does not find the > content insulting we will provide you with the booth and allow distribution > of those two reports.” The Expression Online Initiative considers this > requirement to seek permission from the authorities to be an undue exercise > of influence from the IGF host country.**** > > **** > > The matter of the booth was not an isolated incident. Expression Online > representatives faced other instances of discriminatory treatment. For > example, one representative experienced particular difficulty in attempting > to register for the IGF. A representative of UN security subjected him to > extensive questioning about his motives for attempting to register and > handed his personal ID card to the local authorities. In particular, they > asked him whether he planned to stage a protest at the IGF, a question > which was again asked by the host country-appointed registration staff.*** > * > > **** > > Representatives of the online television station Obyektiv TV, which is > affiliated with the Expression Online Initiative, also experienced > discriminatory treatment in seeking to register its correspondents for the > IGF. Although they were eventually registered, the host country-appointed > registration staff attempted to prevent their registration. As grounds for > potential refusal, they claimed that the Azerbaijani ICT Ministry did not > consider Obyektiv TV to be a media outlet.**** > > **** > > It should be noted that the registration staff are members of an > Azerbaijani pro-governmental youth organization which has a vested interest > in interfering with who can attend the IGF.**** > > **** > > The Expression Online Initiative calls for an immediate investigation into > these and other reports of violations of rights and discriminatory > treatment, and public clarification about the relevant procedures for > registration and dissemination of materials.**** > > **** > > > Expression Online Initiative**** > > **** > > Address:**** > > 8 R. Behbudov St., Apt. 85/86, Baku, Azerbaijan**** > > e-mail: info at expressiononline.net**** > > phone : **** > > (+99450) 398 48 38**** > > (+99450) 508-78-87**** > > **** > > ** ** > > **** > > **** > > ** ** > > Expression Online Initiative | R.Behbudov 8, apt 85/86 | Baku, Sabael > AZ1000, Azerbaijan**** > > Email Marketing by [image: iContact - Try It Free!] > **** > > ** ** > > *Update Profile * | > *Send To a Friend * > **** > > **** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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 ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr Tue Nov 6 16:35:30 2012 From: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr (International Ivission) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 21:35:30 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] FW: URGENT : Open Letter of the Expression Online Initiative to Secretariat and Delegates of the 7th IGF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1352237730.38169.YahooMailClassic@web171305.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Dear all, it will be just wonderful to get the document read during the event and also published on Youtube for us to relay it locally. regards, ___________________________________ Asama Abel Excel President and CEO I-VISSION INTERNATIONAL Box 13040 Blvd de la rep., Feu Rouge BessenguéDouala Cameroon E: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr / excelasama at yahoo.fr : info at ivission.net T (bur): +237 33 76 55 76 / T (Mob): 99 44 43 91 / 76 14 26 23Skype (office): i-vission (personal): excelasama Web: www.ivission.net  Web album: www.flickr.com/ivission Facebook: ivission.internationlTwitter: www.twitter.com/ivission  NWK: www.meetup.com/ivission --- En date de : Mar 6.11.12, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro a écrit : De: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Objet: Re: [governance] FW: URGENT : Open Letter of the Expression Online Initiative to Secretariat and Delegates of the 7th IGF À: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Cynthia Wong" Date: Mardi 6 novembre 2012, 21h28 Thank you Cynthia. Dear All - Now would be a great time to release the Statement that we worked earlier in the year. Sala On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Cynthia Wong wrote: All: see below a press release from the Expression Online Initiative, the consortium of Azerbaijan freedom of expression groups:     From: Expression Online [mailto:info at expressiononline.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 5:39 AM Subject: URGENT : Open Letter of the Expression Online Initiative to Secretariat and Delegates of the 7th IGF[MARKETING EMAIL]     Open Letter of the Expression Online Initiative to Secretariat and Delegates of the 7th Internet Governance Forum   The Expression Online Initiative is writing to express serious concerns regarding violations of UN main principles that continue to take place during the seventh annual Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Baku. These violations have included: restrictions on freedom of expression and freedom of association; failure to guarantee equal rights for every participant; and discriminatory practices against local civil society organizations and their representatives.   The Expression Online Initiative is a consortium of Azerbaijani freedom of expression organizations including the Human Rights Club, the Azerbaijan Media Center and the Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety.   In early July 2012, the coalition sent an official request to the IGF Secretariat to make arrangements for a booth at the IGF village. Despite the fact that we sent several follow-up emails, the Secretariat failed to respond until the week before the IGF. At that stage, the Secretariat agreed to provide a booth for the Expression Online Initiative. Then, two days before the event, the Secretariat informed Expression Online that no booth would be available, stating that “preference is given to international organizations.” This statement contradicts the IGF main principle that guarantees equal participation of all stakeholders. As stated in the “IGF Background Note” from 2010, “the IGF serves as a laboratory, a neutral space, where all actors can table an issue. (…) Its UN mandate gives it convening power and the authority to serve as a neutral space for all actors on an equal footing.”   Furthermore, the Secretariat tried to prevent distribution of the Expression Online Initiative’s reports Searching for Freedom: Online Expression in Azerbaijan and The Right to Remain Silent: Freedom of Expression in Azerbaijan ahead of the 7th Internet Governance Forum. The IGF coordinator told our representatives “You are not allowed to distribute these reports within IGF premises.” Our attempt to distribute these reports, which examine issues in Azerbaijan which are directly relevant to the IGF, were perceived by the Secretariat as an attempt to “attack one of the stakeholder group,” i.e. the Azerbaijani government.   It is worth mentioning that Secretariat staff did attempt to assist the Expression Online Initiative. They suggested that we seek permission from the Azerbaijani government, specifically the Ministry of Communications and Information Technologies (ICT Ministry), to distribute the report. The Secretariat’s IGF Coordinator said “If your government does not find the content insulting we will provide you with the booth and allow distribution of those two reports.” The Expression Online Initiative considers this requirement to seek permission from the authorities to be an undue exercise of influence from the IGF host country.   The matter of the booth was not an isolated incident. Expression Online representatives faced other instances of discriminatory treatment. For example, one representative experienced particular difficulty in attempting to register for the IGF. A representative of UN security subjected him to extensive questioning about his motives for attempting to register and handed his personal ID card to the local authorities. In particular, they asked him whether he planned to stage a protest at the IGF, a question which was again asked by the host country-appointed registration staff.   Representatives of the online television station Obyektiv TV, which is affiliated with the Expression Online Initiative, also experienced discriminatory treatment in seeking to register its correspondents for the IGF. Although they were eventually registered, the host country-appointed registration staff attempted to prevent their registration. As grounds for potential refusal, they claimed that the Azerbaijani ICT Ministry did not consider Obyektiv TV to be a media outlet.   It should be noted that the registration staff are members of an Azerbaijani pro-governmental youth organization which has a vested interest in interfering with who can attend the IGF.   The Expression Online Initiative calls for an immediate investigation into these and other reports of violations of rights and discriminatory treatment, and public clarification about the relevant procedures for registration and dissemination of materials.   Expression Online Initiative   Address: 8 R. Behbudov St., Apt. 85/86, Baku, Azerbaijan e-mail: info at expressiononline.net phone :  (+99450) 398 48 38 (+99450)  508-78-87         Expression Online Initiative | R.Behbudov 8, apt 85/86 | Baku, Sabael AZ1000, Azerbaijan Email Marketing by   Update Profile  |  Send To a Friend ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka SalaP.O. Box 17862SuvaFiji Twitter: @SalanietaTSkype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851   -----La pièce jointe associée suit----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 22:37:38 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 07:37:38 +0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TODAY 2.30-4.00 Workshop: National IG Mechanisms - Looking at Some Key Design Issues In-Reply-To: References: <008901cdbbe0$003eda80$00bc8f80$@gmail.com> <000001cdbbe5$35694a10$a03bde30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <039301cdbc99$3e544260$bafcc720$@gmail.com> Thanks Sea! (and also replying to McTim. One of the themes that ran through the presentations was the role that a multistakeholder approach to national internet governance could, as in several of the cases cited (CGI.br and InternetNZ) lead to a more pro-active involvement of the National Internet Governance agency in promoting Internet for all. Where there was, for example a largely industry, technical or government dominated National Internet Governance mechanism the activities (and outputs) of those mechanisms tended rather to support the narrower interests of those communities rather than providing broader support (and in some cases resources) for the development of the Internet as a "public good" and "Internet for All" M From: soekpe at gmail.com [mailto:soekpe at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sonigitu Ekpe Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 8:02 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TODAY 2.30-4.00 Workshop: National IG Mechanisms - Looking at Some Key Design Issues Great uncle Michael. +1 for the need to share national experience. I have a strong support for enhanced cooperation to move the multi-stakeholders dimension of Internet for all. Sea On Nov 6, 2012 7:10 AM, "michael gurstein" wrote: We just learned of the change in date from Friday at 2.30-4.00 TODAY at 2.30-4.00 (Rm. 10) ... Sorry for any confusion. The broad objective of the Workshop is to explore alternative strategies for managing in the public interest Internet resources at the national level based on the practical experience of several countries in this area--notably Brazil, New Zealand, India, and Kenya. (We would invite others of those with an interest and experience to present/discuss this from their own national experience as well.) Mike ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 22:37:38 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 07:37:38 +0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TODAY 2.30-4.00 Workshop: National IG Mechanisms - Looking at Some Key Design Issues In-Reply-To: References: <008901cdbbe0$003eda80$00bc8f80$@gmail.com> <000001cdbbe5$35694a10$a03bde30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <039801cdbc99$55003eb0$ff00bc10$@gmail.com> Yes, thanks McTim... When we made the proposal for the Workshop we didn't know of the ISOC research...The two reports (there is also case study on Kenya) are, on quick examination, very useful and we were fortunate to have David Souter the author come and give a brief intro to those reports. There will be a report on the Workshop, but briefly, there was quite a lot of interest in the subject--both from Developed and LDC's and a (surprising?) range of mechanisms/national strategies for dealing with Internet Governance at the national level. Some good practices were presented--CGI.br (Brazil), CIRA (Canada), Internet NZ (NZ)) and some challenges were presented--national interference (Ukraine), inclusiveness for cybercafes (india), responding to emergency conditions (Cote d'Ivoire)--so a lot of scope for follow up on the issue which a number of those attending the Workshop indicated an interest in doing. I'm compiling a list of those who want to continue the discussion so anyone with an interest please send an email to me (and feel free to pass this invitation along to anyone with an interest). Also, with this note I'ld like to thank the panelists--Byron Holland (CIRA), Susan Chalmers (InternetNZ), Carlos Afonso (CGI.br), Pranesh Prakesh (CIS-India), Tapani Tarvainen (EFF-Finland) and particularly David Souter (who rushed from the launch of his reports) for their contributions. Best, M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 7:31 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TODAY 2.30-4.00 Workshop: National IG Mechanisms - Looking at Some Key Design Issues ISOC comissiooned a study on this, just came out at: www.internetsociety.org/assessing_national_IG On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:08 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > We just learned of the change in date from Friday at 2.30-4.00 TODAY > at > 2.30-4.00 (Rm. 10) ... Sorry for any confusion. > > The broad objective of the Workshop is to explore alternative > strategies for managing in the public interest Internet resources at > the national level based on the practical experience of several > countries in this area--notably Brazil, New Zealand, India, and Kenya. > > (We would invite others of those with an interest and experience to > present/discuss this from their own national experience as well.) > > Mike > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- 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 Nov 6 22:53:06 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 07:53:06 +0400 Subject: [governance] FW: TODAY 2.30-4.00 Workshop: National IG Mechanisms - Looking at Some Key Design Issues In-Reply-To: References: <008901cdbbe0$003eda80$00bc8f80$@gmail.com>,<000001cdbbe5$35694a10$a03bde30$@gmail.com>, Message-ID: <03b601cdbc9b$67989ca0$36c9d5e0$@gmail.com> Thanks Antoine but it looks like your most interesting offer came too late in the day. However, I would invite you to join the on-going discussion that will be a follow-on from the Workshop and where I'm sure your contribution wil be most useful. Best, Mike From: ANTOINE KANTIZA [mailto:antoinekantiza at hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 8:31 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; gurstein at gmail.com Subject: RE: [governance] FW: TODAY 2.30-4.00 Workshop: National IG Mechanisms - Looking at Some Key Design Issues Dear Michael Gurstein, Warm greeting from Bujumbura, I am ready to share my experience related to the management of public interest resources in Burundi during the forthcoming workshop. . It is worth mentioning that I have an interest in the Internet subject as I am Expert in Internet Governance as well as in Intellectual Property Rights focused on the online content. Best regards, Prof Antoine KANTIZA, Master UTICEF,- Webmaster à la Radio-Télévision Nationale du Burundi http://www.burundi-quotidien.net & http://www.rtnb.bi/ Représentant légal de l'ASBL PLEAD " PROMOTION DE L'EDUCATION A DISTANCE" http://promotioneducationdistance.blogspot.com http://www.linkedin.com/pub/antoine-kantiza/25/603/446 _____ Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 17:01:30 +0100 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; gurstein at gmail.com Subject: Re: [governance] FW: TODAY 2.30-4.00 Workshop: National IG Mechanisms - Looking at Some Key Design Issues Great uncle Michael. +1 for the need to share national experience. I have a strong support for enhanced cooperation to move the multi-stakeholders dimension of Internet for all. Sea On Nov 6, 2012 7:10 AM, "michael gurstein" wrote: We just learned of the change in date from Friday at 2.30-4.00 TODAY at 2.30-4.00 (Rm. 10) ... Sorry for any confusion. The broad objective of the Workshop is to explore alternative strategies for managing in the public interest Internet resources at the national level based on the practical experience of several countries in this area--notably Brazil, New Zealand, India, and Kenya. (We would invite others of those with an interest and experience to present/discuss this from their own national experience as well.) Mike ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gideonrop at gmail.com Wed Nov 7 01:15:59 2012 From: gideonrop at gmail.com (Gideon) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 09:15:59 +0300 Subject: [governance] Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change Request Made by DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: So what, this is just one person's opinion and means nothing, in fact focuses only on endorsement issues and not the merit of the .africa application. However DCA's announcement is a significant update, as the industry needs to be informed, including you and some people who made comments on .dotafrica on this forum. as well as the competition which falsely claimed "ICANN says there is only one .africa". Good day On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Very well put. Thanks for sharing. > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "William New" > To: , "'Suresh Ramasubramanian'" < > suresh at hserus.net>, "'Gideon'" > Subject: [governance] Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change > Request Made by DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa > Date: Tue, Nov 6, 2012 7:24 PM > > > > > > http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/11/03/top-level-domain-africa-becomes-object-of-bitter-fight/ > > > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 8:34 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Gideon > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change > Request Made by DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa > > > > > so,,,? does this suddenly award you the .africa TLD or something? > > --srs (iPad) > > > On 06-Nov-2012, at 12:10, Gideon wrote: > > > > Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change Request Made by > DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa > > > http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs123/1102516344150/archive/1111325860695.html > > > > Gideon Rop > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 7 01:25:33 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 15:25:33 +0900 Subject: [governance] Come to OUR workshop,11:00 today. Room#5 Message-ID: Dear list, This is last minute call, please come to OUR workshop #85, Quo Vadis, or Improvement of IGF, Today, 11:00 am, Room #5. IGS is the main organizer of this event, and we should have treat interaction if you join. In addition to the speakers published below, I would like to inform you that Parminder agreed to be the additional speaker. Mr. Peter Major, Chair, CSTD Working Group on IGF Improvement, Special Advisor, Permanent Mission of Hungary to the United Nations in Geneva Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Professor for International Communication Policy and Regulation, University of Aarhus Ms. Mervi Kultamaa, Counsellor, Information Society & Trade Facilitation, Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, Department for External Economic Relations Mr. Markus Kummer, Vice President of Public Policy, Internet Society Parminder Jeet Singh. Executive Director, IT for Change Moderator: Izumi Aizu, Senior Research Fellow, Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University Remote Moderator: Ms. Avri Doria, dotgay LLC - Policy & Governance, Volunteer Researcher - Association for Progressive Communications http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/w2012/proposals Thanks and see you all 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Nov 7 01:33:49 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 10:33:49 +0400 Subject: [governance] Come to OUR workshop,11:00 today. Room#5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 07/11/2012, at 10:25 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > This is last minute call, please come to OUR workshop #85, Quo Vadis, > or Improvement of IGF, Today, 11:00 am, Room #5. Sorry that I can't make it, because I am chairing at workshop on broadband and consumer protection at the same time, but really I look forward to reading the report that follows. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers 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 Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | 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 iza at anr.org Wed Nov 7 01:44:36 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 15:44:36 +0900 Subject: [governance] Great speech, Carlos! Message-ID: Dear Carlos, I hear many people really liked your speech yesterday, at the opening session. In fact, one of the government reps told me this morning it was THE BEST among all speeches of all guest speakers. I also was asked to get File version of your speech, Carlos, to be shared. To confess, I was not able to listen you since I was have some preparatory meeting for Emerging Issues main session, so I also need your speech in print/file. I am sure there are many others like me. Many 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 glaser at cgi.br Wed Nov 7 01:53:16 2012 From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 04:53:16 -0200 Subject: [governance] Great speech, Carlos! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <509A055C.70401@cgi.br> Your Excellencies, Mr Wu Hongbo, Under Secretary General, Undesa, Chairman minister Ali Abatov, Secretary Chengetai Masango, in the name of whom I wish to salute all present authorities; ladies and gentlemen: I have been assigned the honorable task of speaking in the opening ceremony of this IGF in the name of civil society organizations, social movements and individuals active in Internet governance processes, many of them involved in these processes since the inception of WSIS nearly 10 years ago. Several of them collaborated with me in drafting the following statement. We believe that the absence of gatekeepers and the open, global communication enabled by the Internet is crucial to realize the promise of Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To impose restrictions (legal or otherwise) to the free flow of information is and has always been contrary to the individual human right to freedom of expression. We therefore oppose efforts to create "national Internets," or to block and filter Internet access in ways that deny individuals access to applications, content and services of their choice. All attempts to deem certain forms of communication and information illegal and restrict or block them must follow established, transparent, due processes of law and should not involve prior restraint. We oppose efforts to militarize the Internet, or any actions that would foster a destructive and wasteful cyber arms race among governments or private actors. We consider the covert use of exploits and malware for surveillance or attacks to be criminal regardless of whether they are deployed by governments, private corporations or organized criminals. We are skeptical of efforts to subordinate the design and use of information and communication technology to "national security" agendas. We believe that Internet security will be achieved primarily at the operational level and that national security and military agendas often work against rather than for users' security needs. In the processes of policy formulation, we emphasize the need to prioritize dialogue with policy makers over their subordinated law enforcement agencies. Global governance institutions should not be restricted to states, so we welcome the additional participation in global policy making that multi-stakeholder processes provide. But we caution that multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself. Opening up global governance institutions to additional voices from civil society and business does not by itself ensure that individual rights are adequately protected or that the best substantive policies are developed and enforced. In the informal spaces created by pluralist institutions, it is possible that powerful governmental and corporate actors can make deals contrary to the interests of Internet users. Multistakeholder processes, while involving all interest groups, must incorporate and institutionalize concepts of due process, separation of powers and user's inalienable civil and political rights, and governmental decision-making ought to take into account the inputs of all participants of such pluralist processes. Let us remind ourselves that participation goes beyond representation, and participation in decision-making goes beyond just debates and dialogues. Regarding the ITR review process to be concluded in Dubai (and here I use the standard terminology the technical community defines to refer to the different components of the network): We agree that the internet layer and the layers above it (transport layer and applications layer) should not be included in any way in the regulations, while the free flow of Internet packets should be guaranteed in the link layer, in line with network neutrality in which Internet packets are never touched by the operators providing the physical connectivity infrastructure. Let the Internet flourish freely to the benefit of those who live at its edges, which are all of us. Thank you. === On 07/11/12 04:44, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear Carlos, > > I hear many people really liked your speech yesterday, at the opening > session. In fact, one of the government reps told me this morning it > was THE BEST among all speeches of all guest speakers. > > I also was asked to get File version of your speech, Carlos, to be shared. > > To confess, I was not able to listen you since I was have some > preparatory meeting for Emerging Issues main session, so I also need > your speech in print/file. I am sure there are many others like me. > > Many 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 gate.one205 at yahoo.fr Wed Nov 7 02:34:59 2012 From: gate.one205 at yahoo.fr (Jean-Yves GATETE) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 07:34:59 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] Great speech, Carlos! In-Reply-To: <509A055C.70401@cgi.br> Message-ID: <1352273699.25289.YahooMailClassic@web172501.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Thanks for sharing,  That is a real great speech J-Y Gatete --- En date de : Mer 7.11.12, Hartmut Richard Glaser a écrit : De: Hartmut Richard Glaser Objet: Re: [governance] Great speech, Carlos! À: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Izumi AIZU" Cc: "Carlos A. Afonso" Date: Mercredi 7 novembre 2012, 7h53 Your Excellencies, Mr Wu Hongbo, Under Secretary General, Undesa, Chairman minister Ali Abatov, Secretary Chengetai Masango, in the name of whom I wish to salute all present authorities; ladies and gentlemen: I have been assigned the honorable task of speaking in the opening ceremony of this IGF in the name of civil society organizations, social movements and individuals active in Internet governance processes, many of them involved in these processes since the inception of WSIS nearly 10 years ago. Several of them collaborated with me in drafting the following statement. We believe that the absence of gatekeepers and the open, global communication enabled by the Internet is crucial to realize the promise of Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To impose restrictions (legal or otherwise) to the free flow of information is and has always been contrary to the individual human right to freedom of expression. We therefore oppose efforts to create "national Internets," or to block and filter Internet access in ways that deny individuals access to applications, content and services of their choice. All attempts to deem certain forms of communication and information illegal and restrict or block them must follow established, transparent, due processes of law and should not involve prior restraint. We oppose efforts to militarize the Internet, or any actions that would foster a destructive and wasteful cyber arms race among governments or private actors. We consider the covert use of exploits and malware for surveillance or attacks to be criminal regardless of whether they are deployed by governments, private corporations or organized criminals. We are skeptical of efforts to subordinate the design and use of information and communication technology to "national security" agendas. We believe that Internet security will be achieved primarily at the operational level and that national security and military agendas often work against rather than for users' security needs. In the processes of policy formulation, we emphasize the need to prioritize dialogue with policy makers over their subordinated law enforcement agencies. Global governance institutions should not be restricted to states, so we welcome the additional participation in global policy making that multi-stakeholder processes provide. But we caution that multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself. Opening up global governance institutions to additional voices from civil society and business does not by itself ensure that individual rights are adequately protected or that the best substantive policies are developed and enforced. In the informal spaces created by pluralist institutions, it is possible that powerful governmental and corporate actors can make deals contrary to the interests of Internet users. Multistakeholder processes, while involving all interest groups, must incorporate and institutionalize concepts of due process, separation of powers and user's inalienable civil and political rights, and governmental decision-making ought to take into account the inputs of all participants of such pluralist processes. Let us remind ourselves that participation goes beyond representation, and participation in decision-making goes beyond just debates and dialogues. Regarding the ITR review process to be concluded in Dubai (and here I use the standard terminology the technical community defines to refer to the different components of the network): We agree that the internet layer and the layers above it (transport layer and applications layer) should not be included in any way in the regulations, while the free flow of Internet packets should be guaranteed in the link layer, in line with network neutrality in which Internet packets are never touched by the operators providing the physical connectivity infrastructure. Let the Internet flourish freely to the benefit of those who live at its edges, which are all of us. Thank you. === On 07/11/12 04:44, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear Carlos, > > I hear many people really liked your speech yesterday, at the opening > session. In fact, one of the government reps told me this morning it > was THE BEST among all speeches of all guest speakers. > > I also was asked to get File version of your speech, Carlos, to be shared. > > To confess, I was not able to listen you since I was have some > preparatory meeting for Emerging Issues main session, so I also need > your speech in print/file. I am sure there are many others like me. > > Many thanks, > > izumi > > > -- >                       >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > -----La pièce jointe associée suit----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 7 03:13:16 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 00:13:16 -0800 Subject: [governance] Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change Request Made by DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20121107081316.GA28721@hserus.net> Let us see, let us see. You still need an AU endorsement and 60% of the countries in africa, not a letter of support which has been explicitly withdrawn. And then you still need to go through the rest of the process. Have fun. Gideon [07/11/12 09:15 +0300]: >So what, this is just one person's opinion and means nothing, in fact >focuses only on endorsement issues and not the merit of the .africa >application. However DCA's announcement is a significant update, as the >industry needs to be informed, including you and some people who made >comments on .dotafrica on this forum. as well as the competition which >falsely claimed "ICANN says there is only one .africa". > > > >Good day > > >On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> Very well put. Thanks for sharing. >> >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> >> >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "William New" >> To: , "'Suresh Ramasubramanian'" < >> suresh at hserus.net>, "'Gideon'" >> Subject: [governance] Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change >> Request Made by DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa >> Date: Tue, Nov 6, 2012 7:24 PM >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/11/03/top-level-domain-africa-becomes-object-of-bitter-fight/ >> >> >> >> >> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: >> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian >> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 8:34 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Gideon >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change >> Request Made by DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa >> >> >> >> >> so,,,? does this suddenly award you the .africa TLD or something? >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> >> On 06-Nov-2012, at 12:10, Gideon wrote: >> >> >> >> Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change Request Made by >> DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa >> >> >> http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs123/1102516344150/archive/1111325860695.html >> >> >> >> Gideon Rop >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your 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 bavouc at gmail.com Wed Nov 7 03:15:48 2012 From: bavouc at gmail.com (Martial Bavou[Private Business Account]) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 09:15:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] Great speech, Carlos! In-Reply-To: <509A055C.70401@cgi.br> References: <509A055C.70401@cgi.br> Message-ID: Great speech, congratulation Carlos. -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Hartmut Richard Glaser Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 7:53 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Izumi AIZU Cc: Carlos A. Afonso Subject: Re: [governance] Great speech, Carlos! Your Excellencies, Mr Wu Hongbo, Under Secretary General, Undesa, Chairman minister Ali Abatov, Secretary Chengetai Masango, in the name of whom I wish to salute all present authorities; ladies and gentlemen: I have been assigned the honorable task of speaking in the opening ceremony of this IGF in the name of civil society organizations, social movements and individuals active in Internet governance processes, many of them involved in these processes since the inception of WSIS nearly 10 years ago. Several of them collaborated with me in drafting the following statement. We believe that the absence of gatekeepers and the open, global communication enabled by the Internet is crucial to realize the promise of Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To impose restrictions (legal or otherwise) to the free flow of information is and has always been contrary to the individual human right to freedom of expression. We therefore oppose efforts to create "national Internets," or to block and filter Internet access in ways that deny individuals access to applications, content and services of their choice. All attempts to deem certain forms of communication and information illegal and restrict or block them must follow established, transparent, due processes of law and should not involve prior restraint. We oppose efforts to militarize the Internet, or any actions that would foster a destructive and wasteful cyber arms race among governments or private actors. We consider the covert use of exploits and malware for surveillance or attacks to be criminal regardless of whether they are deployed by governments, private corporations or organized criminals. We are skeptical of efforts to subordinate the design and use of information and communication technology to "national security" agendas. We believe that Internet security will be achieved primarily at the operational level and that national security and military agendas often work against rather than for users' security needs. In the processes of policy formulation, we emphasize the need to prioritize dialogue with policy makers over their subordinated law enforcement agencies. Global governance institutions should not be restricted to states, so we welcome the additional participation in global policy making that multi-stakeholder processes provide. But we caution that multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself. Opening up global governance institutions to additional voices from civil society and business does not by itself ensure that individual rights are adequately protected or that the best substantive policies are developed and enforced. In the informal spaces created by pluralist institutions, it is possible that powerful governmental and corporate actors can make deals contrary to the interests of Internet users. Multistakeholder processes, while involving all interest groups, must incorporate and institutionalize concepts of due process, separation of powers and user's inalienable civil and political rights, and governmental decision-making ought to take into account the inputs of all participants of such pluralist processes. Let us remind ourselves that participation goes beyond representation, and participation in decision-making goes beyond just debates and dialogues. Regarding the ITR review process to be concluded in Dubai (and here I use the standard terminology the technical community defines to refer to the different components of the network): We agree that the internet layer and the layers above it (transport layer and applications layer) should not be included in any way in the regulations, while the free flow of Internet packets should be guaranteed in the link layer, in line with network neutrality in which Internet packets are never touched by the operators providing the physical connectivity infrastructure. Let the Internet flourish freely to the benefit of those who live at its edges, which are all of us. Thank you. === On 07/11/12 04:44, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear Carlos, > > I hear many people really liked your speech yesterday, at the opening > session. In fact, one of the government reps told me this morning it > was THE BEST among all speeches of all guest speakers. > > I also was asked to get File version of your speech, Carlos, to be shared. > > To confess, I was not able to listen you since I was have some > preparatory meeting for Emerging Issues main session, so I also need > your speech in print/file. I am sure there are many others like me. > > Many 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 qshatti at gmail.com Wed Nov 7 04:12:09 2012 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 13:12:09 +0400 Subject: [governance] Invitation to Attend Workshop 170: Developing a National/Regional Framework of Principles for Internet Governance Message-ID: Dear All: I am organizing the following workshop on day 3. The details are below. Looking forward for your participation. Best Regards, Qusai AlShatti Workshop 170: Developing a National/Regional Framework of Principles for Internet Governance, Internet governance Forum 2012, Baku, Azerbaijan Day 3: November 8, 2012, Workshop Room 8, 11:00 – 12:30 Workshop Description: The workshop will address the idea of having a national or a regional framework of principles on Internet Governance as a mean to address internet issues. The framework can be a flexible approach suitable to address Internet related issues rather than using regulation measures and mechanisms. The workshop will focused around the following questions:  Is a framework of principles for internet governance is needed on national/regional levels and how it can plays a role in improving internet usage to all relevant stakeholders.  Can the framework of principles for internet governance replaces regulation on national or regional levels. In what areas related to IG it can be applied and in what other areas of IG regulation still will be the most suitable approach.  What type of process can be adopted to develop the national/regional framework of principles on Internet Governance. How can we ensure that this process will be inclusive and multistakeholder. What steps that should be included in this process.  In what ways consent on national level and regional level can be reached to adopt this framework and in what ways or means can it be brought into effect.  Are their currently examples of national Internet Governance frameworks that can be used and followed as a best practice. Are their currently examples of national Internet Governance frameworks that can be used and followed as a best practice. Workshop Speakers:  Mr. Carlos Alfonso, Insituto NUPEF, Board Member, Brazilian Steering Committee  Mr. Paul Rendek, Director of External Relations for RIPE NCC  Ms. Jane Coffin, Strategy Development, ISOC  Mrs. Olga Cavali, Director, South School on Internet Governance and Technical Advisor at Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Argentina  Dr. William Drake, International Fellow in the Media Change and Innovation Division of the Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research, University of Zurich  Mr. Qusai AlShatti, Deputy Chairman, Kuwait Information Technology Society -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Nov 7 04:22:06 2012 From: jac at apcwomen.org (Jac sm Kee) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 17:22:06 +0800 Subject: [governance] Great speech, Carlos! In-Reply-To: References: <509A055C.70401@cgi.br> Message-ID: <509A283E.8090805@apcwomen.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Really great speech. Made me want to stand up and applaud! Thank you. j On 07/11/2012 16:15, Martial Bavou[Private Business Account] wrote: > Great speech, congratulation Carlos. > > -----Original Message----- From: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Hartmut > Richard Glaser Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 7:53 AM To: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Izumi AIZU Cc: Carlos A. Afonso > Subject: Re: [governance] Great speech, Carlos! > > > Your Excellencies, Mr Wu Hongbo, Under Secretary General, Undesa, > Chairman minister Ali Abatov, Secretary Chengetai Masango, in the > name of whom I wish to salute all present authorities; ladies and > gentlemen: > > I have been assigned the honorable task of speaking in the opening > ceremony of this IGF in the name of civil society organizations, > social movements and individuals active in Internet governance > processes, many of them involved in these processes since the > inception of WSIS nearly 10 years ago. Several of them collaborated > with me in drafting the following statement. > > We believe that the absence of gatekeepers and the open, global > communication enabled by the Internet is crucial to realize the > promise of Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human > Rights. To impose restrictions (legal or otherwise) to the free > flow of information is and has always been contrary to the > individual human right to freedom of expression. > > We therefore oppose efforts to create "national Internets," or to > block and filter Internet access in ways that deny individuals > access to applications, content and services of their choice. > > All attempts to deem certain forms of communication and information > illegal and restrict or block them must follow established, > transparent, due processes of law and should not involve prior > restraint. > > We oppose efforts to militarize the Internet, or any actions that > would foster a destructive and wasteful cyber arms race among > governments or private actors. We consider the covert use of > exploits and malware for surveillance or attacks to be criminal > regardless of whether they are deployed by governments, private > corporations or organized criminals. > > We are skeptical of efforts to subordinate the design and use of > information and communication technology to "national security" > agendas. We believe that Internet security will be achieved > primarily at the operational level and that national security and > military agendas often work against rather than for users' security > needs. > > In the processes of policy formulation, we emphasize the need to > prioritize dialogue with policy makers over their subordinated law > enforcement agencies. > > Global governance institutions should not be restricted to states, > so we welcome the additional participation in global policy making > that multi-stakeholder processes provide. But we caution that > multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself. > > Opening up global governance institutions to additional voices from > civil society and business does not by itself ensure that > individual rights are adequately protected or that the best > substantive policies are developed and enforced. > > In the informal spaces created by pluralist institutions, it is > possible that powerful governmental and corporate actors can make > deals contrary to the interests of Internet users. > > Multistakeholder processes, while involving all interest groups, > must incorporate and institutionalize concepts of due process, > separation of powers and user's inalienable civil and political > rights, and governmental decision-making ought to take into account > the inputs of all participants of such pluralist processes. > > Let us remind ourselves that participation goes beyond > representation, and participation in decision-making goes beyond > just debates and dialogues. > > Regarding the ITR review process to be concluded in Dubai (and here > I use the standard terminology the technical community defines to > refer to the different components of the network): > > We agree that the internet layer and the layers above it (transport > layer and applications layer) should not be included in any way in > the regulations, while the free flow of Internet packets should be > guaranteed in the link layer, in line with network neutrality in > which Internet packets are never touched by the operators providing > the physical connectivity infrastructure. > > Let the Internet flourish freely to the benefit of those who live > at its edges, which are all of us. Thank you. > > === > > > > On 07/11/12 04:44, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> Dear Carlos, >> >> I hear many people really liked your speech yesterday, at the >> opening session. In fact, one of the government reps told me this >> morning it was THE BEST among all speeches of all guest >> speakers. >> >> I also was asked to get File version of your speech, Carlos, to >> be shared. >> >> To confess, I was not able to listen you since I was have some >> preparatory meeting for Emerging Issues main session, so I also >> need your speech in print/file. I am sure there are many others >> like me. >> >> Many thanks, >> >> izumi >> >> >> -- >>>> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, >> Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> Japan www.anr.org >> > > > > - -- 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://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQmig+AAoJEKpQzmPAS5FmbT8H/AsluWHDo1lBog6BbcCJvUhm hGEJJLsYgsDLRph5Lqf1z0Bf+PYFn8rhby6o3qoKNbGZoKQ9lZONrKJ2ZkK35HAJ 3BpWTW39vDySMVX8tVLd+sHQXRN9wiDLyqk4NX0tFIRzcMOpHFxsKq9oF3DQRb5h OT9lticc53JKbDFak/y+3KLOvCjJjIqGoB3XKrn3x43Px6TjXUJSVNbO+zoHRsSg aXCQ4sjYJaYX6d11DAVxZisL1mZca4eQab7LD5FTidk7qyCJVPqkHu4jS1wGC8aG y+kX2M0u6f6hxEHeKJtLP4iY36u8eND6DobcHvLzNHd4KFoUnfe+NIzGUk1dk6Q= =GFuf -----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 annnyanka at gmail.com Wed Nov 7 05:17:08 2012 From: annnyanka at gmail.com (Anya Orlova) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 11:17:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] 7th GigaNet Symposium, 5 Nov 2012: registration is open In-Reply-To: <507D88AA.1070202@vub.ac.be> References: <507D8859.3000306@vub.ac.be> <507D88AA.1070202@vub.ac.be> Message-ID: Hi Julia, it was great to meeting you here at IGF, it really felt the same as in Meissen! I just wanted to ask you to forward me those contacts in Humboldt Uni, who are doing research on digital privacy. We talked about it in the evening at Google/ISOC party... Thank you very much, Anya Anya Orlova ------------------------------------------------------- BGSS PhD Candidate Berlin School of Social Sciences Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cveraq at gmail.com Wed Nov 7 05:40:10 2012 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 05:40:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] Great speech, Carlos! In-Reply-To: References: <509A055C.70401@cgi.br> Message-ID: <669CE56C-35C0-4CFC-9AF7-521C55BAC429@gmail.com> +1 Carlos Vera Quintana 593 9 88141143 El 07/11/2012, a las 3:15, "Martial Bavou[Private Business Account]" escribió: > Great speech, congratulation Carlos. > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Hartmut Richard Glaser > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 7:53 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Izumi AIZU > Cc: Carlos A. Afonso > Subject: Re: [governance] Great speech, Carlos! > > > Your Excellencies, Mr Wu Hongbo, Under Secretary General, Undesa, Chairman minister Ali Abatov, Secretary Chengetai Masango, in the name of whom I wish to salute all present authorities; ladies and gentlemen: > > I have been assigned the honorable task of speaking in the opening ceremony of this IGF in the name of civil society organizations, social movements and individuals active in Internet governance processes, many of them involved in these processes since the inception of WSIS nearly > 10 years ago. Several of them collaborated with me in drafting the following statement. > > We believe that the absence of gatekeepers and the open, global communication enabled by the Internet is crucial to realize the promise of Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To impose restrictions (legal or otherwise) to the free flow of information is and has always been contrary to the individual human right to freedom of expression. > > We therefore oppose efforts to create "national Internets," or to block and filter Internet access in ways that deny individuals access to applications, content and services of their choice. > > All attempts to deem certain forms of communication and information illegal and restrict or block them must follow established, transparent, due processes of law and should not involve prior restraint. > > We oppose efforts to militarize the Internet, or any actions that would foster a destructive and wasteful cyber arms race among governments or private actors. We consider the covert use of exploits and malware for surveillance or attacks to be criminal regardless of whether they are deployed by governments, private corporations or organized criminals. > > We are skeptical of efforts to subordinate the design and use of information and communication technology to "national security" agendas. > We believe that Internet security will be achieved primarily at the operational level and that national security and military agendas often work against rather than for users' security needs. > > In the processes of policy formulation, we emphasize the need to prioritize dialogue with policy makers over their subordinated law enforcement agencies. > > Global governance institutions should not be restricted to states, so we welcome the additional participation in global policy making that multi-stakeholder processes provide. But we caution that multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself. > > Opening up global governance institutions to additional voices from civil society and business does not by itself ensure that individual rights are adequately protected or that the best substantive policies are developed and enforced. > > In the informal spaces created by pluralist institutions, it is possible that powerful governmental and corporate actors can make deals contrary to the interests of Internet users. > > Multistakeholder processes, while involving all interest groups, must incorporate and institutionalize concepts of due process, separation of powers and user's inalienable civil and political rights, and governmental decision-making ought to take into account the inputs of all participants of such pluralist processes. > > Let us remind ourselves that participation goes beyond representation, and participation in decision-making goes beyond just debates and dialogues. > > Regarding the ITR review process to be concluded in Dubai (and here I use the standard terminology the technical community defines to refer to the different components of the network): > > We agree that the internet layer and the layers above it (transport layer and applications layer) should not be included in any way in the regulations, while the free flow of Internet packets should be guaranteed in the link layer, in line with network neutrality in which Internet packets are never touched by the operators providing the physical connectivity infrastructure. > > Let the Internet flourish freely to the benefit of those who live at its edges, which are all of us. Thank you. > > === > > > > On 07/11/12 04:44, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> Dear Carlos, >> >> I hear many people really liked your speech yesterday, at the opening >> session. In fact, one of the government reps told me this morning it >> was THE BEST among all speeches of all guest speakers. >> >> I also was asked to get File version of your speech, Carlos, to be shared. >> >> To confess, I was not able to listen you since I was have some >> preparatory meeting for Emerging Issues main session, so I also need >> your speech in print/file. I am sure there are many others like me. >> >> 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.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 valeriab at apc.org Wed Nov 7 06:18:54 2012 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 06:18:54 -0500 Subject: [governance] Great speech, Carlos! In-Reply-To: <509A283E.8090805@apcwomen.org> References: <509A055C.70401@cgi.br> <509A283E.8090805@apcwomen.org> Message-ID: +1 Valeria 2012/11/7 Jac sm Kee > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Really great speech. Made me want to stand up and applaud! > > Thank you. > j > > On 07/11/2012 16:15, Martial Bavou[Private Business Account] wrote: > > Great speech, congratulation Carlos. > > > > -----Original Message----- From: > > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Hartmut > > Richard Glaser Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 7:53 AM To: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Izumi AIZU Cc: Carlos A. Afonso > > Subject: Re: [governance] Great speech, Carlos! > > > > > > Your Excellencies, Mr Wu Hongbo, Under Secretary General, Undesa, > > Chairman minister Ali Abatov, Secretary Chengetai Masango, in the > > name of whom I wish to salute all present authorities; ladies and > > gentlemen: > > > > I have been assigned the honorable task of speaking in the opening > > ceremony of this IGF in the name of civil society organizations, > > social movements and individuals active in Internet governance > > processes, many of them involved in these processes since the > > inception of WSIS nearly 10 years ago. Several of them collaborated > > with me in drafting the following statement. > > > > We believe that the absence of gatekeepers and the open, global > > communication enabled by the Internet is crucial to realize the > > promise of Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human > > Rights. To impose restrictions (legal or otherwise) to the free > > flow of information is and has always been contrary to the > > individual human right to freedom of expression. > > > > We therefore oppose efforts to create "national Internets," or to > > block and filter Internet access in ways that deny individuals > > access to applications, content and services of their choice. > > > > All attempts to deem certain forms of communication and information > > illegal and restrict or block them must follow established, > > transparent, due processes of law and should not involve prior > > restraint. > > > > We oppose efforts to militarize the Internet, or any actions that > > would foster a destructive and wasteful cyber arms race among > > governments or private actors. We consider the covert use of > > exploits and malware for surveillance or attacks to be criminal > > regardless of whether they are deployed by governments, private > > corporations or organized criminals. > > > > We are skeptical of efforts to subordinate the design and use of > > information and communication technology to "national security" > > agendas. We believe that Internet security will be achieved > > primarily at the operational level and that national security and > > military agendas often work against rather than for users' security > > needs. > > > > In the processes of policy formulation, we emphasize the need to > > prioritize dialogue with policy makers over their subordinated law > > enforcement agencies. > > > > Global governance institutions should not be restricted to states, > > so we welcome the additional participation in global policy making > > that multi-stakeholder processes provide. But we caution that > > multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself. > > > > Opening up global governance institutions to additional voices from > > civil society and business does not by itself ensure that > > individual rights are adequately protected or that the best > > substantive policies are developed and enforced. > > > > In the informal spaces created by pluralist institutions, it is > > possible that powerful governmental and corporate actors can make > > deals contrary to the interests of Internet users. > > > > Multistakeholder processes, while involving all interest groups, > > must incorporate and institutionalize concepts of due process, > > separation of powers and user's inalienable civil and political > > rights, and governmental decision-making ought to take into account > > the inputs of all participants of such pluralist processes. > > > > Let us remind ourselves that participation goes beyond > > representation, and participation in decision-making goes beyond > > just debates and dialogues. > > > > Regarding the ITR review process to be concluded in Dubai (and here > > I use the standard terminology the technical community defines to > > refer to the different components of the network): > > > > We agree that the internet layer and the layers above it (transport > > layer and applications layer) should not be included in any way in > > the regulations, while the free flow of Internet packets should be > > guaranteed in the link layer, in line with network neutrality in > > which Internet packets are never touched by the operators providing > > the physical connectivity infrastructure. > > > > Let the Internet flourish freely to the benefit of those who live > > at its edges, which are all of us. Thank you. > > > > === > > > > > > > > On 07/11/12 04:44, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> Dear Carlos, > >> > >> I hear many people really liked your speech yesterday, at the > >> opening session. In fact, one of the government reps told me this > >> morning it was THE BEST among all speeches of all guest > >> speakers. > >> > >> I also was asked to get File version of your speech, Carlos, to > >> be shared. > >> > >> To confess, I was not able to listen you since I was have some > >> preparatory meeting for Emerging Issues main session, so I also > >> need your speech in print/file. I am sure there are many others > >> like me. > >> > >> Many thanks, > >> > >> izumi > >> > >> > >> -- > >>>> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, > >> Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > >> Japan www.anr.org > >> > > > > > > > > > > - -- > 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://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQmig+AAoJEKpQzmPAS5FmbT8H/AsluWHDo1lBog6BbcCJvUhm > hGEJJLsYgsDLRph5Lqf1z0Bf+PYFn8rhby6o3qoKNbGZoKQ9lZONrKJ2ZkK35HAJ > 3BpWTW39vDySMVX8tVLd+sHQXRN9wiDLyqk4NX0tFIRzcMOpHFxsKq9oF3DQRb5h > OT9lticc53JKbDFak/y+3KLOvCjJjIqGoB3XKrn3x43Px6TjXUJSVNbO+zoHRsSg > aXCQ4sjYJaYX6d11DAVxZisL1mZca4eQab7LD5FTidk7qyCJVPqkHu4jS1wGC8aG > y+kX2M0u6f6hxEHeKJtLP4iY36u8eND6DobcHvLzNHd4KFoUnfe+NIzGUk1dk6Q= > =GFuf > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From amedinagomez at gmail.com Wed Nov 7 06:56:02 2012 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 06:56:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] Great speech, Carlos! In-Reply-To: References: <509A055C.70401@cgi.br> <509A283E.8090805@apcwomen.org> Message-ID: +1 congratulations!!! 2012/11/7 Valeria Betancourt > +1 > > Valeria > > 2012/11/7 Jac sm Kee > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Really great speech. Made me want to stand up and applaud! >> >> Thank you. >> j >> >> On 07/11/2012 16:15, Martial Bavou[Private Business Account] wrote: >> > Great speech, congratulation Carlos. >> > >> > -----Original Message----- From: >> > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Hartmut >> > Richard Glaser Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 7:53 AM To: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Izumi AIZU Cc: Carlos A. Afonso >> > Subject: Re: [governance] Great speech, Carlos! >> > >> > >> > Your Excellencies, Mr Wu Hongbo, Under Secretary General, Undesa, >> > Chairman minister Ali Abatov, Secretary Chengetai Masango, in the >> > name of whom I wish to salute all present authorities; ladies and >> > gentlemen: >> > >> > I have been assigned the honorable task of speaking in the opening >> > ceremony of this IGF in the name of civil society organizations, >> > social movements and individuals active in Internet governance >> > processes, many of them involved in these processes since the >> > inception of WSIS nearly 10 years ago. Several of them collaborated >> > with me in drafting the following statement. >> > >> > We believe that the absence of gatekeepers and the open, global >> > communication enabled by the Internet is crucial to realize the >> > promise of Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human >> > Rights. To impose restrictions (legal or otherwise) to the free >> > flow of information is and has always been contrary to the >> > individual human right to freedom of expression. >> > >> > We therefore oppose efforts to create "national Internets," or to >> > block and filter Internet access in ways that deny individuals >> > access to applications, content and services of their choice. >> > >> > All attempts to deem certain forms of communication and information >> > illegal and restrict or block them must follow established, >> > transparent, due processes of law and should not involve prior >> > restraint. >> > >> > We oppose efforts to militarize the Internet, or any actions that >> > would foster a destructive and wasteful cyber arms race among >> > governments or private actors. We consider the covert use of >> > exploits and malware for surveillance or attacks to be criminal >> > regardless of whether they are deployed by governments, private >> > corporations or organized criminals. >> > >> > We are skeptical of efforts to subordinate the design and use of >> > information and communication technology to "national security" >> > agendas. We believe that Internet security will be achieved >> > primarily at the operational level and that national security and >> > military agendas often work against rather than for users' security >> > needs. >> > >> > In the processes of policy formulation, we emphasize the need to >> > prioritize dialogue with policy makers over their subordinated law >> > enforcement agencies. >> > >> > Global governance institutions should not be restricted to states, >> > so we welcome the additional participation in global policy making >> > that multi-stakeholder processes provide. But we caution that >> > multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself. >> > >> > Opening up global governance institutions to additional voices from >> > civil society and business does not by itself ensure that >> > individual rights are adequately protected or that the best >> > substantive policies are developed and enforced. >> > >> > In the informal spaces created by pluralist institutions, it is >> > possible that powerful governmental and corporate actors can make >> > deals contrary to the interests of Internet users. >> > >> > Multistakeholder processes, while involving all interest groups, >> > must incorporate and institutionalize concepts of due process, >> > separation of powers and user's inalienable civil and political >> > rights, and governmental decision-making ought to take into account >> > the inputs of all participants of such pluralist processes. >> > >> > Let us remind ourselves that participation goes beyond >> > representation, and participation in decision-making goes beyond >> > just debates and dialogues. >> > >> > Regarding the ITR review process to be concluded in Dubai (and here >> > I use the standard terminology the technical community defines to >> > refer to the different components of the network): >> > >> > We agree that the internet layer and the layers above it (transport >> > layer and applications layer) should not be included in any way in >> > the regulations, while the free flow of Internet packets should be >> > guaranteed in the link layer, in line with network neutrality in >> > which Internet packets are never touched by the operators providing >> > the physical connectivity infrastructure. >> > >> > Let the Internet flourish freely to the benefit of those who live >> > at its edges, which are all of us. Thank you. >> > >> > === >> > >> > >> > >> > On 07/11/12 04:44, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >> Dear Carlos, >> >> >> >> I hear many people really liked your speech yesterday, at the >> >> opening session. In fact, one of the government reps told me this >> >> morning it was THE BEST among all speeches of all guest >> >> speakers. >> >> >> >> I also was asked to get File version of your speech, Carlos, to >> >> be shared. >> >> >> >> To confess, I was not able to listen you since I was have some >> >> preparatory meeting for Emerging Issues main session, so I also >> >> need your speech in print/file. I am sure there are many others >> >> like me. >> >> >> >> Many thanks, >> >> >> >> izumi >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >>>> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, >> >> Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> >> Japan www.anr.org >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> - -- >> 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://www.enigmail.net/ >> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQmig+AAoJEKpQzmPAS5FmbT8H/AsluWHDo1lBog6BbcCJvUhm >> hGEJJLsYgsDLRph5Lqf1z0Bf+PYFn8rhby6o3qoKNbGZoKQ9lZONrKJ2ZkK35HAJ >> 3BpWTW39vDySMVX8tVLd+sHQXRN9wiDLyqk4NX0tFIRzcMOpHFxsKq9oF3DQRb5h >> OT9lticc53JKbDFak/y+3KLOvCjJjIqGoB3XKrn3x43Px6TjXUJSVNbO+zoHRsSg >> aXCQ4sjYJaYX6d11DAVxZisL1mZca4eQab7LD5FTidk7qyCJVPqkHu4jS1wGC8aG >> y+kX2M0u6f6hxEHeKJtLP4iY36u8eND6DobcHvLzNHd4KFoUnfe+NIzGUk1dk6Q= >> =GFuf >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Valeria Betancourt > Directora / Manager > Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and > Information > Policy Programme > Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for > Progressive Communications, APC > http://www.apc.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gideonrop at gmail.com Wed Nov 7 13:07:50 2012 From: gideonrop at gmail.com (Gideon) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 21:07:50 +0300 Subject: [governance] Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change Request Made by DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa In-Reply-To: <20121107081316.GA28721@hserus.net> References: <20121107081316.GA28721@hserus.net> Message-ID: Our endorsement is compliant with ICANN requirements and no letter has been written for DCA explicitly withdrawing AU support. We are also confident that we are in compliance with the rest of ICANN process, unlike our competition! Gideon Rop. On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Let us see, let us see. You still need an AU endorsement and 60% of the > countries in africa, not a letter of support which has been explicitly > withdrawn. And then you still need to go through the rest of the process. > > Have fun. > > Gideon [07/11/12 09:15 +0300]: > > So what, this is just one person's opinion and means nothing, in fact >> focuses only on endorsement issues and not the merit of the .africa >> application. However DCA's announcement is a significant update, as the >> industry needs to be informed, including you and some people who made >> comments on .dotafrica on this forum. as well as the competition which >> falsely claimed "ICANN says there is only one .africa". >> >> >> >> Good day >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > >wrote: >> >> Very well put. Thanks for sharing. >>> >>> --srs (htc one x) >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Reply message ----- >>> From: "William New" >>> To: , "'Suresh Ramasubramanian'" < >>> suresh at hserus.net>, "'Gideon'" >>> Subject: [governance] Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change >>> Request Made by DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa >>> Date: Tue, Nov 6, 2012 7:24 PM >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/**11/03/top-level-domain-africa-** >>> becomes-object-of-bitter-**fight/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: governance-request at lists.**igcaucus.org[mailto: >>> governance-request at lists.**igcaucus.org] >>> On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 8:34 AM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Gideon >>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change >>> Request Made by DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> so,,,? does this suddenly award you the .africa TLD or something? >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> >>> On 06-Nov-2012, at 12:10, Gideon wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change Request Made by >>> DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa >>> >>> >>> http://archive.**constantcontact.com/fs123/**1102516344150/archive/** >>> 1111325860695.html >>> >>> >>> >>> Gideon Rop >>> >>> ______________________________**______________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >>> >>> >>> > ______________________________**______________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 7 13:37:26 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 13:37:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change Request Made by DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa In-Reply-To: References: <20121107081316.GA28721@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Gideon wrote: > Our endorsement is compliant with ICANN requirements and no letter has been > written for DCA explicitly withdrawing AU support. so how do you explain this one: http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1102516344150-107/Communique_Statement_by_AUC_on_Dot_Africa_May_10th__AO+MY_+BK_Comments%5b1%5d.pdf ???? -- 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 fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Wed Nov 7 13:46:51 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 20:46:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change Request Made by DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa In-Reply-To: References: <20121107081316.GA28721@hserus.net> Message-ID: It seems that .Africa is destined to fireworks. I wonder where does "the public interest" stand at. Fahd On Nov 7, 2012 9:38 PM, "McTim" wrote: > On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Gideon wrote: > > Our endorsement is compliant with ICANN requirements and no letter has > been > > written for DCA explicitly withdrawing AU support. > > so how do you explain this one: > > > http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1102516344150-107/Communique_Statement_by_AUC_on_Dot_Africa_May_10th__AO+MY_+BK_Comments%5b1%5d.pdf > > ???? > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Wed Nov 7 14:53:32 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 21:53:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] Megaupload Sequel Faces Gabon's Suspension Order Setback Message-ID: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20236107 An interesting twist in the * sequel *. Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Wed Nov 7 14:56:13 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 21:56:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] Barack Obama Victory Tweet Most Retweeted Ever Message-ID: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20237531 The words "four more years", coupled with a photo of Barack and Michelle Obama embraced in a hug, have become the most retweeted Twitter post ever. Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From julian at colnodo.apc.org Wed Nov 7 16:27:33 2012 From: julian at colnodo.apc.org (Julian Casasbuenas G.) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 16:27:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] Great speech, Carlos! In-Reply-To: <509A055C.70401@cgi.br> References: <509A055C.70401@cgi.br> Message-ID: <509AD245.3010206@colnodo.apc.org> Thank you Carlos and all of you for making such a good statement, Best, Julián El 07/11/12 01:53, Hartmut Richard Glaser escribió: > > Your Excellencies, Mr Wu Hongbo, Under Secretary General, Undesa, > Chairman minister Ali Abatov, Secretary Chengetai Masango, in the name > of whom I wish to salute all present authorities; ladies and gentlemen: > > I have been assigned the honorable task of speaking in the opening > ceremony of this IGF in the name of civil society organizations, > social movements and individuals active in Internet governance > processes, many of them involved in these processes since the > inception of WSIS nearly 10 years ago. Several of them collaborated > with me in drafting the following statement. > > We believe that the absence of gatekeepers and the open, global > communication enabled by the Internet is crucial to realize the > promise of Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > To impose restrictions (legal or otherwise) to the free flow of > information is and has always been contrary to the individual human > right to freedom of expression. > > We therefore oppose efforts to create "national Internets," or to > block and filter Internet access in ways that deny individuals access > to applications, content and services of their choice. > > All attempts to deem certain forms of communication and information > illegal and restrict or block them must follow established, > transparent, due processes of law and should not involve prior restraint. > > We oppose efforts to militarize the Internet, or any actions that > would foster a destructive and wasteful cyber arms race among > governments or private actors. We consider the covert use of exploits > and malware for surveillance or attacks to be criminal regardless of > whether they are deployed by governments, private corporations or > organized criminals. > > We are skeptical of efforts to subordinate the design and use of > information and communication technology to "national security" > agendas. We believe that Internet security will be achieved primarily > at the operational level and that national security and military > agendas often work against rather than for users' security needs. > > In the processes of policy formulation, we emphasize the need to > prioritize dialogue with policy makers over their subordinated law > enforcement agencies. > > Global governance institutions should not be restricted to states, so > we welcome the additional participation in global policy making that > multi-stakeholder processes provide. But we caution that > multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself. > > Opening up global governance institutions to additional voices from > civil society and business does not by itself ensure that individual > rights are adequately protected or that the best substantive policies > are developed and enforced. > > In the informal spaces created by pluralist institutions, it is > possible that powerful governmental and corporate actors can make > deals contrary to the interests of Internet users. > > Multistakeholder processes, while involving all interest groups, must > incorporate and institutionalize concepts of due process, separation > of powers and user's inalienable civil and political rights, and > governmental decision-making ought to take into account the inputs of > all participants of such pluralist processes. > > Let us remind ourselves that participation goes beyond representation, > and participation in decision-making goes beyond just debates and > dialogues. > > Regarding the ITR review process to be concluded in Dubai (and here I > use the standard terminology the technical community defines to refer > to the different components of the network): > > We agree that the internet layer and the layers above it (transport > layer and applications layer) should not be included in any way in the > regulations, while the free flow of Internet packets should be > guaranteed in the link layer, in line with network neutrality in which > Internet packets are never touched by the operators providing the > physical connectivity infrastructure. > > Let the Internet flourish freely to the benefit of those who live at > its edges, which are all of us. Thank you. > > === > > > > On 07/11/12 04:44, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> Dear Carlos, >> >> I hear many people really liked your speech yesterday, at the opening >> session. In fact, one of the government reps told me this morning it >> was THE BEST among all speeches of all guest speakers. >> >> I also was asked to get File version of your speech, Carlos, to be >> shared. >> >> To confess, I was not able to listen you since I was have some >> preparatory meeting for Emerging Issues main session, so I also need >> your speech in print/file. I am sure there are many others like me. >> >> Many thanks, >> >> izumi >> >> >> -- >> >> Izumi Aizu << >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> Japan >> www.anr.org >> > > -- Julian Casasbuenas G. Director Colnodo Diagonal 40A (Antigua Av. 39) No. 14-75, Bogota, Colombia Tel: 57-1-2324246, Cel. 57-315-3339099 Fax: 57-1-3380264 Twitter @jcasasbuenas www.colnodo.apc.org - Uso Estratégico de Internet para el Desarrollo Miembro de la Asociacion para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones -APC- www.apc.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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 7 17:41:55 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 04:11:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Barack Obama Victory Tweet Most Retweeted Ever In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8BB9DF1C-7A09-4C12-A790-35A8F3A7E801@hserus.net> May I ask your opinion on how or why a photo of a couple hugging is anyway remotely related to igov? --srs (iPad) On 08-Nov-2012, at 1:26, "Fahd A. Batayneh" wrote: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20237531 > > The words "four more years", coupled with a photo of Barack and Michelle Obama embraced in a hug, have become the most retweeted Twitter post ever. > > Fahd > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 7 17:46:22 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 04:16:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change Request Made by DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa In-Reply-To: References: <20121107081316.GA28721@hserus.net> Message-ID: Nowhere in particular. So far it is a petty commercial dispute. Even the TLD by itself has little or no relevance in the larger scheme of things, any more than say .museum has for museums the world over, or its geographic predecessor .asia has had for Asia (moderately, but not too popular) --srs (iPad) On 08-Nov-2012, at 0:16, "Fahd A. Batayneh" wrote: > It seems that .Africa is destined to fireworks. I wonder where does "the public interest" stand at. > > Fahd > On Nov 7, 2012 9:38 PM, "McTim" wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Gideon wrote: >> > Our endorsement is compliant with ICANN requirements and no letter has been >> > written for DCA explicitly withdrawing AU support. >> >> so how do you explain this one: >> >> http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1102516344150-107/Communique_Statement_by_AUC_on_Dot_Africa_May_10th__AO+MY_+BK_Comments%5b1%5d.pdf >> >> ???? >> >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ivarhartmann at gmail.com Wed Nov 7 17:56:29 2012 From: ivarhartmann at gmail.com (Ivar A. M. Hartmann) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 20:56:29 -0200 Subject: [governance] Barack Obama Victory Tweet Most Retweeted Ever In-Reply-To: <8BB9DF1C-7A09-4C12-A790-35A8F3A7E801@hserus.net> References: <8BB9DF1C-7A09-4C12-A790-35A8F3A7E801@hserus.net> Message-ID: I believe major happenings in the field of social networks are of interest to IG. In this case, it's more strong evidence of the use of social networks for political speech. This relates to cyberdemocracy theories and concerns stakeholders involved in regulating free speech online as political speech is deemed in almost all democracies to be the type of speech that calls for the stronger protection. Just my opinion. Best, Ivar On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > May I ask your opinion on how or why a photo of a couple hugging is anyway > remotely related to igov? > > --srs (iPad) > > On 08-Nov-2012, at 1:26, "Fahd A. Batayneh" > wrote: > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20237531 > > The words "four more years", coupled with a photo of Barack and Michelle > Obama embraced in a hug, have become the most retweeted Twitter post ever. > > Fahd > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 7 18:09:49 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 04:39:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] Barack Obama Victory Tweet Most Retweeted Ever Message-ID: Well you see, without some commentary about it in this context from the original poster, it is practically impossible to tell the difference between that and idle forwarding of random news articles. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Ivar A. M. Hartmann" To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Suresh Ramasubramanian" Cc: "Fahd A. Batayneh" Subject: [governance] Barack Obama Victory Tweet Most Retweeted Ever Date: Thu, Nov 8, 2012 4:26 AM I believe major happenings in the field of social networks are of interest to IG. In this case, it's more strong evidence of the use of social networks for political speech. This relates to cyberdemocracy theories and concerns stakeholders involved in regulating free speech online as political speech is deemed in almost all democracies to be the type of speech that calls for the stronger protection. Just my opinion. Best, Ivar On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > May I ask your opinion on how or why a photo of a couple hugging is anyway > remotely related to igov? > > --srs (iPad) > > On 08-Nov-2012, at 1:26, "Fahd A. Batayneh" > wrote: > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20237531 > > The words "four more years", coupled with a photo of Barack and Michelle > Obama embraced in a hug, have become the most retweeted Twitter post ever. > > Fahd > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 7 22:29:20 2012 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 07:29:20 +0400 Subject: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection In-Reply-To: References: <1352228143.46381.YahooMailNeo@web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1352229400.49284.YahooMailNeo@web160502.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <509B2710.1030203@gih.com> I suppose rp has probably been flooded with enquiries. Since the beginning of the week, I saw Bernard run around trying to fix things. The remote participation computers running Webex are all wired in and appear to work well but the network sometimes goes through some periods of being very slow. This is when the WIFI works and guess what, the WIFI does not work well at all. In fact, I have spent complete afternoons without WIFI. (not enough IPv4 addresses to allocate -- and no IPv6 connectivity at all in case you ask) Whilst so far, I have been super impressed with the host country, this is, in my opinion, the poorest Internet connectivity we've had at the venue in recent IGFs. Kind regards, Olivier On 07/11/2012 00:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:16 PM, shaila mistry wrote: >> Hi everyone >> I too have tried several times to participate. Each time I am sent a >> different route of downloads and logins , finally leading to a dead end. >> Please advise what can be done ? >> Shaila Rao Mistry > Have you tried contacting > > "Remote Participation general help" > > ? > > Do they respond? > > If yes, what are they saying? > > If no, let us know, so that we can push locally for those help email > addresses to be handled in a meaningful way. > > In the long run, what we need is funding to put a competent person in > charge of ensuring in an ongoing manner (year after year) that IGF > remote participation is made available in a way that can be expected > to work (which presupposes learning from what went wrong in earlier > years, and it presupposes serious testing well before the first day of > the IGF). It is simply unacceptable for an entirely new technical team > to put in charge of remote participation every year, and the remote > participation infrastructure again and again being so absurdly > unreliable.) > > Greetings, > Norbert > -- 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Wed Nov 7 23:38:07 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 00:38:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Only just got the message. In every workshop I've attended RP worked - usually text interventions. I think voice was reserved to remote panellists. Internet for the rest of us is rather tricky - to be diplomatic about it. Deirdre On 6 November 2012 14:34, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Dear all, > > as I'm organizing a workshop tomorrow Wednesday, I'd really very > much like to know to what extent remote participation was possible > today. I mean, what was working technically? Has it been possible for > remote people to follow what is going on? Are they able to communicate > interventions by voice? Is there at least a wire-based Internet > connection for the Remote Moderator so that remote people can comment > by irc or twitter or skype and the remote moderator would read it out > then? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Martial Bavou[Private Business > Account] wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > > > > It is quite not easy to get connected remotely, sound like there is > > something wrong technically, hope this will be sorted out before > tomorrow. > > Possible to have some pictures from those who are on site? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 charityg at diplomacy.edu Thu Nov 8 00:00:30 2012 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 23:00:30 -0600 Subject: [governance] Barack Obama Victory Tweet Most Retweeted Ever In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Suresh, It's always a matter of opinion. Anybody can hit the delete key if that particular item perplexes them. But you know some of us who can make the connection - then it's not a big deal. The picture of the president and the first lady hugging and is heavily tweeted (and even circulated in Facebook) is a sign of free speech online. Please don't get me wrong - you are entitled to ask. There are so many facebook pages created in the US that is devoted to political opinions, e.g. "*Politically Incorrect and Proud of It Too*." Anybody can subscribe to humorous quotes, posts and pictures that pokes fun at President Obama. That's like normal squabbling. You have the likes of Michelle Malkin who is a very strong conservative blogger who uses her Twitchy website to post her tweets (as screenshots) to make a political point. So those people who tweeted on Obama's winning are probably his supporters, thus, expressing their own right to express themselves via social media. I see nothing wrong with that regardless if one is a liberal, conservative or a libertarian. Do I really need to elaborate on this issue? Nope - it's a no brainer. I just want to point out that this is how I would think of the issue. But I wouldn't chide Fahd for posting that here as well as he is also is exercising his right to share his opinion. I also chose to give him a break. Charity Gamboa-Embley On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Well you see, without some commentary about it in this context from the > original poster, it is practically impossible to tell the difference > between that and idle forwarding of random news articles. > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Ivar A. M. Hartmann" > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , > "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > Cc: "Fahd A. Batayneh" > Subject: [governance] Barack Obama Victory Tweet Most Retweeted Ever > Date: Thu, Nov 8, 2012 4:26 AM > > > I believe major happenings in the field of social networks are of interest > to IG. > In this case, it's more strong evidence of the use of social networks for > political speech. This relates to cyberdemocracy theories and concerns > stakeholders involved in regulating free speech online as political speech > is deemed in almost all democracies to be the type of speech that calls for > the stronger protection. > Just my opinion. > Best, > Ivar > > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >wrote: > > > May I ask your opinion on how or why a photo of a couple hugging is > anyway > > remotely related to igov? > > > > --srs (iPad) > > > > On 08-Nov-2012, at 1:26, "Fahd A. Batayneh" > > wrote: > > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20237531 > > > > The words "four more years", coupled with a photo of Barack and Michelle > > Obama embraced in a hug, have become the most retweeted Twitter post > ever. > > > > Fahd > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 8 00:02:13 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:02:13 +0400 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hamadoun_Tour=E9_Op-Ed_in_Wired_+?= Message-ID: <007e01cdbd6e$55945890$00bd09b0$@gmail.com> Hamadoun Touré has an Op-Ed in Wired http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/11/head-of-itu-un-should-internet-regulati on-effort/ ----------------------- I'm unclear as to why Civil Society should be aligning itself with the almost universal chorus of corporate and Developed Country national voices condemning Toure/the ITU if, as he says, in his opening paragraph With over 90 percent of the world’s people now within reach of mobile phones, the challenge today is bringing internet access to the two-thirds of the world’s population that is still offline. This challenge is compounded by the need to ensure connectivity is affordable and safe for all. and then The conference will chart a globally agreed-upon roadmap that offers future connectivity to all, and ensures sufficient communications capacity to cope with the exponential growth in voice, video, and data. The sole focus of the event is making regulations valuable to all stakeholders, creating a robust pillar to support future growth in global communications. and The conference will address issues that relate to improving online access and connectivity for everyone. Surely these are appropriate goals for Civil Society as well and, rather than joining the universal condemnation of the WCIT, CS should be looking for ways of supporting the above goals while pursuing its own goals of enhanced transparency and multi-stakeholder involvement in ITU processes; as well, of course, aligning with potential allies in the corporate sector and national governments in areas where there may be a clear consistency of interests as in ensuring rights of privacy and free expression. Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 8 00:08:40 2012 From: dvbirve at yandex.ru (Shcherbovich Andrey) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 09:08:40 +0400 Subject: [governance] Today Workshop: HUMAN RIGHTS ON THE INTENET: LEGAL FRAMES AND TECHNOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS Message-ID: <716701352351320@web6e.yandex.ru> Our workshop is scheduled to be held on Thursday, November 8, 16-30 - 18-00 Baku time, CONF. ROOM 3. The current agenda of the workshop is listed below. Dr. Svetlana V. Maltseva. Introductory word Dr. Svetlana V. Maltseva and Dr. Mikhail M. Komarov. Human Rights on the Internet. Synergetic effect of the technological and legal impacts. Dr. Anna K. Zharova and Andrey A. Shcherbovich. Adaptation of the technological solutions to the changing legal environment. Dr. Paul Vixie. The Internet as an Expression of Individual Self Determination. Dr. Jeremy Malcolm. Human Rights and the future of Internet Governance. Roxana Radu. Dynamics between internet governance and human rights at the international level. General Discussion Dr. Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, discussant. With kind regards, Andrey Shcherbovich National research university "Higher school of economics" -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 8 00:14:46 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 21:14:46 -0800 Subject: [governance] Barack Obama Victory Tweet Most Retweeted Ever In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20121108051446.GA17445@hserus.net> Don't get me wrong, I'd have voted for Obama if I were a US citizen The one thing I have an issue with is that there's little or no relationship between that (or other discussion about the US elections) and internet governance. Except in an abstract way as an illustration of the USA's tradition of free speech, say. This list has a fairly high level of traffic, so getting four or five news articles, seemingly randomly chosen, forwarded to it every day doesn't help much. thanks srs Charity Gamboa [07/11/12 23:00 -0600]: >Suresh, > >It's always a matter of opinion. Anybody can hit the delete key if that >particular item perplexes them. But you know some of us who can make the >connection - then it's not a big deal. The picture of the president and >the first lady hugging and is heavily tweeted (and even circulated in >Facebook) is a sign of free speech online. Please don't get me wrong - you >are entitled to ask. There are so many facebook pages created in the US >that is devoted to political opinions, e.g. "*Politically Incorrect and >Proud of It Too*." Anybody can subscribe to humorous quotes, posts and >pictures that pokes fun at President Obama. That's like normal squabbling. >You have the likes of Michelle Malkin who is a very strong conservative >blogger who uses her Twitchy website to post her tweets (as screenshots) to >make a political point. So those people who tweeted on Obama's winning are >probably his supporters, thus, expressing their own right to express >themselves via social media. I see nothing wrong with that regardless if >one is a liberal, conservative or a libertarian. Do I really need to >elaborate on this issue? Nope - it's a no brainer. I just want to point out >that this is how I would think of the issue. But I wouldn't chide Fahd for >posting that here as well as he is also is exercising his right to share >his opinion. I also chose to give him a break. > >Charity Gamboa-Embley > >On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> Well you see, without some commentary about it in this context from the >> original poster, it is practically impossible to tell the difference >> between that and idle forwarding of random news articles. >> >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> >> >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "Ivar A. M. Hartmann" >> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , >> "Suresh Ramasubramanian" >> Cc: "Fahd A. Batayneh" >> Subject: [governance] Barack Obama Victory Tweet Most Retweeted Ever >> Date: Thu, Nov 8, 2012 4:26 AM >> >> >> I believe major happenings in the field of social networks are of interest >> to IG. >> In this case, it's more strong evidence of the use of social networks for >> political speech. This relates to cyberdemocracy theories and concerns >> stakeholders involved in regulating free speech online as political speech >> is deemed in almost all democracies to be the type of speech that calls for >> the stronger protection. >> Just my opinion. >> Best, >> Ivar >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > >wrote: >> >> > May I ask your opinion on how or why a photo of a couple hugging is >> anyway >> > remotely related to igov? >> > >> > --srs (iPad) >> > >> > On 08-Nov-2012, at 1:26, "Fahd A. Batayneh" >> > wrote: >> > >> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20237531 >> > >> > The words "four more years", coupled with a photo of Barack and Michelle >> > Obama embraced in a hug, have become the most retweeted Twitter post >> ever. >> > >> > Fahd >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 chaitanyabd at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 00:33:13 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 11:03:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] Barack Obama Victory Tweet Most Retweeted Ever In-Reply-To: <20121108051446.GA17445@hserus.net> References: <20121108051446.GA17445@hserus.net> Message-ID: Given the recent issues with the USG asserting (or trying to assert) a fair bit of control over the internet, and the fact that Obama's government veto'd the change I figure it's relevant to us in the context that the status quo will continue. A change of first citizen of the US can result in fair few changes in the overall thinking/working of the country - so yes this *news* is certainly important. The article just looks like an 'election update' type of news and not particularly relevant - so, Suresh I do agree with you here. -C On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Don't get me wrong, I'd have voted for Obama if I were a US citizen > > The one thing I have an issue with is that there's little or no > relationship between that (or other discussion about the US elections) and > internet governance. Except in an abstract way as an illustration of the > USA's tradition of free speech, say. > > This list has a fairly high level of traffic, so getting four or five news > articles, seemingly randomly chosen, forwarded to it every day doesn't help > much. > > thanks srs > > Charity Gamboa [07/11/12 23:00 -0600]: > >> Suresh, >> >> It's always a matter of opinion. Anybody can hit the delete key if that >> particular item perplexes them. But you know some of us who can make the >> connection - then it's not a big deal. The picture of the president and >> the first lady hugging and is heavily tweeted (and even circulated in >> Facebook) is a sign of free speech online. Please don't get me wrong - >> you >> are entitled to ask. There are so many facebook pages created in the US >> that is devoted to political opinions, e.g. "*Politically Incorrect and >> Proud of It Too*." Anybody can subscribe to humorous quotes, posts and >> >> pictures that pokes fun at President Obama. That's like normal squabbling. >> You have the likes of Michelle Malkin who is a very strong conservative >> blogger who uses her Twitchy website to post her tweets (as screenshots) >> to >> make a political point. So those people who tweeted on Obama's winning are >> probably his supporters, thus, expressing their own right to express >> themselves via social media. I see nothing wrong with that regardless if >> one is a liberal, conservative or a libertarian. Do I really need to >> elaborate on this issue? Nope - it's a no brainer. I just want to point >> out >> that this is how I would think of the issue. But I wouldn't chide Fahd for >> posting that here as well as he is also is exercising his right to share >> his opinion. I also chose to give him a break. >> >> Charity Gamboa-Embley >> >> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > >wrote: >> >> Well you see, without some commentary about it in this context from the >>> original poster, it is practically impossible to tell the difference >>> between that and idle forwarding of random news articles. >>> >>> --srs (htc one x) >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Reply message ----- >>> From: "Ivar A. M. Hartmann" >>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org**" , >>> "Suresh Ramasubramanian" >>> Cc: "Fahd A. Batayneh" >>> Subject: [governance] Barack Obama Victory Tweet Most Retweeted Ever >>> Date: Thu, Nov 8, 2012 4:26 AM >>> >>> >>> I believe major happenings in the field of social networks are of >>> interest >>> to IG. >>> In this case, it's more strong evidence of the use of social networks for >>> political speech. This relates to cyberdemocracy theories and concerns >>> stakeholders involved in regulating free speech online as political >>> speech >>> is deemed in almost all democracies to be the type of speech that calls >>> for >>> the stronger protection. >>> Just my opinion. >>> Best, >>> Ivar >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian < >>> suresh at hserus.net >>> >wrote: >>> >>> > May I ask your opinion on how or why a photo of a couple hugging is >>> anyway >>> > remotely related to igov? >>> > >>> > --srs (iPad) >>> > >>> > On 08-Nov-2012, at 1:26, "Fahd A. Batayneh" >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/**technology-20237531 >>> > >>> > The words "four more years", coupled with a photo of Barack and >>> Michelle >>> > Obama embraced in a hug, have become the most retweeted Twitter post >>> ever. >>> > >>> > Fahd >>> > >>> > ______________________________**______________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >>> > >>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance >>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> > >>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >>> > >>> > >>> > ______________________________**______________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >>> > >>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance >>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> > >>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >>> > >>> > >>> >>> ______________________________**______________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >>> >>> >>> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 8 00:34:15 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 21:34:15 -0800 Subject: [governance] Barack Obama Victory Tweet Most Retweeted Ever In-Reply-To: References: <20121108051446.GA17445@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20121108053415.GA17621@hserus.net> Do you seriously believe that *Romney* is going to do anything different? As for "fair bit of control" - does that mean you support handing all this over to the ITU? Chaitanya Dhareshwar [08/11/12 11:03 +0530]: >Given the recent issues with the USG asserting (or trying to assert) a fair >bit of control over the internet, and the fact that Obama's government >veto'd the change I figure it's relevant to us in the context that the >status quo will continue. A change of first citizen of the US can result in >fair few changes in the overall thinking/working of the country - so yes >this *news* is certainly important. > >The article just looks like an 'election update' type of news and not >particularly relevant - so, Suresh I do agree with you here. > >-C > >On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >wrote: > >> Don't get me wrong, I'd have voted for Obama if I were a US citizen >> >> The one thing I have an issue with is that there's little or no >> relationship between that (or other discussion about the US elections) and >> internet governance. Except in an abstract way as an illustration of the >> USA's tradition of free speech, say. >> >> This list has a fairly high level of traffic, so getting four or five news >> articles, seemingly randomly chosen, forwarded to it every day doesn't help >> much. >> >> thanks srs >> >> Charity Gamboa [07/11/12 23:00 -0600]: >> >>> Suresh, >>> >>> It's always a matter of opinion. Anybody can hit the delete key if that >>> particular item perplexes them. But you know some of us who can make the >>> connection - then it's not a big deal. The picture of the president and >>> the first lady hugging and is heavily tweeted (and even circulated in >>> Facebook) is a sign of free speech online. Please don't get me wrong - >>> you >>> are entitled to ask. There are so many facebook pages created in the US >>> that is devoted to political opinions, e.g. "*Politically Incorrect and >>> Proud of It Too*." Anybody can subscribe to humorous quotes, posts and >>> >>> pictures that pokes fun at President Obama. That's like normal squabbling. >>> You have the likes of Michelle Malkin who is a very strong conservative >>> blogger who uses her Twitchy website to post her tweets (as screenshots) >>> to >>> make a political point. So those people who tweeted on Obama's winning are >>> probably his supporters, thus, expressing their own right to express >>> themselves via social media. I see nothing wrong with that regardless if >>> one is a liberal, conservative or a libertarian. Do I really need to >>> elaborate on this issue? Nope - it's a no brainer. I just want to point >>> out >>> that this is how I would think of the issue. But I wouldn't chide Fahd for >>> posting that here as well as he is also is exercising his right to share >>> his opinion. I also chose to give him a break. >>> >>> Charity Gamboa-Embley >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> >wrote: >>> >>> Well you see, without some commentary about it in this context from the >>>> original poster, it is practically impossible to tell the difference >>>> between that and idle forwarding of random news articles. >>>> >>>> --srs (htc one x) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Reply message ----- >>>> From: "Ivar A. M. Hartmann" >>>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org**" , >>>> "Suresh Ramasubramanian" >>>> Cc: "Fahd A. Batayneh" >>>> Subject: [governance] Barack Obama Victory Tweet Most Retweeted Ever >>>> Date: Thu, Nov 8, 2012 4:26 AM >>>> >>>> >>>> I believe major happenings in the field of social networks are of >>>> interest >>>> to IG. >>>> In this case, it's more strong evidence of the use of social networks for >>>> political speech. This relates to cyberdemocracy theories and concerns >>>> stakeholders involved in regulating free speech online as political >>>> speech >>>> is deemed in almost all democracies to be the type of speech that calls >>>> for >>>> the stronger protection. >>>> Just my opinion. >>>> Best, >>>> Ivar >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian < >>>> suresh at hserus.net >>>> >wrote: >>>> >>>> > May I ask your opinion on how or why a photo of a couple hugging is >>>> anyway >>>> > remotely related to igov? >>>> > >>>> > --srs (iPad) >>>> > >>>> > On 08-Nov-2012, at 1:26, "Fahd A. Batayneh" >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/**technology-20237531 >>>> > >>>> > The words "four more years", coupled with a photo of Barack and >>>> Michelle >>>> > Obama embraced in a hug, have become the most retweeted Twitter post >>>> ever. >>>> > >>>> > Fahd >>>> > >>>> > ______________________________**______________________________ >>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >>>> > >>>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance >>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> > >>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > ______________________________**______________________________ >>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >>>> > >>>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance >>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> > >>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> ______________________________**______________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 chaitanyabd at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 00:41:13 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 11:11:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] Barack Obama Victory Tweet Most Retweeted Ever In-Reply-To: <20121108053415.GA17621@hserus.net> References: <20121108051446.GA17445@hserus.net> <20121108053415.GA17621@hserus.net> Message-ID: "Is going to" - no because he didnt get the top job. "Would he have done something different?" possibly - but we won't know by speculating. IMHO yes Romney would have approached the point differently. I said "issues with" don't miss that out please. Those issues were veto'd which I've also written - do re-read the sentence with these points in mind - and not push me into a boat. I'm yet to choose which one (though non-ITU sounds good, again IMHO). Best, C On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Do you seriously believe that *Romney* is going to do anything different? > > As for "fair bit of control" - does that mean you support handing all this > over to the ITU? > > Chaitanya Dhareshwar [08/11/12 11:03 +0530]: > >> Given the recent issues with the USG asserting (or trying to assert) a >> fair >> bit of control over the internet, and the fact that Obama's government >> veto'd the change I figure it's relevant to us in the context that the >> status quo will continue. A change of first citizen of the US can result >> in >> fair few changes in the overall thinking/working of the country - so yes >> this *news* is certainly important. >> >> >> The article just looks like an 'election update' type of news and not >> particularly relevant - so, Suresh I do agree with you here. >> >> -C >> >> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> wrote: >> >> Don't get me wrong, I'd have voted for Obama if I were a US citizen >>> >>> The one thing I have an issue with is that there's little or no >>> relationship between that (or other discussion about the US elections) >>> and >>> internet governance. Except in an abstract way as an illustration of the >>> USA's tradition of free speech, say. >>> >>> This list has a fairly high level of traffic, so getting four or five >>> news >>> articles, seemingly randomly chosen, forwarded to it every day doesn't >>> help >>> much. >>> >>> thanks srs >>> >>> Charity Gamboa [07/11/12 23:00 -0600]: >>> >>> Suresh, >>>> >>>> It's always a matter of opinion. Anybody can hit the delete key if that >>>> particular item perplexes them. But you know some of us who can make the >>>> connection - then it's not a big deal. The picture of the president and >>>> the first lady hugging and is heavily tweeted (and even circulated in >>>> Facebook) is a sign of free speech online. Please don't get me wrong - >>>> you >>>> are entitled to ask. There are so many facebook pages created in the US >>>> that is devoted to political opinions, e.g. "*Politically Incorrect and >>>> Proud of It Too*." Anybody can subscribe to humorous quotes, posts and >>>> >>>> pictures that pokes fun at President Obama. That's like normal >>>> squabbling. >>>> You have the likes of Michelle Malkin who is a very strong conservative >>>> blogger who uses her Twitchy website to post her tweets (as screenshots) >>>> to >>>> make a political point. So those people who tweeted on Obama's winning >>>> are >>>> probably his supporters, thus, expressing their own right to express >>>> themselves via social media. I see nothing wrong with that regardless if >>>> one is a liberal, conservative or a libertarian. Do I really need to >>>> elaborate on this issue? Nope - it's a no brainer. I just want to point >>>> out >>>> that this is how I would think of the issue. But I wouldn't chide Fahd >>>> for >>>> posting that here as well as he is also is exercising his right to share >>>> his opinion. I also chose to give him a break. >>>> >>>> Charity Gamboa-Embley >>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian < >>>> suresh at hserus.net >>>> >wrote: >>>> >>>> Well you see, without some commentary about it in this context from the >>>> >>>>> original poster, it is practically impossible to tell the difference >>>>> between that and idle forwarding of random news articles. >>>>> >>>>> --srs (htc one x) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Reply message ----- >>>>> From: "Ivar A. M. Hartmann" >>>>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org****" >>>> ****>, >>>>> "Suresh Ramasubramanian" >>>>> Cc: "Fahd A. Batayneh" >>>>> Subject: [governance] Barack Obama Victory Tweet Most Retweeted Ever >>>>> Date: Thu, Nov 8, 2012 4:26 AM >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I believe major happenings in the field of social networks are of >>>>> interest >>>>> to IG. >>>>> In this case, it's more strong evidence of the use of social networks >>>>> for >>>>> political speech. This relates to cyberdemocracy theories and concerns >>>>> stakeholders involved in regulating free speech online as political >>>>> speech >>>>> is deemed in almost all democracies to be the type of speech that calls >>>>> for >>>>> the stronger protection. >>>>> Just my opinion. >>>>> Best, >>>>> Ivar >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian < >>>>> suresh at hserus.net >>>>> >wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > May I ask your opinion on how or why a photo of a couple hugging is >>>>> anyway >>>>> > remotely related to igov? >>>>> > >>>>> > --srs (iPad) >>>>> > >>>>> > On 08-Nov-2012, at 1:26, "Fahd A. Batayneh" >>>> > >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/****technology-20237531 >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> > The words "four more years", coupled with a photo of Barack and >>>>> Michelle >>>>> > Obama embraced in a hug, have become the most retweeted Twitter post >>>>> ever. >>>>> > >>>>> > Fahd >>>>> > >>>>> > ______________________________****____________________________**__ >>>>> >>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/****unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/****info/governance >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> > >>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/****translate_t >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > ______________________________****____________________________**__ >>>>> >>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/****unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/****info/governance >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> > >>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/****translate_t >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> ______________________________****____________________________**__ >>>>> >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/****unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/****info/governance >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/****translate_t >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> ______________________________**______________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >>> >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gideonrop at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 00:52:47 2012 From: gideonrop at gmail.com (Gideon) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 08:52:47 +0300 Subject: [governance] Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change Request Made by DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa In-Reply-To: References: <20121107081316.GA28721@hserus.net> Message-ID: McTim, You should be asking the AU to explain that not DCA. Given that the source of the document you obtained is from DCA's site, you can see DCA has nothing to hide, it has replied to that AU communique with the following press statement. There is always 2 sides to a story. http://www.prlog.org/11490290-dca-commentary-response-to-the-african-union-commission-communiqu-clarification-on-dotafrica.html Regarding the open EOI or RFP AU claims it has eventually done, let AU e xplain this as well. http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs053/1102516344150/archive/1109846725800.html Indeed Fahd, .africa is a fireworks! Public interest with who? I hope you do not mean with the AU! Gideon. On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: > It seems that .Africa is destined to fireworks. I wonder where does "the > public interest" stand at. > > Fahd > On Nov 7, 2012 9:38 PM, "McTim" wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Gideon wrote: >> > Our endorsement is compliant with ICANN requirements and no letter has >> been >> > written for DCA explicitly withdrawing AU support. >> >> so how do you explain this one: >> >> >> http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1102516344150-107/Communique_Statement_by_AUC_on_Dot_Africa_May_10th__AO+MY_+BK_Comments%5b1%5d.pdf >> >> ???? >> >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 8 01:13:05 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 22:13:05 -0800 Subject: [governance] Barack Obama Victory Tweet Most Retweeted Ever In-Reply-To: References: <20121108051446.GA17445@hserus.net> <20121108053415.GA17621@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20121108061304.GA18038@hserus.net> I'm for maintaining the icann / RIR etc status quo with more people enabled to participate more actively in these. Participation from say India has been fairly limited for one reason or the other (industry to some extent though it started to get vocal, and rather political, in apnic .. and government to a rather larger extent) Chaitanya Dhareshwar [08/11/12 11:11 +0530]: >"Is going to" - no because he didnt get the top job. "Would he have done >something different?" possibly - but we won't know by speculating. IMHO yes >Romney would have approached the point differently. > >I said "issues with" don't miss that out please. Those issues were veto'd >which I've also written - do re-read the sentence with these points in mind >- and not push me into a boat. I'm yet to choose which one (though non-ITU >sounds good, again IMHO). > >Best, >C > >On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >wrote: > >> Do you seriously believe that *Romney* is going to do anything different? >> >> As for "fair bit of control" - does that mean you support handing all this >> over to the ITU? >> >> Chaitanya Dhareshwar [08/11/12 11:03 +0530]: >> >>> Given the recent issues with the USG asserting (or trying to assert) a >>> fair >>> bit of control over the internet, and the fact that Obama's government >>> veto'd the change I figure it's relevant to us in the context that the >>> status quo will continue. A change of first citizen of the US can result >>> in >>> fair few changes in the overall thinking/working of the country - so yes >>> this *news* is certainly important. >>> >>> >>> The article just looks like an 'election update' type of news and not >>> particularly relevant - so, Suresh I do agree with you here. >>> >>> -C >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >>> wrote: >>> >>> Don't get me wrong, I'd have voted for Obama if I were a US citizen >>>> >>>> The one thing I have an issue with is that there's little or no >>>> relationship between that (or other discussion about the US elections) >>>> and >>>> internet governance. Except in an abstract way as an illustration of the >>>> USA's tradition of free speech, say. >>>> >>>> This list has a fairly high level of traffic, so getting four or five >>>> news >>>> articles, seemingly randomly chosen, forwarded to it every day doesn't >>>> help >>>> much. >>>> >>>> thanks srs >>>> >>>> Charity Gamboa [07/11/12 23:00 -0600]: >>>> >>>> Suresh, >>>>> >>>>> It's always a matter of opinion. Anybody can hit the delete key if that >>>>> particular item perplexes them. But you know some of us who can make the >>>>> connection - then it's not a big deal. The picture of the president and >>>>> the first lady hugging and is heavily tweeted (and even circulated in >>>>> Facebook) is a sign of free speech online. Please don't get me wrong - >>>>> you >>>>> are entitled to ask. There are so many facebook pages created in the US >>>>> that is devoted to political opinions, e.g. "*Politically Incorrect and >>>>> Proud of It Too*." Anybody can subscribe to humorous quotes, posts and >>>>> >>>>> pictures that pokes fun at President Obama. That's like normal >>>>> squabbling. >>>>> You have the likes of Michelle Malkin who is a very strong conservative >>>>> blogger who uses her Twitchy website to post her tweets (as screenshots) >>>>> to >>>>> make a political point. So those people who tweeted on Obama's winning >>>>> are >>>>> probably his supporters, thus, expressing their own right to express >>>>> themselves via social media. I see nothing wrong with that regardless if >>>>> one is a liberal, conservative or a libertarian. Do I really need to >>>>> elaborate on this issue? Nope - it's a no brainer. I just want to point >>>>> out >>>>> that this is how I would think of the issue. But I wouldn't chide Fahd >>>>> for >>>>> posting that here as well as he is also is exercising his right to share >>>>> his opinion. I also chose to give him a break. >>>>> >>>>> Charity Gamboa-Embley >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian < >>>>> suresh at hserus.net >>>>> >wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Well you see, without some commentary about it in this context from the >>>>> >>>>>> original poster, it is practically impossible to tell the difference >>>>>> between that and idle forwarding of random news articles. >>>>>> >>>>>> --srs (htc one x) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Reply message ----- >>>>>> From: "Ivar A. M. Hartmann" >>>>>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org****" >>>>> ****>, >>>>>> "Suresh Ramasubramanian" >>>>>> Cc: "Fahd A. Batayneh" >>>>>> Subject: [governance] Barack Obama Victory Tweet Most Retweeted Ever >>>>>> Date: Thu, Nov 8, 2012 4:26 AM >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe major happenings in the field of social networks are of >>>>>> interest >>>>>> to IG. >>>>>> In this case, it's more strong evidence of the use of social networks >>>>>> for >>>>>> political speech. This relates to cyberdemocracy theories and concerns >>>>>> stakeholders involved in regulating free speech online as political >>>>>> speech >>>>>> is deemed in almost all democracies to be the type of speech that calls >>>>>> for >>>>>> the stronger protection. >>>>>> Just my opinion. >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Ivar >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian < >>>>>> suresh at hserus.net >>>>>> >wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> > May I ask your opinion on how or why a photo of a couple hugging is >>>>>> anyway >>>>>> > remotely related to igov? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > --srs (iPad) >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On 08-Nov-2012, at 1:26, "Fahd A. Batayneh" >>>>> > >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/****technology-20237531 >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > The words "four more years", coupled with a photo of Barack and >>>>>> Michelle >>>>>> > Obama embraced in a hug, have become the most retweeted Twitter post >>>>>> ever. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Fahd >>>>>> > >>>>>> > ______________________________****____________________________**__ >>>>>> >>>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/****unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/****info/governance >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/****translate_t >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > ______________________________****____________________________**__ >>>>>> >>>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/****unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/****info/governance >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/****translate_t >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> ______________________________****____________________________**__ >>>>>> >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/****unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/****info/governance >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/****translate_t >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> ______________________________**______________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance >>>> To edit your 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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 8 01:26:35 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 22:26:35 -0800 Subject: [governance] Barack Obama Victory Tweet Most Retweeted Ever In-Reply-To: <481017079-1352355196-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1789625152-@b26.c9.bise7.blackberry> References: <481017079-1352355196-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1789625152-@b26.c9.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: <20121108062635.GA19307@hserus.net> ecsae at live.warwick.ac.uk [08/11/12 06:13 +0000]: >"Random"? Do you mean this in the literal sense (I will be willing to bet >that the OP's message was deterministic, intended and conscious. But if >you mean it in the current slang sense, the only possible sense is "whevs" >:-) Deterministic to an extent. Entirely random in what appears in his news feed (the bbc, news.google.com etc). And bearing not very much relationship to igov at all. Do remember "governance" rather than civil society group dynamics. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Nov 8 01:28:37 2012 From: admin at alkasir.com (Walid AL-SAQAF ) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 07:28:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I too was successfully able to participate remotely yesterday in one of th workshops and got my question kindly answered by the panel. But I noticed that not all rooms had a moderator/host at the other end. I mean there is a remote participation room and I could go in with the password given, but when I arrive, I am all alone. I could still hear the audio but there was no one to receive my questions. The web-cast worked well as far as I can tell. Sincerely, Walid ----------------- Walid Al-Saqaf Founder & Administrator alkasir for mapping and circumventing cyber censorship https://alkasir.com On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 5:38 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Only just got the message. > In every workshop I've attended RP worked - usually text interventions. > I think voice was reserved to remote panellists. > Internet for the rest of us is rather tricky - to be diplomatic about it. > Deirdre > > > On 6 November 2012 14:34, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> as I'm organizing a workshop tomorrow Wednesday, I'd really very >> much like to know to what extent remote participation was possible >> today. I mean, what was working technically? Has it been possible for >> remote people to follow what is going on? Are they able to communicate >> interventions by voice? Is there at least a wire-based Internet >> connection for the Remote Moderator so that remote people can comment >> by irc or twitter or skype and the remote moderator would read it out >> then? >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Martial Bavou[Private Business >> Account] wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > >> > >> > It is quite not easy to get connected remotely, sound like there is >> > something wrong technically, hope this will be sorted out before >> tomorrow. >> > Possible to have some pictures from those who are on site? >> > >> > >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 chaitanyabd at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 01:49:06 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 12:19:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] Barack Obama Victory Tweet Most Retweeted Ever In-Reply-To: <20121108061304.GA18038@hserus.net> References: <20121108051446.GA17445@hserus.net> <20121108053415.GA17621@hserus.net> <20121108061304.GA18038@hserus.net> Message-ID: While on the topic of participation from India I was hoping to hear more about the discussion the IT minister had @Baku. I'm sure it'll get better (yes I'm a glass-full person) over time as there have been little or no politically motivated improvements to connectivity/interaction/participation thus far and it's going to start soon. Agreed on people participation. -C On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I'm for maintaining the icann / RIR etc status quo with more people enabled > to participate more actively in these. > > Participation from say India has been fairly limited for one reason or the > other (industry to some extent though it started to get vocal, and rather > political, in apnic .. and government to a rather larger extent) > > Chaitanya Dhareshwar [08/11/12 11:11 +0530]: > >> "Is going to" - no because he didnt get the top job. "Would he have done >> something different?" possibly - but we won't know by speculating. IMHO >> yes >> Romney would have approached the point differently. >> >> I said "issues with" don't miss that out please. Those issues were veto'd >> which I've also written - do re-read the sentence with these points in >> mind >> - and not push me into a boat. I'm yet to choose which one (though non-ITU >> sounds good, again IMHO). >> >> Best, >> C >> >> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> wrote: >> >> Do you seriously believe that *Romney* is going to do anything different? >>> >>> As for "fair bit of control" - does that mean you support handing all >>> this >>> over to the ITU? >>> >>> Chaitanya Dhareshwar [08/11/12 11:03 +0530]: >>> >>> Given the recent issues with the USG asserting (or trying to assert) a >>>> fair >>>> bit of control over the internet, and the fact that Obama's government >>>> veto'd the change I figure it's relevant to us in the context that the >>>> status quo will continue. A change of first citizen of the US can result >>>> in >>>> fair few changes in the overall thinking/working of the country - so yes >>>> this *news* is certainly important. >>>> >>>> >>>> The article just looks like an 'election update' type of news and not >>>> particularly relevant - so, Suresh I do agree with you here. >>>> >>>> -C >>>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Don't get me wrong, I'd have voted for Obama if I were a US citizen >>>> >>>>> >>>>> The one thing I have an issue with is that there's little or no >>>>> relationship between that (or other discussion about the US elections) >>>>> and >>>>> internet governance. Except in an abstract way as an illustration of >>>>> the >>>>> USA's tradition of free speech, say. >>>>> >>>>> This list has a fairly high level of traffic, so getting four or five >>>>> news >>>>> articles, seemingly randomly chosen, forwarded to it every day doesn't >>>>> help >>>>> much. >>>>> >>>>> thanks srs >>>>> >>>>> Charity Gamboa [07/11/12 23:00 -0600]: >>>>> >>>>> Suresh, >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It's always a matter of opinion. Anybody can hit the delete key if >>>>>> that >>>>>> particular item perplexes them. But you know some of us who can make >>>>>> the >>>>>> connection - then it's not a big deal. The picture of the president >>>>>> and >>>>>> the first lady hugging and is heavily tweeted (and even circulated in >>>>>> Facebook) is a sign of free speech online. Please don't get me wrong >>>>>> - >>>>>> you >>>>>> are entitled to ask. There are so many facebook pages created in the >>>>>> US >>>>>> that is devoted to political opinions, e.g. "*Politically Incorrect >>>>>> and >>>>>> Proud of It Too*." Anybody can subscribe to humorous quotes, posts and >>>>>> >>>>>> pictures that pokes fun at President Obama. That's like normal >>>>>> squabbling. >>>>>> You have the likes of Michelle Malkin who is a very strong >>>>>> conservative >>>>>> blogger who uses her Twitchy website to post her tweets (as >>>>>> screenshots) >>>>>> to >>>>>> make a political point. So those people who tweeted on Obama's winning >>>>>> are >>>>>> probably his supporters, thus, expressing their own right to express >>>>>> themselves via social media. I see nothing wrong with that regardless >>>>>> if >>>>>> one is a liberal, conservative or a libertarian. Do I really need to >>>>>> elaborate on this issue? Nope - it's a no brainer. I just want to >>>>>> point >>>>>> out >>>>>> that this is how I would think of the issue. But I wouldn't chide Fahd >>>>>> for >>>>>> posting that here as well as he is also is exercising his right to >>>>>> share >>>>>> his opinion. I also chose to give him a break. >>>>>> >>>>>> Charity Gamboa-Embley >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian < >>>>>> suresh at hserus.net >>>>>> >wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Well you see, without some commentary about it in this context from >>>>>> the >>>>>> >>>>>> original poster, it is practically impossible to tell the difference >>>>>>> between that and idle forwarding of random news articles. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --srs (htc one x) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ----- Reply message ----- >>>>>>> From: "Ivar A. M. Hartmann" >>>>>>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org******" < >>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>> ****>, >>>>>>> "Suresh Ramasubramanian" >>>>>>> Cc: "Fahd A. Batayneh" >>>>>>> Subject: [governance] Barack Obama Victory Tweet Most Retweeted Ever >>>>>>> Date: Thu, Nov 8, 2012 4:26 AM >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I believe major happenings in the field of social networks are of >>>>>>> interest >>>>>>> to IG. >>>>>>> In this case, it's more strong evidence of the use of social networks >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> political speech. This relates to cyberdemocracy theories and >>>>>>> concerns >>>>>>> stakeholders involved in regulating free speech online as political >>>>>>> speech >>>>>>> is deemed in almost all democracies to be the type of speech that >>>>>>> calls >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> the stronger protection. >>>>>>> Just my opinion. >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> Ivar >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian < >>>>>>> suresh at hserus.net >>>>>>> >wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > May I ask your opinion on how or why a photo of a couple hugging is >>>>>>> anyway >>>>>>> > remotely related to igov? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > --srs (iPad) >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > On 08-Nov-2012, at 1:26, "Fahd A. Batayneh" < >>>>>>> fahd.batayneh at gmail.com >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/******technology-20237531 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > The words "four more years", coupled with a photo of Barack and >>>>>>> Michelle >>>>>>> > Obama embraced in a hug, have become the most retweeted Twitter >>>>>>> post >>>>>>> ever. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Fahd >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > ______________________________******__________________________** >>>>>>> __**__ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/******unsubscribing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/******info/governance >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**** >>>>>>> **translate_t >>>>>> *translate.google.com/****translate_t >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > ______________________________******__________________________** >>>>>>> __**__ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/******unsubscribing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/******info/governance >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**** >>>>>>> **translate_t >>>>>> *translate.google.com/****translate_t >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ______________________________******__________________________** >>>>>>> __**__ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/******unsubscribing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/******info/governance >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/******translate_t >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ______________________________****____________________________**__ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/****unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/****info/governance >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/****translate_t >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Nov 8 01:49:06 2012 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:49:06 +0400 Subject: [governance] Great speech, Carlos! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 Good Speech On 7 November 2012 10:44, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear Carlos, > > I hear many people really liked your speech yesterday, at the opening > session. In fact, one of the government reps told me this morning it > was THE BEST among all speeches of all guest speakers. > > I also was asked to get File version of your speech, Carlos, to be shared. > > To confess, I was not able to listen you since I was have some > preparatory meeting for Emerging Issues main session, so I also need > your speech in print/file. I am sure there are many others like me. > > 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.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Follow me @* * **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 fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 02:13:23 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:13:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change Request Made by DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa In-Reply-To: References: <20121107081316.GA28721@hserus.net> Message-ID: Thank you Gideon. On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Gideon wrote: > Indeed Fahd, .africa is a fireworks! Public interest with who? I hope > you do not mean with the AU! > Public interest of the African community at-large. I hope the AU act in the best public interest as well and set aside any personal agendas. Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 02:17:30 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:17:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change Request Made by DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa In-Reply-To: References: <20121107081316.GA28721@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > (snip) > > Even the TLD by itself has little or no relevance in the larger scheme of > things, any more than say .museum has for museums the world over, or its > geographic predecessor .asia has had for Asia (moderately, but not too > popular) > I agree. In fact, around 1% of the domain names registered at a global level originate from Africa (or at least have African addresses tied to them). So this all boils down to how the folks at .africa define the success of the TLD in terms of numbers. Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From p.fehlinger at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 02:20:04 2012 From: p.fehlinger at gmail.com (Paul Fehlinger) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 11:20:04 +0400 Subject: [governance] Change of Schedule: What is the Geography of Cyberspace WS -> Fr. 2:30 pm /Room 4 Message-ID: <89BB4B40-476C-4304-8360-6506AAD42694@gmail.com> Dear all, The Workshop 171"What is the Geography of Cyberspace" has been shifted to Friday, 2:30 pm in Room 4. For more information: http://www.internetjurisdiction.net/internet-jurisdiction-workshops-at-the-internet-governance-forum-2012/ Best, Paul ____________________ Paul Fehlinger Internet & Jurisdiction Project Manager +33 (0) 66 69 23 84 8 fehlinger at internetjurisdiction.net www.internetjurisdiction.net Twitter: @IJurisdiction -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 02:37:07 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:37:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Barack Obama Victory Tweet Most Retweeted Ever In-Reply-To: <8BB9DF1C-7A09-4C12-A790-35A8F3A7E801@hserus.net> References: <8BB9DF1C-7A09-4C12-A790-35A8F3A7E801@hserus.net> Message-ID: Suresh, I read the entire thread of e-mails before I wrote my reply to you. There are two things to note in the article: 1. The words "*... most retweeted ever*" was mentioned. This is social networking; a main pillar of IG. 2. The article goes on to say that "*Well over half a million users of image-sharing social network Instagram posted images of themselves voting. However, US law experts were quick to warn voters that in some states it is in fact illegal to take and share such images*". This relates to openness; mainly privacy and to some extent IP. When a person joins a mailing list, they have to expect the varying volume of traffic. I share on the mailing list articles that I believe to be within the boundaries of IG and AFTER READING IT. If that does not suit one, as Charity mentioned "*One can hit the delete button*". In the end, it is always not easy to satisfy everyone's desires. I hope that clarifies your concerns. Fahd On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > May I ask your opinion on how or why a photo of a couple hugging is anyway > remotely related to igov? > > --srs (iPad) > > On 08-Nov-2012, at 1:26, "Fahd A. Batayneh" > wrote: > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20237531 > > The words "four more years", coupled with a photo of Barack and Michelle > Obama embraced in a hug, have become the most retweeted Twitter post ever. > > Fahd > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 02:42:56 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:42:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] Barack Obama Victory Tweet Most Retweeted Ever In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 1:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Well you see, without some commentary about it in this context from the > original poster, it is practically impossible to tell the difference > between that and idle forwarding of random news articles. > Mind you, my original post did have the comment "The words "four more years", coupled with a photo of Barack and Michelle Obama embraced in a hug, have become the most retweeted Twitter post ever." Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 8 02:51:54 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 11:51:54 +0400 Subject: [governance] AT&T to expand service, but wants FCC regulation dropped Message-ID: <016701cdbd85$edeaf1f0$c9c0d5d0$@gmail.com> Hmmmm... but is it the case that what's good for AT&T is good for the rest of the (WCIT) world and if so where is the global equivalent of the AT&T's $14 billion going to come from? M http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/11/att-is-glad-to-expand-service-but-wa nts-pesky-fcc-regulations-dropped/ AT&T is glad to expand service, but wants pesky FCC regulations dropped Firm devotes $14B to wireless and U-Verse, while pushing deregulation with FCC. by Cyrus Farivar - Nov 7 2012, 6:00pm EST On Wednesday, AT&T announced a plan to invest $14 billion in expanding its wireless and U-Verse service around the country. At the same time, the company submitted a petition to the Federal Communications Commission asking for an end to the "conventional public-utility-style regulation." AT&T said it would expand its fiber-to-the-node (FTTN) product to 22 states, which would include 75 percent of "customer locations." The rest of the country would be served by the expansion of its 4G LTE network, which AT&T says would reach 300 million Americans (nearly the whole country) by the end of 2014. With the company's announcement, it also filed a request for regulations restricting AT&T's business to be dropped. The document calls AT&T's new investments a step towards the National Broadband Plan. "AT&T believes that this regulatory experiment will show that conventional public-utility-style regulation is no longer necessary or appropriate in the emerging all-IP ecosystem," the company wrote in its FCC filing on Wednesday. "Customers are abandoning obsolescent [time-division multiplexing] services, but AT&T and other incumbent carriers still must be prepared to serve every household in their service territories on demand. Thus, the costs of maintaining those networks remain in place, and every loss of another customer increases the average cost per line of serving the customers that remain." Industry watchers have pointed out AT&T now seems less than genuine with regulators. The company claimed that without being able to acquire T-Mobile it would not be able to expand its LTE offerings. According to the AT&T's most recent financial data (PDF), the company receives about three times as much quarterly revenue from wireless ($15 billion) as it does from traditional wireline voice service ($5.5 billion). "They painted the stakes as dire as possible when they were trying to buy T-Mobile, but the fact is AT&T had to match its competitors in 4G market roll-outs," said Ken Rehben, an analyst at Yankee Group, told CNNMoney. Deregulation incentive Some industry watchers are worried such a move would make an end-run around existing regulations that require a baseline level of phone service under federal law. If the FCC heeds AT&T's advice, some fear there will be even further entrenchment of the dominant wired carriers, like AT&T and Verizon, who are pushing more profitable wireless services. "For 100 years we've had the idea that everyone has a phone line," said Susan Crawford, a visiting professor at the Harvard Kennedy School and a telecom law expert. It's the principle known as "common carriage," she told Ars. "Today the general purpose network is a fiber-to-the-home (FTTH). That's what's going on in Europe and Asia, but we seem to be abandoning that concept. Instead, we're allowing private carriers to choose who has to rely on wireless and who gets a wire and who gets what type of wire. The whole system has been turned upside down." Still, both the FCC and telecom watchdog group Public Knowledge praised AT&T's announcement. "AT&T's announcement of billions of dollars in new investment in wired and wireless broadband networks is proof positive that the climate for investment and innovation in the US communications sector is healthy," said Julius Genachowski, the FCC chairman, in a statement. "Today's announcement adds to nearly $200 billion of investment in wireless and wireline broadband networks since 2009, and powerful growth in the Internet economy." Bruce Kushnick, a telecom analyst at NewNetworks, likened AT&T's move to "extortion." He argued the $14 billion investment was a quid pro quo to sweeten the move to further deregulation-and he anticipates further lobbying from AT&T to Congress in 2013. "The letter that they filed says they want to get rid of regulation, and there will be an attack by AT&T and Verizon to get rid of all regulation in Congress probably at the beginning of next year," he told Ars. "Their goal is to take the letter and to extend it through Congress. What we need is a wireless and wireline to have an open utility, and let customers choose whatever provider and whatever services they want. If we don't do that, we will fall behind." -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 8 03:35:58 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 00:35:58 -0800 Subject: [governance] Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change Request Made by DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa In-Reply-To: References: <20121107081316.GA28721@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20121108083558.GA22514@hserus.net> Success in terms of numbers? It depends on how much their marketing skills match their skills in high decibel politicking. Convincing companies with .eg, .ng, .za etc domains to get themselves .africa in addition / as a substitute may or may not be easy. They could certainly learn from .asia's experience I'd say. Fahd A. Batayneh [08/11/12 09:17 +0200]: >On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >wrote: > >> (snip) >> > > >> Even the TLD by itself has little or no relevance in the larger scheme of >> things, any more than say .museum has for museums the world over, or its >> geographic predecessor .asia has had for Asia (moderately, but not too >> popular) >> > >I agree. In fact, around 1% of the domain names registered at a global >level originate from Africa (or at least have African addresses tied to >them). > >So this all boils down to how the folks at .africa define the success of >the TLD in terms of numbers. > >Fahd -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 8 03:41:40 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 00:41:40 -0800 Subject: [governance] Barack Obama Victory Tweet Most Retweeted Ever In-Reply-To: References: <8BB9DF1C-7A09-4C12-A790-35A8F3A7E801@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20121108084140.GC22514@hserus.net> Sure. Please remember, that's the internet. As is, for example, facebook forwards of icanhazcheezburger memes. Internet governance on the other hand is rather more specific. Please see the examples below for example. I'd love to be corrected Is it egovernance (automation of government policy and procedure to introduce ICT into it)? Not exactly, that's an entirelly separate disclipine Is it a discussion of internet memes, trends etc (or of general politics or other news that just happens to take place on the internet)? While that's a massive use case for the internet, and an excellent reason to keep the internet open, it is not internet governance. Is it a discussion on the key mechanisms through which internet related coordination takes place, and internet resources (IP addresses and domains) are allocated? Yes. Definitely Is it a discussion on the application of public policy and national / international law and its enforcement in an internet context? Yes. Definitely Fahd A. Batayneh [08/11/12 09:37 +0200]: >Suresh, I read the entire thread of e-mails before I wrote my reply to you. >There are two things to note in the article: > > 1. The words "*... most retweeted ever*" was mentioned. This is social > networking; a main pillar of IG. > 2. The article goes on to say that "*Well over half a million users of > image-sharing social network Instagram posted images of themselves voting. > However, US law experts were quick to warn voters that in some states it is > in fact illegal to take and share such images*". This relates to > openness; mainly privacy and to some extent IP. > >When a person joins a mailing list, they have to expect the varying volume >of traffic. I share on the mailing list articles that I believe to be >within the boundaries of IG and AFTER READING IT. If that does not suit >one, as Charity mentioned "*One can hit the delete button*". > >In the end, it is always not easy to satisfy everyone's desires. >I hope that clarifies your concerns. > >Fahd > >On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >wrote: > >> May I ask your opinion on how or why a photo of a couple hugging is anyway >> remotely related to igov? >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 08-Nov-2012, at 1:26, "Fahd A. Batayneh" >> wrote: >> >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20237531 >> >> The words "four more years", coupled with a photo of Barack and Michelle >> Obama embraced in a hug, have become the most retweeted Twitter post ever. >> >> Fahd >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Thu Nov 8 04:54:51 2012 From: rudi.vansnick at isoc.be (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:54:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection In-Reply-To: <509B2710.1030203@gih.com> References: <1352228143.46381.YahooMailNeo@web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1352229400.49284.YahooMailNeo@web160502.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <509B2710.1030203@gih.com> Message-ID: <7C6E7ADF-66A2-4EC8-BEE8-A09043937BAF@isoc.be> I've used the remote participation tools daily (till today). The webex allows to participate through the chat and the Q&A windows, but the webcast is always giving me the same error. If I want to see the room I have to use the webcast tool (http://webcast.igf2012.com) , which is of course not fully synchronised with the webex session. From room 6 till room 9 the audio in the webcast is very low. With the volume on the max here I can hardly understand the speakers. The descriptions of the rooms workshops in the webcast window is not updated and gives sometimes wrong session information. Rudi Vansnick ------------------ Internet Society Belgium --------------------- President - CEO Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16 rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 Dendermondesteenweg 143 B-9070 Destelbergen www.internetsociety.be "The Internet is for everyone" Op 8-nov-2012, om 04:29 heeft Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond het volgende geschreven: > I suppose rp has probably been flooded with enquiries. > Since the beginning of the week, I saw Bernard run around trying to fix > things. > The remote participation computers running Webex are all wired in and > appear to work well but the network sometimes goes through some periods > of being very slow. This is when the WIFI works and guess what, the WIFI > does not work well at all. In fact, I have spent complete afternoons > without WIFI. (not enough IPv4 addresses to allocate -- and no IPv6 > connectivity at all in case you ask) > > Whilst so far, I have been super impressed with the host country, this > is, in my opinion, the poorest Internet connectivity we've had at the > venue in recent IGFs. > > Kind regards, > > Olivier > > On 07/11/2012 00:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:16 PM, shaila mistry wrote: >>> Hi everyone >>> I too have tried several times to participate. Each time I am sent a >>> different route of downloads and logins , finally leading to a dead end. >>> Please advise what can be done ? >>> Shaila Rao Mistry >> Have you tried contacting >> >> "Remote Participation general help" >> >> ? >> >> Do they respond? >> >> If yes, what are they saying? >> >> If no, let us know, so that we can push locally for those help email >> addresses to be handled in a meaningful way. >> >> In the long run, what we need is funding to put a competent person in >> charge of ensuring in an ongoing manner (year after year) that IGF >> remote participation is made available in a way that can be expected >> to work (which presupposes learning from what went wrong in earlier >> years, and it presupposes serious testing well before the first day of >> the IGF). It is simply unacceptable for an entirely new technical team >> to put in charge of remote participation every year, and the remote >> participation infrastructure again and again being so absurdly >> unreliable.) >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> > > -- > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sana.pryhod at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 05:43:48 2012 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 14:43:48 +0400 Subject: [governance] invitation to WS 167 Friday 9:00 Room 5 "Understanding of multistakeholderism in quazi-democratic countries" Message-ID: Dear all, I am sorry for late invitation. Please come tomorrow to our workshop to discuss threats of inadequate implementation and wrong understanding of multistakeholderism. Friday, 9:00, Room 5 Moderator Oksana Prykhodko Panelists: Wolfgang Kleinwachter Sebastien Bachollet Cheryl Langdon-Orr Olga Cavalli Paul Rendek Martin Boyle Naveed Ul-Haq Best regards, Oksana -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gate.one205 at yahoo.fr Thu Nov 8 06:18:27 2012 From: gate.one205 at yahoo.fr (Jean-Yves GATETE) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 11:18:27 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection In-Reply-To: <7C6E7ADF-66A2-4EC8-BEE8-A09043937BAF@isoc.be> References: <1352228143.46381.YahooMailNeo@web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1352229400.49284.YahooMailNeo@web160502.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <509B2710.1030203@gih.com> <7C6E7ADF-66A2-4EC8-BEE8-A09043937BAF@isoc.be> Message-ID: <1352373507.20428.YahooMailNeo@web172501.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Hi all, as Mr Rudi, I ve been following via that webcast tool too. I have the same problem too and the Room10 is not working either.   Wishing you all the best,   Jean-Yves GATETE ________________________________ De : Rudi Vansnick À : Crepin-Leblond Olivier Cc : governance at lists.igcaucus.org Envoyé le : Jeudi 8 novembre 2012 10h54 Objet : Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection I've used the remote participation tools daily (till today). The webex allows to participate through the chat and the Q&A windows, but the webcast is always giving me the same error. If I want to see the room I have to use the webcast tool (http://webcast.igf2012.com/) , which is of course not fully synchronised with the webex session. From room 6 till room 9 the audio in the webcast is very low. With the volume on the max here I can hardly understand the speakers. The descriptions of the rooms workshops in the webcast window is not updated and gives sometimes wrong session information. Rudi Vansnick ------------------ Internet Society Belgium  --------------------- President - CEO                            Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16 rudi.vansnick at isoc.be            Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 Dendermondesteenweg 143            B-9070 Destelbergen www.internetsociety.be        "The Internet is for everyone" Op 8-nov-2012, om 04:29 heeft Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond het volgende geschreven: > I suppose rp has probably been flooded with enquiries. > Since the beginning of the week, I saw Bernard run around trying to fix > things. > The remote participation computers running Webex are all wired in and > appear to work well but the network sometimes goes through some periods > of being very slow. This is when the WIFI works and guess what, the WIFI > does not work well at all. In fact, I have spent complete afternoons > without WIFI. (not enough IPv4 addresses to allocate -- and no IPv6 > connectivity at all in case you ask) > > Whilst so far, I have been super impressed with the host country, this > is, in my opinion, the poorest Internet connectivity we've had at the > venue in recent IGFs. > > Kind regards, > > Olivier > > On 07/11/2012 00:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:16 PM, shaila mistry wrote: >>> Hi everyone >>> I too have tried several times to participate. Each time I am sent a >>> different route of downloads and logins , finally leading to a dead end. >>> Please advise what can be done ? >>> Shaila Rao Mistry >> Have you tried contacting >> >> "Remote Participation general help" >> >> ? >> >> Do they respond? >> >> If yes, what are they saying? >> >> If no, let us know, so that we can push locally for those help email >> addresses to be handled in a meaningful way. >> >> In the long run, what we need is funding to put a competent person in >> charge of ensuring in an ongoing manner (year after year) that IGF >> remote participation is made available in a way that can be expected >> to work (which presupposes learning from what went wrong in earlier >> years, and it presupposes serious testing well before the first day of >> the IGF). It is simply unacceptable for an entirely new technical team >> to put in charge of remote participation every year, and the remote >> participation infrastructure again and again being so absurdly >> unreliable.) >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> > > -- > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nne75 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 06:24:03 2012 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 03:24:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Invitation: Africa IGF discussions Friday 11-12:30 and 2:30 - 4PM (IGF Baku) Message-ID: <1352373843.78021.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Dear all,   This is to cordially invite us to the sessions that the Africa Internet Governance Forum will be hosting during the 7th IGF in Baku. There are 2 sessions of 90 minutesm beginning from 11 AM   I have  attached the programme here so you can choose the best timing for you   Best regards   Nnenna Nnenna  Nwakanma |  Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG  |  Consultants Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax  224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Tentative Agenda Africa Meeting at the 2012 IGF .pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 42294 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 06:38:53 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 03:38:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection In-Reply-To: <1352373507.20428.YahooMailNeo@web172501.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1352228143.46381.YahooMailNeo@web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1352229400.49284.YahooMailNeo@web160502.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <509B2710.1030203@gih.com> <7C6E7ADF-66A2-4EC8-BEE8-A09043937BAF@isoc.be> <1352373507.20428.YahooMailNeo@web172501.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1352374733.87066.YahooMailNeo@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Hi all, I was logged into Room #10 remotely, webex but there was no other attendee. The webex Schedule (as on 6th and 7th) has single first day pre-meeting of 5th Nov but after refreshing promt appear for login and after login it connected me Room #  7th Nov meeting. I keep trying to obtain response from Moderator (Ms Nina), but could not established interactive response, and I do not know that have she read my text input or not. I think Moderator was too busy in the meeting physically and given zero importance to single Remote Participant. So, RP was useless. Regards Imran (for IGFPAK) >________________________________ > From: Jean-Yves GATETE >To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Rudi Vansnick >Sent: Thursday, 8 November 2012, 3:18 >Subject: Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection > > >Hi all, >as Mr Rudi, I ve been following via that webcast tool too. I have the same problem too and the Room10 is not working either. >  >Wishing you all the best, >  >Jean-Yves GATETE > > >De : Rudi Vansnick >À : Crepin-Leblond Olivier >Cc : governance at lists.igcaucus.org >Envoyé le : Jeudi 8 novembre 2012 10h54 >Objet : Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection > >I've used the remote participation tools daily (till today). The webex allows to participate through the chat and the Q&A windows, but the webcast is always giving me the same error. >If I want to see the room I have to use the webcast tool (http://webcast.igf2012.com/) , which is of course not fully synchronised with the webex session. From room 6 till room 9 the audio in the webcast is very low. With the volume on the max here I can hardly understand the speakers. > >The descriptions of the rooms workshops in the webcast window is not updated and gives sometimes wrong session information. > >Rudi Vansnick >------------------ Internet Society Belgium  --------------------- >President - CEO                            Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16 >rudi.vansnick at isoc.be            Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 >Dendermondesteenweg 143            B-9070 Destelbergen >www.internetsociety.be        "The Internet is for everyone" > >Op 8-nov-2012, om 04:29 heeft Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond het volgende geschreven: > >> I suppose rp has probably been flooded with enquiries. >> Since the beginning of the week, I saw Bernard run around trying to fix >> things. >> The remote participation computers running Webex are all wired in and >> appear to work well but the network sometimes goes through some periods >> of being very slow. This is when the WIFI works and guess what, the WIFI >> does not work well at all. In fact, I have spent complete afternoons >> without WIFI. (not enough IPv4 addresses to allocate -- and no IPv6 >> connectivity at all in case you ask) >> >> Whilst so far, I have been super impressed with the host country, this >> is, in my opinion, the poorest Internet connectivity we've had at the >> venue in recent IGFs. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Olivier >> >> On 07/11/2012 00:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:16 PM, shaila mistry wrote: >>>> Hi everyone >>>> I too have tried several times to participate. Each time I am sent a >>>> different route of downloads and logins , finally leading to a dead end. >>>> Please advise what can be done ? >>>> Shaila Rao Mistry >>> Have you tried contacting >>> >>> "Remote Participation general help" >>> >>> ? >>> >>> Do they respond? >>> >>> If yes, what are they saying? >>> >>> If no, let us know, so that we can push locally for those help email >>> addresses to be handled in a meaningful way. >>> >>> In the long run, what we need is funding to put a competent person in >>> charge of ensuring in an ongoing manner (year after year) that IGF >>> remote participation is made available in a way that can be expected >>> to work (which presupposes learning from what went wrong in earlier >>> years, and it presupposes serious testing well before the first day of >>> the IGF). It is simply unacceptable for an entirely new technical team >>> to put in charge of remote participation every year, and the remote >>> participation infrastructure again and again being so absurdly >>> unreliable.) >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >> >> -- >> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD >> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 8 06:41:35 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 06:41:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] Barack Obama Victory Tweet Most Retweeted Ever In-Reply-To: References: <20121108051446.GA17445@hserus.net> <20121108053415.GA17621@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > "Is going to" - no because he didnt get the top job. "Would he have done > something different?" possibly - but we won't know by speculating. IMHO yes > Romney would have approached the point differently. ISOC sponsored a pre-election meting on Internet and telecoms policy. There is little significant difference between the two parties on WCIT issues. > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 07:47:04 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 07:47:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hamadoun_Tour=E9_Op-Ed_in_Wired_+?= In-Reply-To: <007e01cdbd6e$55945890$00bd09b0$@gmail.com> References: <007e01cdbd6e$55945890$00bd09b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:02 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > With over 90 percent of the world’s people now within reach of mobile > phones, the challenge today is bringing internet access to the two-thirds of > the world’s population that is still offline. This challenge is compounded > by the need to ensure connectivity is affordable and safe for all. > > > > and then > > > > The conference will chart a globally agreed-upon roadmap that offers future > connectivity to all, and ensures sufficient communications capacity to cope > with the exponential growth in voice, video, and data. The sole focus of the > event is making regulations valuable to all stakeholders, creating a robust > pillar to support future growth in global communications. > > > > and > > > > The conference will address issues that relate to improving online access > and connectivity for everyone. > > > > Surely these are appropriate goals for Civil Society as well spot on Michael. I for one don't believe that what HT says the conference is about is actually what the conference is about, do you? -- 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 Thu Nov 8 08:56:45 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 17:56:45 +0400 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hamadoun_Tour=E9_Op-Ed_in_Wired_+?= In-Reply-To: References: <007e01cdbd6e$55945890$00bd09b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <025401cdbdb8$eea475c0$cbed6140$@gmail.com> McTim, I have no idea what the conference is "actually about", but even if it is only camouflage at least he is raising the issue and I don't see any of the folks who are semi-hysterical around the WCIT talking about anything even approaching those issues. At least in the US where AT&T is trying to do a similar deregulatory number on the FCC they are willing to pay a reasonable price ($14 Billion for additional connectivity) to get themselves off the regulatory hook. What are the folks who are throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the ITU, offering (except platitudes about the magical wonders of "competition"--hardly of much use to subsistence farmers in Bangladesh or Burkina Faso living on $1 per day)? M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 4:47 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] Hamadoun Touré Op-Ed in Wired + On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:02 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > With over 90 percent of the world’s people now within reach of mobile > phones, the challenge today is bringing internet access to the > two-thirds of the world’s population that is still offline. This > challenge is compounded by the need to ensure connectivity is affordable and safe for all. > > and then > > The conference will chart a globally agreed-upon roadmap that offers > future connectivity to all, and ensures sufficient communications > capacity to cope with the exponential growth in voice, video, and > data. The sole focus of the event is making regulations valuable to > all stakeholders, creating a robust pillar to support future growth in global communications. > > and > > The conference will address issues that relate to improving online > access and connectivity for everyone. > > Surely these are appropriate goals for Civil Society as well spot on Michael. I for one don't believe that what HT says the conference is about is actually what the conference is about, do you? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 09:16:29 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 08:16:29 -0600 Subject: [governance] (Year round) Remote participation: reality and principles Message-ID: Hi everyone, In the IGC we work online year round--always e-participation/remote participation. It is how we manage to bring together discussions from all over the world. It seems that asynchronous mailing list discussions are often more productive than live meetings! We will discuss the realities and principles of remote/online/e-participation in Workshop 52 on Day 4 of the IGF, Friday, 9 November, 11:00 a.m. Baku time, Conference room 9. Check for the remote participation urls at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/remote-participation/connect-now tomorrow. Please join us at the workshop, and on etherpad to improve the principles. We will publish the etherpad link and password here later. See you online! Best, Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig ** ** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 8 09:38:39 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 18:38:39 +0400 Subject: [governance] APC dinner location Message-ID: <2765030170864580862@unknownmsgid> Can someone please email me the location of tonight's dinner. Thanks Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2222 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr Thu Nov 8 09:51:07 2012 From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 14:51:07 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] Great speech, Carlos! In-Reply-To: <509A055C.70401@cgi.br> References: <509A055C.70401@cgi.br> Message-ID: <1352386267.72138.YahooMailNeo@web133205.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Hi Carlos and all Yes, this was a great speech endeed. Well done   NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président www.rtcb.bi Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général www.bytc.bi Facebook :  http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza Tel : +257 79 981459 ________________________________ De : Hartmut Richard Glaser À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Izumi AIZU Cc : Carlos A. Afonso Envoyé le : Mercredi 7 novembre 2012 8h53 Objet : Re: [governance] Great speech, Carlos! Your Excellencies, Mr Wu Hongbo, Under Secretary General, Undesa, Chairman minister Ali Abatov, Secretary Chengetai Masango, in the name of whom I wish to salute all present authorities; ladies and gentlemen: I have been assigned the honorable task of speaking in the opening ceremony of this IGF in the name of civil society organizations, social movements and individuals active in Internet governance processes, many of them involved in these processes since the inception of WSIS nearly 10 years ago. Several of them collaborated with me in drafting the following statement. We believe that the absence of gatekeepers and the open, global communication enabled by the Internet is crucial to realize the promise of Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To impose restrictions (legal or otherwise) to the free flow of information is and has always been contrary to the individual human right to freedom of expression. We therefore oppose efforts to create "national Internets," or to block and filter Internet access in ways that deny individuals access to applications, content and services of their choice. All attempts to deem certain forms of communication and information illegal and restrict or block them must follow established, transparent, due processes of law and should not involve prior restraint. We oppose efforts to militarize the Internet, or any actions that would foster a destructive and wasteful cyber arms race among governments or private actors. We consider the covert use of exploits and malware for surveillance or attacks to be criminal regardless of whether they are deployed by governments, private corporations or organized criminals. We are skeptical of efforts to subordinate the design and use of information and communication technology to "national security" agendas. We believe that Internet security will be achieved primarily at the operational level and that national security and military agendas often work against rather than for users' security needs. In the processes of policy formulation, we emphasize the need to prioritize dialogue with policy makers over their subordinated law enforcement agencies. Global governance institutions should not be restricted to states, so we welcome the additional participation in global policy making that multi-stakeholder processes provide. But we caution that multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself. Opening up global governance institutions to additional voices from civil society and business does not by itself ensure that individual rights are adequately protected or that the best substantive policies are developed and enforced. In the informal spaces created by pluralist institutions, it is possible that powerful governmental and corporate actors can make deals contrary to the interests of Internet users. Multistakeholder processes, while involving all interest groups, must incorporate and institutionalize concepts of due process, separation of powers and user's inalienable civil and political rights, and governmental decision-making ought to take into account the inputs of all participants of such pluralist processes. Let us remind ourselves that participation goes beyond representation, and participation in decision-making goes beyond just debates and dialogues. Regarding the ITR review process to be concluded in Dubai (and here I use the standard terminology the technical community defines to refer to the different components of the network): We agree that the internet layer and the layers above it (transport layer and applications layer) should not be included in any way in the regulations, while the free flow of Internet packets should be guaranteed in the link layer, in line with network neutrality in which Internet packets are never touched by the operators providing the physical connectivity infrastructure. Let the Internet flourish freely to the benefit of those who live at its edges, which are all of us. Thank you. === On 07/11/12 04:44, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear Carlos, > > I hear many people really liked your speech yesterday, at the opening > session. In fact, one of the government reps told me this morning it > was THE BEST among all speeches of all guest speakers. > > I also was asked to get File version of your speech, Carlos, to be shared. > > To confess, I was not able to listen you since I was have some > preparatory meeting for Emerging Issues main session, so I also need > your speech in print/file. I am sure there are many others like me. > > 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 10:08:37 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:08:37 -0600 Subject: [governance] Great speech, Carlos! In-Reply-To: <1352386267.72138.YahooMailNeo@web133205.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <509A055C.70401@cgi.br> <1352386267.72138.YahooMailNeo@web133205.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I agree, wonderful job, obrigada!!! Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig ** ** On 8 November 2012 08:51, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA wrote: > Hi Carlos and all > Yes, this was a great speech endeed. > > Well done > > > NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul > TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY > > ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT > Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président > www.rtcb.bi > > > Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général > www.bytc.bi > > > Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza > Tel : +257 79 981459 > ------------------------------ > *De :* Hartmut Richard Glaser > *À :* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Izumi AIZU > *Cc :* Carlos A. Afonso > *Envoyé le :* Mercredi 7 novembre 2012 8h53 > *Objet :* Re: [governance] Great speech, Carlos! > > > Your Excellencies, Mr Wu Hongbo, Under Secretary General, Undesa, Chairman > minister Ali Abatov, Secretary Chengetai Masango, in the name of whom I > wish to salute all present authorities; ladies and gentlemen: > > I have been assigned the honorable task of speaking in the opening > ceremony of this IGF in the name of civil society organizations, social > movements and individuals active in Internet governance processes, many of > them involved in these processes since the inception of WSIS nearly 10 > years ago. Several of them collaborated with me in drafting the following > statement. > > We believe that the absence of gatekeepers and the open, global > communication enabled by the Internet is crucial to realize the promise of > Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To impose > restrictions (legal or otherwise) to the free flow of information is and > has always been contrary to the individual human right to freedom of > expression. > > We therefore oppose efforts to create "national Internets," or to block > and filter Internet access in ways that deny individuals access to > applications, content and services of their choice. > > All attempts to deem certain forms of communication and information > illegal and restrict or block them must follow established, transparent, > due processes of law and should not involve prior restraint. > > We oppose efforts to militarize the Internet, or any actions that would > foster a destructive and wasteful cyber arms race among governments or > private actors. We consider the covert use of exploits and malware for > surveillance or attacks to be criminal regardless of whether they are > deployed by governments, private corporations or organized criminals. > > We are skeptical of efforts to subordinate the design and use of > information and communication technology to "national security" agendas. We > believe that Internet security will be achieved primarily at the > operational level and that national security and military agendas often > work against rather than for users' security needs. > > In the processes of policy formulation, we emphasize the need to > prioritize dialogue with policy makers over their subordinated law > enforcement agencies. > > Global governance institutions should not be restricted to states, so we > welcome the additional participation in global policy making that > multi-stakeholder processes provide. But we caution that multi-stakeholder > participation is not an end in itself. > > Opening up global governance institutions to additional voices from civil > society and business does not by itself ensure that individual rights are > adequately protected or that the best substantive policies are developed > and enforced. > > In the informal spaces created by pluralist institutions, it is possible > that powerful governmental and corporate actors can make deals contrary to > the interests of Internet users. > > Multistakeholder processes, while involving all interest groups, must > incorporate and institutionalize concepts of due process, separation of > powers and user's inalienable civil and political rights, and governmental > decision-making ought to take into account the inputs of all participants > of such pluralist processes. > > Let us remind ourselves that participation goes beyond representation, and > participation in decision-making goes beyond just debates and dialogues. > > Regarding the ITR review process to be concluded in Dubai (and here I use > the standard terminology the technical community defines to refer to the > different components of the network): > > We agree that the internet layer and the layers above it (transport layer > and applications layer) should not be included in any way in the > regulations, while the free flow of Internet packets should be guaranteed > in the link layer, in line with network neutrality in which Internet > packets are never touched by the operators providing the physical > connectivity infrastructure. > > Let the Internet flourish freely to the benefit of those who live at its > edges, which are all of us. Thank you. > > === > > > > On 07/11/12 04:44, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > Dear Carlos, > > > > I hear many people really liked your speech yesterday, at the opening > > session. In fact, one of the government reps told me this morning it > > was THE BEST among all speeches of all guest speakers. > > > > I also was asked to get File version of your speech, Carlos, to be > shared. > > > > To confess, I was not able to listen you since I was have some > > preparatory meeting for Emerging Issues main session, so I also need > > your speech in print/file. I am sure there are many others like me. > > > > 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.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 8 10:20:41 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 15:20:41 +0000 Subject: [governance] AT&T to expand service, but wants FCC regulation dropped In-Reply-To: <016701cdbd85$edeaf1f0$c9c0d5d0$@gmail.com> References: <016701cdbd85$edeaf1f0$c9c0d5d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16A336@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> This does relate directly to the telecoms service vs information service - definition - of Internet services, which is of course central to the premise of the ITU having a say on various Internet-related public policy issues at WCIT. In a nutshell: AT&T wants to be regulated as one big ISP, and FCC is saying hey that's cool. Rest of world/WCIT may not be quite ready to treat all telecoms as information services/open Internet services. Lee PS: As to $14 billion, money is not the hard part. For example, I suspect 1 billion sub China Mobile could come up with that kind of money, before breakfast, if given new markets to enter. However, there are more than a few regulatory transition issues to deal with, everywhere, first. ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 2:51 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] AT&T to expand service, but wants FCC regulation dropped Hmmmm... but is it the case that what's good for AT&T is good for the rest of the (CIT) world and if so where is the global equivalent of the AT&T's $14 billion going to come from? M http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/11/att-is-glad-to-expand-service-but-wa nts-pesky-fcc-regulations-dropped/ AT&T is glad to expand service, but wants pesky FCC regulations dropped Firm devotes $14B to wireless and U-Verse, while pushing deregulation with FCC. by Cyrus Farivar - Nov 7 2012, 6:00pm EST On Wednesday, AT&T announced a plan to invest $14 billion in expanding its wireless and U-Verse service around the country. At the same time, the company submitted a petition to the Federal Communications Commission asking for an end to the "conventional public-utility-style regulation." AT&T said it would expand its fiber-to-the-node (FTTN) product to 22 states, which would include 75 percent of "customer locations." The rest of the country would be served by the expansion of its 4G LTE network, which AT&T says would reach 300 million Americans (nearly the whole country) by the end of 2014. With the company's announcement, it also filed a request for regulations restricting AT&T's business to be dropped. The document calls AT&T's new investments a step towards the National Broadband Plan. "AT&T believes that this regulatory experiment will show that conventional public-utility-style regulation is no longer necessary or appropriate in the emerging all-IP ecosystem," the company wrote in its FCC filing on Wednesday. "Customers are abandoning obsolescent [time-division multiplexing] services, but AT&T and other incumbent carriers still must be prepared to serve every household in their service territories on demand. Thus, the costs of maintaining those networks remain in place, and every loss of another customer increases the average cost per line of serving the customers that remain." Industry watchers have pointed out AT&T now seems less than genuine with regulators. The company claimed that without being able to acquire T-Mobile it would not be able to expand its LTE offerings. According to the AT&T's most recent financial data (PDF), the company receives about three times as much quarterly revenue from wireless ($15 billion) as it does from traditional wireline voice service ($5.5 billion). "They painted the stakes as dire as possible when they were trying to buy T-Mobile, but the fact is AT&T had to match its competitors in 4G market roll-outs," said Ken Rehben, an analyst at Yankee Group, told CNNMoney. Deregulation incentive Some industry watchers are worried such a move would make an end-run around existing regulations that require a baseline level of phone service under federal law. If the FCC heeds AT&T's advice, some fear there will be even further entrenchment of the dominant wired carriers, like AT&T and Verizon, who are pushing more profitable wireless services. "For 100 years we've had the idea that everyone has a phone line," said Susan Crawford, a visiting professor at the Harvard Kennedy School and a telecom law expert. It's the principle known as "common carriage," she told Ars. "Today the general purpose network is a fiber-to-the-home (FTTH). That's what's going on in Europe and Asia, but we seem to be abandoning that concept. Instead, we're allowing private carriers to choose who has to rely on wireless and who gets a wire and who gets what type of wire. The whole system has been turned upside down." Still, both the FCC and telecom watchdog group Public Knowledge praised AT&T's announcement. "AT&T's announcement of billions of dollars in new investment in wired and wireless broadband networks is proof positive that the climate for investment and innovation in the US communications sector is healthy," said Julius Genachowski, the FCC chairman, in a statement. "Today's announcement adds to nearly $200 billion of investment in wireless and wireline broadband networks since 2009, and powerful growth in the Internet economy." Bruce Kushnick, a telecom analyst at NewNetworks, likened AT&T's move to "extortion." He argued the $14 billion investment was a quid pro quo to sweeten the move to further deregulation-and he anticipates further lobbying from AT&T to Congress in 2013. "The letter that they filed says they want to get rid of regulation, and there will be an attack by AT&T and Verizon to get rid of all regulation in Congress probably at the beginning of next year," he told Ars. "Their goal is to take the letter and to extend it through Congress. What we need is a wireless and wireline to have an open utility, and let customers choose whatever provider and whatever services they want. If we don't do that, we will fall behind." -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 10:21:13 2012 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 19:21:13 +0400 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hamadoun_Tour=E9_Op-Ed_in_Wired_+?= In-Reply-To: <025401cdbdb8$eea475c0$cbed6140$@gmail.com> References: <007e01cdbd6e$55945890$00bd09b0$@gmail.com> <025401cdbdb8$eea475c0$cbed6140$@gmail.com> Message-ID: I appreciate rightly this appreciation of Michael and I ask myself the question of what are beneficially precoccupations that will be discussed during this high mass? While we seek to make digital technology more profitable and beneficial, we find the money to spend because we are at the end of the year and somewhere there was money that has not yet been spend and must justify its use. Baudouin 2012/11/8 michael gurstein > McTim, > > I have no idea what the conference is "actually about", but even if it is > only camouflage at least he is raising the issue and I don't see any of the > folks who are semi-hysterical around the WCIT talking about anything even > approaching those issues. > > At least in the US where AT&T is trying to do a similar deregulatory number > on the FCC they are willing to pay a reasonable price ($14 Billion for > additional connectivity) to get themselves off the regulatory hook. What > are the folks who are throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the ITU, > offering (except platitudes about the magical wonders of > "competition"--hardly of much use to subsistence farmers in Bangladesh or > Burkina Faso living on $1 per day)? > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 4:47 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] Hamadoun Touré Op-Ed in Wired + > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:02 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > > > With over 90 percent of the world’s people now within reach of mobile > > phones, the challenge today is bringing internet access to the > > two-thirds of the world’s population that is still offline. This > > challenge is compounded by the need to ensure connectivity is affordable > and safe for all. > > > > and then > > > > The conference will chart a globally agreed-upon roadmap that offers > > future connectivity to all, and ensures sufficient communications > > capacity to cope with the exponential growth in voice, video, and > > data. The sole focus of the event is making regulations valuable to > > all stakeholders, creating a robust pillar to support future growth in > global communications. > > > > and > > > > The conference will address issues that relate to improving online > > access and connectivity for everyone. > > > > Surely these are appropriate goals for Civil Society as well > > spot on Michael. > > I for one don't believe that what HT says the conference is about is > actually what the conference is about, do you? > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ ACADEMIE DES TIC FACILITATEUR GAID/AFRIQUE Membre At-Large Member NCSG Member email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com baudouin.schombe at ticafrica.net tél:+243998983491 skype:b.schombe wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 10:29:20 2012 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 19:29:20 +0400 Subject: [governance] Great speech, Carlos! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Izumi actually, I took my time to evaluate the scope of this speech. I think not be the last but better late than never. Carlos, you made the exception and the message has had its effect. Far from me to you and especially your praise that we are like brother and friend, be reassured that you are doing our pride. On the eve of the end of the year 2012, that God brings all his blessings. Baudouin 2012/11/7 Izumi AIZU > Dear Carlos, > > I hear many people really liked your speech yesterday, at the opening > session. In fact, one of the government reps told me this morning it > was THE BEST among all speeches of all guest speakers. > > I also was asked to get File version of your speech, Carlos, to be shared. > > To confess, I was not able to listen you since I was have some > preparatory meeting for Emerging Issues main session, so I also need > your speech in print/file. I am sure there are many others like me. > > 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.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ ACADEMIE DES TIC FACILITATEUR GAID/AFRIQUE Membre At-Large Member NCSG Member email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com baudouin.schombe at ticafrica.net tél:+243998983491 skype:b.schombe wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 11:28:36 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 14:28:36 -0200 Subject: Suggestions for remote participation Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection Message-ID: Hi all, I would like to start a thread of concrete suggestions for improving RP. I know all of us who participated remotely have our impressions of what could be better, so why not share them? My personal views about being a remote participant today - for the first time in the IGF - is that the webcast of all sessions and the captioning are tremendous tools, the existence of hubs multiplies IGF discussions, and the fact that RP is available to any individual in the world is a remarkable sign of openness. But, in spite of all the undeniable achievements, progress needs to be made to ensure inclusion of views of remote participants into the IGF debate. That difficulty, in my opinion, has to do with one main reason: In spite of the huge number of remote participants (47 hubs, more than 800 people last year), the *methodology of most workshop sessions* *remains unchanged*. We have not adjust to the new reality and the sessions are planned exclusively for those who are physically in the IGF. One possible reason for that could be that we have too many sessions on the schedule and too many issues to discuss. My feeling was that session moderators were so under pressure that, on the heat of the debate, they tended to see remote participants as an obstacle to "moving the discussion forward", not as IGF participants. Maybe* less and longer sessions* on IGF schedule would reduce pressure. Time pressure makes people impatient with the difficulties that non-native English speakers may have, or with occasional technical glitches, which we need to cope with, if we really want to include remote participants. It is up to us to decide what we value the most as a community: Speed of discussions? Inclusion? Sometimes they are in a trade-off. It would be important to r*educe the distance between remote participants and the session moderator*. Most session moderators don't remember to look at the screen and check if questions are popping up in Webex. So remote participants lose the "timing" of making interventions. Maybe we could establish a procedure so remote participants could *send questions to the session moderator before the IGF*, so he could incorporate some of them into his own set of questions to the panelists. For the "live" questions, the remote participation moderator should have a *clear visual way* to sign to the session moderator that a remote question has been asked, like raising a red flag. Of course, audio interventions need to be more encouraged, even if their moment needs to be carefully planned and agreed upon between the session moderators and the technical team. *There should not be a session without a remote moderator*. Imagine someone who blocked her agenda to participate in a workshop and then, surprise: you stay in a room talking to the walls. If remote participation is an integral part of the IGF, this is unacceptable. Workshops without remote moderators should not be approved (for real), and those physically present in the room should confirm if the moderator is indeed there. As a last resort, anyone could take the role of being a moderator in case the person is missing. My main point is that, in spite of the technical improvements that should always be made, *making remote participation inclusive is up to the community, especially of those who plan the sessions*. Some organizers did a great job in linking up with remote hubs, planing for the participation of remote speakers and participants. But I seems they were still a minority. To mention the *technical aspects*, to me the greater problem was lack of integration between webex, webcast and captioning. Going back and forth in different windows was not practical. On a positive side, the quality of the image of the webcast seemed to be better, and the cameras were placed in a better position inside the room. It helped to read facial and body expressions. One last point: some time ago, it was proposed that a task force would be created to *exchange knowledge and best practices regarding RP* with other organizations that have also been struggling and making progress at it, such as ITU (and many others as a matter of fact) in the UN. I don't know why it did not fly. I hope that political sensitivities do not hamper what could be a fruitful dialogue about a topic that is a common challenge. Best wishes and a safe journey to all returning from Baku! Marília On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Hi all, > I was logged into Room #10 remotely, webex but there was no other attendee. > The webex Schedule (as on 6th and 7th) has single first day pre-meeting > of 5th Nov but after refreshing promt appear for login and after login it > connected me Room # 7th Nov meeting. > > I keep trying to obtain response from Moderator (Ms Nina), but could not > established interactive response, and I do not know that have she read my > text input or not. I think Moderator was too busy in the meeting > physically and given zero importance to single Remote Participant. So, RP > was useless. > > Regards > > Imran > (for IGFPAK) > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Jean-Yves GATETE > *To:* "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; > Rudi Vansnick > *Sent:* Thursday, 8 November 2012, 3:18 > *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection > > Hi all, > as Mr Rudi, I ve been following via that webcast tool too. I have the same > problem too and the Room10 is not working either. > > Wishing you all the best, > > Jean-Yves GATETE > > *De :* Rudi Vansnick > *À :* Crepin-Leblond Olivier > *Cc :* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Envoyé le :* Jeudi 8 novembre 2012 10h54 > *Objet :* Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection > > I've used the remote participation tools daily (till today). The webex > allows to participate through the chat and the Q&A windows, but the webcast > is always giving me the same error. > If I want to see the room I have to use the webcast tool ( > http://webcast.igf2012.com/) , which is of course not fully synchronised > with the webex session. From room 6 till room 9 the audio in the webcast is > very low. With the volume on the max here I can hardly understand the > speakers. > > The descriptions of the rooms workshops in the webcast window is not > updated and gives sometimes wrong session information. > > Rudi Vansnick > ------------------ Internet Society Belgium --------------------- > President - CEO Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16 > rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 > Dendermondesteenweg 143 B-9070 Destelbergen > www.internetsociety.be "The Internet is for everyone" > > Op 8-nov-2012, om 04:29 heeft Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond het volgende > geschreven: > > > I suppose rp has probably been flooded with enquiries. > > Since the beginning of the week, I saw Bernard run around trying to fix > > things. > > The remote participation computers running Webex are all wired in and > > appear to work well but the network sometimes goes through some periods > > of being very slow. This is when the WIFI works and guess what, the WIFI > > does not work well at all. In fact, I have spent complete afternoons > > without WIFI. (not enough IPv4 addresses to allocate -- and no IPv6 > > connectivity at all in case you ask) > > > > Whilst so far, I have been super impressed with the host country, this > > is, in my opinion, the poorest Internet connectivity we've had at the > > venue in recent IGFs. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Olivier > > > > On 07/11/2012 00:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:16 PM, shaila mistry > wrote: > >>> Hi everyone > >>> I too have tried several times to participate. Each time I am sent a > >>> different route of downloads and logins , finally leading to a dead > end. > >>> Please advise what can be done ? > >>> Shaila Rao Mistry > >> Have you tried contacting > >> > >> "Remote Participation general help" > >> > >> ? > >> > >> Do they respond? > >> > >> If yes, what are they saying? > >> > >> If no, let us know, so that we can push locally for those help email > >> addresses to be handled in a meaningful way. > >> > >> In the long run, what we need is funding to put a competent person in > >> charge of ensuring in an ongoing manner (year after year) that IGF > >> remote participation is made available in a way that can be expected > >> to work (which presupposes learning from what went wrong in earlier > >> years, and it presupposes serious testing well before the first day of > >> the IGF). It is simply unacceptable for an entirely new technical team > >> to put in charge of remote participation every year, and the remote > >> participation infrastructure again and again being so absurdly > >> unreliable.) > >> > >> Greetings, > >> Norbert > >> > > > > -- > > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD > > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 ivarhartmann at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 11:30:52 2012 From: ivarhartmann at gmail.com (Ivar A. M. Hartmann) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 14:30:52 -0200 Subject: [governance] Digital Inclusion: You're Doint it Wrong, Google Message-ID: "Google product manager AbdelKarim Mardini said that the service is designed to take aim 'at the next billion users on the Internet' (...)" I sure hope the next billion users enjoy the actual internet and not Google's private walled garden in the Philippines. If anything, Google Free Zone is a disservice to digital inclusion. It's surprising that Google would stamp on net neutrality after its proposal with Verizon . Best, Ivar Google Free Zone aims at connecting developing countries The service lets users search on Google, access Gmail, and use Google+ on their mobile devices without paying for data. [image: Don Reisinger] by Don Reisinger November 8, 2012 6:16 AM PST [image: FreeZone is launching in the Philippines today.] FreeZone is launching in the Philippines today. (Credit: Google) Google has launched a new service designed to get users in developing countries to access its core offerings. Dubbed Free Zone, the service is launching first in the Philippines starting today. Users in that country will be able to access Google Search, Gmail, and Google+ from their mobile devices without incurring any data charges. In an interviewwith Reuters published today, Google product manager AbdelKarim Mardini said that the service is designed to take aim "at the next billion users on the Internet, many of whom will be in emerging markets and encounter the Internet first on a mobile phone without ever owning a PC." If successful, Free Zone could be rolled out to other emerging markets. Related stories - Google's scary Bram Stoker doodle - Google's U.K. search share dips below 90 percent - As Nexus 10 hits the marketplace, new life is seen for Android tablet apps - Mozilla gets lucky, settles IRS audit for $1.5M - Google rolls out new search page look, moves navi bar However, there is a catch. While folks will be able to send and receive e-mails on Gmail and check out what friends are sharing on Google+, they can't go any further than Google's search results page before being told they need to pay their carrier for access to data. Free Zone is available on just about any Internet-enabled mobile phone in the Philippines. According to Google, it's optimized to work on feature phones, but can also work on smartphones. Google's move underscores the growing importance of emerging markets. Several countries around the world are starting to improve their technology infrastructure, giving companies like Google, Apple, Microsoft, and others, the opportunity to capitalize. In addition, as China's middle class continues to grow, nearly all tech companies will try to pounce. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57546899-93/google-free-zone-aims-at-connecting-developing-countries/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 8 11:40:12 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 17:40:12 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Hamadoun_Tour=C3=A9_Op-Ed_in_Wired_+?= In-Reply-To: References: <007e01cdbd6e$55945890$00bd09b0$@gmail.com> <025401cdbdb8$eea475c0$cbed6140$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <226841677.43942.1352392812092.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m29> Dear Michel and Baudouin I agree wiith both your comments. Let me add my personal one for complementing them. Best regards and wishes for a successful IGF. I mean an IGF that (also) addresses DC’s actual needs. Jean-Louis Fullsack M. Touré said : Message du 08/11/12 16:23 > De : "Baudouin Schombe" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "michael gurstein" > Copie à : "McTim" > Objet : Re: [governance] Hamadoun Touré Op-Ed in Wired + > > I appreciate rightly this appreciation of Michael and I ask myself the question of what are beneficially precoccupations that will be discussed during this high mass? While we seek to make digital technology more profitable and beneficial, we find the money to spend because we are at the end of the year and somewhere there was money that has not yet been spend and must justify its use.> Baudouin > >2012/11/8 michael gurstein > McTim, > > I have no idea what the conference is "actually about", but even if it is > only camouflage at least he is raising the issue and I don't see any of the > folks who are semi-hysterical around the WCIT talking about anything even > approaching those issues. > > At least in the US where AT&T is trying to do a similar deregulatory number > on the FCC they are willing to pay a reasonable price ($14 Billion for > additional connectivity) to get themselves off the regulatory hook. What > are the folks who are throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the ITU, > offering (except platitudes about the magical wonders of > "competition"--hardly of much use to subsistence farmers in Bangladesh or > Burkina Faso living on $1 per day)? > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 4:47 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] Hamadoun Touré Op-Ed in Wired + > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:02 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > > > With over 90 percent of the world’s people now within reach of mobile > > phones, the challenge today is bringing internet access to the > > two-thirds of the world’s population that is still offline. This > > challenge is compounded by the need to ensure connectivity is affordable > and safe for all. > > > > and then > > > > The conference will chart a globally agreed-upon roadmap that offers > > future connectivity to all, and ensures sufficient communications > > capacity to cope with the exponential growth in voice, video, and > > data. The sole focus of the event is making regulations valuable to > > all stakeholders, creating a robust pillar to support future growth in > global communications. > > > > and > > > > The conference will address issues that relate to improving online > > access and connectivity for everyone. > > > > Surely these are appropriate goals for Civil Society as well > > spot on Michael. > > I for one don't believe that what HT says the conference is about is > actually what the conference is about, do you? > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ > ACADEMIE DES TIC > FACILITATEUR GAID/AFRIQUE Membre > At-Large Member > NCSG Member > > email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com > baudouin.schombe at ticafrica.net > tél:+243998983491 > skype:b.schombe > wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net > blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Thu Nov 8 12:07:06 2012 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 18:07:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Hamadoun_Tour=C3=A9_Op-Ed_in_Wired_+?= In-Reply-To: <744487437.110851.1352393705092.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw15.schlund.de> References: <007e01cdbd6e$55945890$00bd09b0$@gmail.com> <025401cdbdb8$eea475c0$cbed6140$@gmail.com> <744487437.110851.1352393705092.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw15.schlund.de> Message-ID: <1826692298.111257.1352394434518.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw15> Jean-Louis I hear you and understand your complaints. What would be your ideas to do it right? If private sector-led competitive investment is resulting in over-capacity and billions of sunk cost, as you say, what alternative set-up would deliver better results? Would you rather want government monopolies? Or public-private partnerships? Or something else? What I'm trying to get at is to find solutions after having identified what the problems are. My experience has taught me however that sometimes it may be the best option to go for the second-best solution if the first choice is unworkable. So, let's look at various options. Where do you see possible and realistic, workable solutions? Best Peter H. Hellmonds Public & International Affairs Phone: +49 (160) 360-2852 E-Mail: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu On 08.11.2012, at 17:41, "Jean-Louis FULLSACK" wrote: Dear Michel and Baudouin I agree wiith both your comments. Let me add my personal one for complementing them. Best regards and wishes for a successful IGF. I mean an IGF that (also) addresses DC’s actual needs. Jean-Louis Fullsack M. Touré said : Message du 08/11/12 16:23 > De : "Baudouin Schombe" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "michael gurstein" > Copie à : "McTim" > Objet : Re: [governance] Hamadoun Touré Op-Ed in Wired + > > I appreciate rightly this appreciation of Michael and I ask myself the question of what are beneficially precoccupations that will be discussed during this high mass? While we seek to make digital technology more profitable and beneficial, we find the money to spend because we are at the end of the year and somewhere there was money that has not yet been spend and must justify its use. > Baudouin > > 2012/11/8 michael gurstein > > > McTim, > > > > I have no idea what the conference is "actually about", but even if it is > > only camouflage at least he is raising the issue and I don't see any of the > > folks who are semi-hysterical around the WCIT talking about anything even > > approaching those issues. > > > > At least in the US where AT&T is trying to do a similar deregulatory number > > on the FCC they are willing to pay a reasonable price ($14 Billion for > > additional connectivity) to get themselves off the regulatory hook. What > > are the folks who are throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the ITU, > > offering (except platitudes about the magical wonders of > > "competition"--hardly of much use to subsistence farmers in Bangladesh or > > Burkina Faso living on $1 per day)? > > > > M > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 4:47 PM > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > > Subject: Re: [governance] Hamadoun Touré Op-Ed in Wired + > > > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:02 AM, michael gurstein > > wrote: > > > > > > With over 90 percent of the world’s people now within reach of mobile > > > phones, the challenge today is bringing internet access to the > > > two-thirds of the world’s population that is still offline. This > > > challenge is compounded by the need to ensure connectivity is affordable > > and safe for all. > > > > > > and then > > > > > > The conference will chart a globally agreed-upon roadmap that offers > > > future connectivity to all, and ensures sufficient communications > > > capacity to cope with the exponential growth in voice, video, and > > > data. The sole focus of the event is making regulations valuable to > > > all stakeholders, creating a robust pillar to support future growth in > > global communications. > > > > > > and > > > > > > The conference will address issues that relate to improving online > > > access and connectivity for everyone. > > > > > > Surely these are appropriate goals for Civil Society as well > > > > spot on Michael. > > > > I for one don't believe that what HT says the conference is about is > > actually what the conference is about, do you? > > > > > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > > > McTim > > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > > indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ > ACADEMIE DES TIC > FACILITATEUR GAID/AFRIQUE Membre > At-Large Member > NCSG Member > > email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com > baudouin.schombe at ticafrica.net > tél:+243998983491 > skype:b.schombe > wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net > blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Nov 8 12:37:05 2012 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 11:37:05 -0600 Subject: Suggestions for remote participation Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: These are excellent points, Marilia. We have been discussing similar ideas, including Pranesh's suggestion that as remote participants we must 'make ourselves be noticed'. I think we do need to raise our concerns in a dynamic, strong, constructive way to make this possible. I ask that you join us tomorrow at WS 52 Remote Participation: Reality and Principles, at 11:00 a.m. Baku time, conference room 9, where we will discuss these issues and the way forward. We will continue collaborative work on the Remote Participation principles, started last year in Nairobi, on an open etherpad document. The url and password will be published tomorrow morning. If you cannot join us, we will add your points to the document. We invite others to make their voices heard, so we can include your points in our final document. We hope to see you there, or to include you with our work. This is an important issue of access, and must be addressed. Obrigada, saludos, Ginger On 8 November 2012 10:28, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to start a thread of concrete suggestions for improving RP. I > know all of us who participated remotely have our impressions of what could > be better, so why not share them? > > My personal views about being a remote participant today - for the first > time in the IGF - is that the webcast of all sessions and the captioning > are tremendous tools, the existence of hubs multiplies IGF discussions, and > the fact that RP is available to any individual in the world is a > remarkable sign of openness. But, in spite of all the undeniable > achievements, progress needs to be made to ensure inclusion of views of > remote participants into the IGF debate. > > That difficulty, in my opinion, has to do with one main reason: In spite > of the huge number of remote participants (47 hubs, more than 800 people > last year), the *methodology of most workshop sessions* *remains unchanged > *. We have not adjust to the new reality and the sessions are planned > exclusively for those who are physically in the IGF. One possible reason > for that could be that we have too many sessions on the schedule and too > many issues to discuss. My feeling was that session moderators were so > under pressure that, on the heat of the debate, they tended to see remote > participants as an obstacle to "moving the discussion forward", not as IGF > participants. > > Maybe* less and longer sessions* on IGF schedule would reduce pressure. > Time pressure makes people impatient with the difficulties that non-native > English speakers may have, or with occasional technical glitches, which we > need to cope with, if we really want to include remote participants. It is > up to us to decide what we value the most as a community: Speed of > discussions? Inclusion? Sometimes they are in a trade-off. > > It would be important to r*educe the distance between remote participants > and the session moderator*. Most session moderators don't remember to > look at the screen and check if questions are popping up in Webex. So > remote participants lose the "timing" of making interventions. Maybe we > could establish a procedure so remote participants could *send questions > to the session moderator before the IGF*, so he could incorporate some of > them into his own set of questions to the panelists. For the "live" > questions, the remote participation moderator should have a *clear visual > way* to sign to the session moderator that a remote question has been > asked, like raising a red flag. Of course, audio interventions need to be > more encouraged, even if their moment needs to be carefully planned and > agreed upon between the session moderators and the technical team. > > *There should not be a session without a remote moderator*. Imagine > someone who blocked her agenda to participate in a workshop and then, > surprise: you stay in a room talking to the walls. If remote participation > is an integral part of the IGF, this is unacceptable. Workshops without > remote moderators should not be approved (for real), and those physically > present in the room should confirm if the moderator is indeed there. As a > last resort, anyone could take the role of being a moderator in case the > person is missing. > > My main point is that, in spite of the technical improvements that should > always be made, *making remote participation inclusive is up to the > community, especially of those who plan the sessions*. Some organizers > did a great job in linking up with remote hubs, planing for the > participation of remote speakers and participants. But I seems they were > still a minority. > > To mention the *technical aspects*, to me the greater problem was lack of > integration between webex, webcast and captioning. Going back and forth in > different windows was not practical. On a positive side, the quality of the > image of the webcast seemed to be better, and the cameras were placed in a > better position inside the room. It helped to read facial and body > expressions. > > One last point: some time ago, it was proposed that a task force would be > created to *exchange knowledge and best practices regarding RP* with > other organizations that have also been struggling and making progress at > it, such as ITU (and many others as a matter of fact) in the UN. I don't > know why it did not fly. I hope that political sensitivities do not hamper > what could be a fruitful dialogue about a topic that is a common challenge. > > Best wishes and a safe journey to all returning from Baku! > > Marília > > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > >> Hi all, >> I was logged into Room #10 remotely, webex but there was no other >> attendee. >> The webex Schedule (as on 6th and 7th) has single first day pre-meeting >> of 5th Nov but after refreshing promt appear for login and after login it >> connected me Room # 7th Nov meeting. >> >> I keep trying to obtain response from Moderator (Ms Nina), but could not >> established interactive response, and I do not know that have she read my >> text input or not. I think Moderator was too busy in the meeting >> physically and given zero importance to single Remote Participant. So, RP >> was useless. >> >> Regards >> >> Imran >> (for IGFPAK) >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Jean-Yves GATETE >> *To:* "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; >> Rudi Vansnick >> *Sent:* Thursday, 8 November 2012, 3:18 >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection >> >> Hi all, >> as Mr Rudi, I ve been following via that webcast tool too. I have the >> same problem too and the Room10 is not working either. >> >> Wishing you all the best, >> >> Jean-Yves GATETE >> >> *De :* Rudi Vansnick >> *À :* Crepin-Leblond Olivier >> *Cc :* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> *Envoyé le :* Jeudi 8 novembre 2012 10h54 >> *Objet :* Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection >> >> I've used the remote participation tools daily (till today). The webex >> allows to participate through the chat and the Q&A windows, but the webcast >> is always giving me the same error. >> If I want to see the room I have to use the webcast tool ( >> http://webcast.igf2012.com/) , which is of course not fully synchronised >> with the webex session. From room 6 till room 9 the audio in the webcast is >> very low. With the volume on the max here I can hardly understand the >> speakers. >> >> The descriptions of the rooms workshops in the webcast window is not >> updated and gives sometimes wrong session information. >> >> Rudi Vansnick >> ------------------ Internet Society Belgium --------------------- >> President - CEO Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16 >> rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 >> Dendermondesteenweg 143 B-9070 Destelbergen >> www.internetsociety.be "The Internet is for everyone" >> >> Op 8-nov-2012, om 04:29 heeft Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond het volgende >> geschreven: >> >> > I suppose rp has probably been flooded with enquiries. >> > Since the beginning of the week, I saw Bernard run around trying to fix >> > things. >> > The remote participation computers running Webex are all wired in and >> > appear to work well but the network sometimes goes through some periods >> > of being very slow. This is when the WIFI works and guess what, the WIFI >> > does not work well at all. In fact, I have spent complete afternoons >> > without WIFI. (not enough IPv4 addresses to allocate -- and no IPv6 >> > connectivity at all in case you ask) >> > >> > Whilst so far, I have been super impressed with the host country, this >> > is, in my opinion, the poorest Internet connectivity we've had at the >> > venue in recent IGFs. >> > >> > Kind regards, >> > >> > Olivier >> > >> > On 07/11/2012 00:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:16 PM, shaila mistry >> wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone >> >>> I too have tried several times to participate. Each time I am sent a >> >>> different route of downloads and logins , finally leading to a dead >> end. >> >>> Please advise what can be done ? >> >>> Shaila Rao Mistry >> >> Have you tried contacting >> >> >> >> "Remote Participation general help" >> >> >> >> ? >> >> >> >> Do they respond? >> >> >> >> If yes, what are they saying? >> >> >> >> If no, let us know, so that we can push locally for those help email >> >> addresses to be handled in a meaningful way. >> >> >> >> In the long run, what we need is funding to put a competent person in >> >> charge of ensuring in an ongoing manner (year after year) that IGF >> >> remote participation is made available in a way that can be expected >> >> to work (which presupposes learning from what went wrong in earlier >> >> years, and it presupposes serious testing well before the first day of >> >> the IGF). It is simply unacceptable for an entirely new technical team >> >> to put in charge of remote participation every year, and the remote >> >> participation infrastructure again and again being so absurdly >> >> unreliable.) >> >> >> >> Greetings, >> >> Norbert >> >> >> > >> > -- >> > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD >> > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 15:01:28 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 22:01:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change Request Made by DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa In-Reply-To: <20121108083558.GA22514@hserus.net> References: <20121107081316.GA28721@hserus.net> <20121108083558.GA22514@hserus.net> Message-ID: >From my discussions with a couple of TLD applicants, some have set success-numbers such as "if I manage to secure xyz,000 registrations at the cost of ab dollars per domain name, I have fulfilled my cause". That - as you said - mainly comes from good marketing. Fahd On Nov 8, 2012 11:36 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: > Success in terms of numbers? It depends on how much their marketing skills > match their skills in high decibel politicking. Convincing companies with > .eg, .ng, .za etc domains to get themselves .africa in addition / as a > substitute may or may not be easy. They could certainly learn from .asia's > experience I'd say. > > Fahd A. Batayneh [08/11/12 09:17 +0200]: > >> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> wrote: >> >> (snip) >>> >>> >> >> Even the TLD by itself has little or no relevance in the larger scheme of >>> things, any more than say .museum has for museums the world over, or its >>> geographic predecessor .asia has had for Asia (moderately, but not too >>> popular) >>> >>> >> I agree. In fact, around 1% of the domain names registered at a global >> level originate from Africa (or at least have African addresses tied to >> them). >> >> So this all boils down to how the folks at .africa define the success of >> the TLD in terms of numbers. >> >> Fahd >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 8 18:43:05 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 05:13:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change Request Made by DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa In-Reply-To: References: <20121107081316.GA28721@hserus.net> <20121108083558.GA22514@hserus.net> Message-ID: <2BCBD1E3-E4F4-4D67-9AEF-D3F63F841378@hserus.net> Volumes are definitely key. Especially to offset the rather high startup costs of a new tld --srs (iPad) On 09-Nov-2012, at 1:31, "Fahd A. Batayneh" wrote: > From my discussions with a couple of TLD applicants, some have set success-numbers such as "if I manage to secure xyz,000 registrations at the cost of ab dollars per domain name, I have fulfilled my cause". That - as you said - mainly comes from good marketing. > > Fahd > > On Nov 8, 2012 11:36 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: >> Success in terms of numbers? It depends on how much their marketing skills >> match their skills in high decibel politicking. Convincing companies with >> .eg, .ng, .za etc domains to get themselves .africa in addition / as a >> substitute may or may not be easy. They could certainly learn from .asia's >> experience I'd say. >> >> Fahd A. Batayneh [08/11/12 09:17 +0200]: >>> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >>> wrote: >>> >>>> (snip) >>> >>> >>>> Even the TLD by itself has little or no relevance in the larger scheme of >>>> things, any more than say .museum has for museums the world over, or its >>>> geographic predecessor .asia has had for Asia (moderately, but not too >>>> popular) >>> >>> I agree. In fact, around 1% of the domain names registered at a global >>> level originate from Africa (or at least have African addresses tied to >>> them). >>> >>> So this all boils down to how the folks at .africa define the success of >>> the TLD in terms of numbers. >>> >>> Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 9 00:49:00 2012 From: ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com (Narine Khachatryan) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 09:49:00 +0400 Subject: [governance] EU officials 'hacked' at Azerbaijan Internet Governance Forum Message-ID: EU officials 'hacked' at Azerbaijan Internet Governance Forum http://www.zdnet.com/eu-officials-hacked-at-azerbaijan-internet-governance-forum-7000007093/ *Summary:** A spokesman for digital agenda commissioner Neelie Kroes says he and one of her policy advisors have had their laptops hacked in Baku, which they are visiting for a major internet policy conference. A day before, Kroes had laid into her hosts for spying on activists.* By David Meyer | November 8, 2012 -- 09:05 GMT (01:05 PST) The laptops of two EU officials have apparently been hacked in Azerbaijan during the Internet Governance Forum. The officials both work for digital agenda commissioner Neelie Kroes, who gave a speech at the forum on Wednesday in which she lambasted the Azeri government for spying on activists online, and promised to promote tools for helping journalists avoid surveillance. "Great, now my Mac has been hacked," Kroes's spokesman, Ryan Heath, tweeted on Thursday morning. "Also @msprotonneutron [policy officer Camino Manjon] — I wonder who could have done that? #Azerbaijan." Great, now my Mac has been hacked. Also @* MsProtonNeutron* - I wonder who could have done that? #*Azerbaijan* Heath subsequently clarified to ZDNet UK that the alleged hacking had taken place in a hotel, rather than at the event itself. "Hacked @ hotel rather than at #IGF12. Someone else took over my personal MacBook. Can't determine more yet," he wrote. Seriously? At a conference about internet freedoms, among other things? Hacked @ hotel rather than at #*IGF12*. Someone else took over my personal MacBook. Can't determine more yet. The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is an annual event at which internet policymakers from around the world convene for discussions with the technical community, academics and other stakeholders. This year's event comes less a month before the World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai, at which global telecoms rules will be revised for the first time in around 24 years. Some fear that governments could assume more control over the internet in the new rules, although Kroes told ZDNet UK in August that she opposed such a move. Kroes's speech on Wednesday was combative in tone. Describing the internet as "the new frontier of freedom and a new tool to exercise this freedom", she accused her hosts of breaking pre-Eurovision promises to loosen their grip on free expression. "In this very country, we see many arbitrary restrictions on the media," Kroes said. "We see the exercise of free speech effectively criminalised. We see violent attacks on journalists. And we see activists spied on online, violating the privacy of journalists and their sources. I condemn this. The restrictions must end." Kroes referred to the European Commission's 'No Disconnect' strategy, which involves giving online activists "technological tools… that help journalists avoid surveillance and safeguard their right to privacy". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 9 01:01:06 2012 From: ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com (Narine Khachatryan) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 10:01:06 +0400 Subject: [governance] WG on Armenian IGF expresses its deep gratitude to the IGF Secretariat Message-ID: The Working Group on Armenian IGF expresses its deep gratitude to the Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum and IGF Remote Participation Team for taking immediate and effective measures and urgently responding to our Statement made on November 7, 2012. Statement by the Working Group on Armenian IGF at the 7th Annual IGF Meeting *Statement * *by the **Working Group on Armenian IGF* *at the **Seventh Annual IGF Meeting of the** Internet Governance Forum 2012 * "*Internet Governance for Sustainable Human, Economic and Social Development *" * * The Working Group on Armenian IGF was willing and ready to take active part in the Seventh Annual IGF Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum convened in Baku, Azerbaijan, from November 6 to 9, 2012. It was also looking forward to make its valuable contribution to the Internet Governance process, especially, taking into consideration the vitality and actuality of the Forum's subject matter. However, the recent developments in Azerbaijan made our physical presence at the Forum dangerous and, therefore, impossible. The extradition by Hungary to Azerbaijan and the unprecedented pardon by Azerbaijan's President Aliyev of the notorious Ramil Safarov who axe-murdered in cold blood in February of 2004 in Budapest, Hungary, the sleeping Armenian military officer Gurgen Margaryan, as well as the subsequent cynical glorification and honoring of the brutal killer in Azerbaijan, combined with the increasing anti-Armenian racist propaganda on the highest level, inflicted considerable damage to the weak contacts existing between Armenia and Azerbaijan within the framework of the international organizations and fora. With outright contempt and neglect, Azerbaijan continues to turn blind eye and deaf ear to the unanimous and unequivocal condemnation voiced by many countries, international and European organizations over this gross violation of the principles and norms of the international law and human morality[1]. Internet Governance for Sustainable Human, Economic and Social Development – these are not just words. On November 6, 2012, the Armenian side was harshly rejected the simple opportunity of remote participation in the IGF work: neither web broadcasting nor transcripts of the sessions and workshops have been available to Armenian citizens, let alone the unwillingness of some moderators to answer our questions or voice our rightful concerns or complaints. We therefore strongly insist on ensuring of our full-fledged participation in the IGF activities at all levels in order to guarantee the inclusiveness and transparency of the entire IGF process. *Yerevan, November 7, 2012* ------------------------------ [1] http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR55/015/2012/en/8e84f955-9f8f-488c-ad34-c68a744b6878/eur550152012en.html Narine Khachatryan, On behalf of the Working Group on Armenian IGF -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Statement_Armenian_IGF_2012.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 14689 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 Fri Nov 9 02:30:17 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 16:30:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] it's time for me Message-ID: Dear list, It 's been a great 2 years for me as one of the co-cos of the CS IGC, to work with you guys all. Now, the Charter says the coordinator has two years term, and election should be done by mid summer, or if not, later but asap. So, I here put my intention to step down, and hope we will have many excellent candidates, nominated, or self-nominated. And I ask my colleague Sala to take the responsibility of the election, perhaps with the help, if so needed from past coordinators. Again, thank you all, from Baku. 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 ca at cafonso.ca Fri Nov 9 02:36:56 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 11:36:56 +0400 Subject: [governance] ETNO can't win Message-ID: The ETNO proposal: all but naive Carlos A. Afonso Instituto Nupef Baku, Nov.8, 2012 In the open forum space this morning ETNO's  (European Telecommunications Network Operators'  Association) representative presented his arguments in defense of more profits by regulation. Telcos are envious of the way application and content services are making money through their (telcos') pipes. Recently the CEO of Oi, the largest telco operating in Brazil and associated with Portugal Telecom, revealed an envy of application providers who, in his view, manipulate traffic at will, and the "poor telcos" cannot do the same. He was seconded by the Brazilian minister of Communications, who insisted net neutrality is a "romantic" myth which should be abandoned. They of course hate to see their fixed line phone networks being abandoned and being replaced by mobile and, worst of all, by a demon called voIP. But are particularly envious of the creativity of content and application providers' innovative ways to do business and want to grab a share of their profits with the help of governments, local regulators and the ITU. So they want the ITU to somehow insert in the international telecommunications regulations (ITRs) being reviewed this year criteria to charge for traffic of packets passing through their tubes so that anyone who sends packets pays for it. Strange as it may sound, this is what they do today already. An application or content provider already prepays an operator (by buying capacity of, say, some gigabits per second per month) -- so the sender already pays, and this is a very profitable business for telcos, since this is an entirely unregulated market and all they have to do is to keep the link alive. But for telcos a product called "transit capacity" is the only known in any market which is not intended to be used as specified. An ISP buys capacity but cannot use it in full. If they do, they will have to pay more. How much more? This should be kept to the will of the telco selling capacity, ETNO is saying to ITU. We can see the current Internet gamut of services as two basic types: the ones who require that a stream be delivered to its destination in real time (video/audio streaming, interactive real time services such as voIP), and the ones which do not require real time delivery (email, an HMTL page, even chats). These correspond to exactly defined Internet protocols, the treatment of which is already embedded in routers and advanced switches -- for example, no one has to do not anything for the well-configured network to recognize a voIP stream and act accordingly, unless a deliberate traffic interference device degrades it. But telcos want to interfere and then charge the final user for eliminating the interference -- what they call "QoS" or quality of service. In other words, they wish to degrade the net and get more money from you (the content or application provider, the smaller ISPs, the home user) to fix it. The point is that they are doing this at will now -- the ETNO folks just want somehow to legalize this practice with the help of ITU, by throwing away the concept of net neutrality at the link layer. As I said in my speech in the Baku IGF's opening ceremony, the internet layer and the layers above it (transport layer and applications layer) should not be included in any way in the regulations, while the free flow of Internet packets should be guaranteed in the link layer, in line with network neutrality in which Internet packets are never touched by the operators providing the physical connectivity infrastructure. And I repeat: let the Internet flourish freely to the benefit of those who live at its edges, which are all of us. Carlos A. Afonso -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Fri Nov 9 02:42:30 2012 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 11:42:30 +0400 Subject: [governance] it's time for me In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Izumi, hello all, If it's held me, I do not think it is time to leave the coordination. You have been great throughout your office. But the texts to be respected, I must present you all the congratulations from the bottom of my heart for all the work done during these two years. I do not think you left the caucus and that we will always need your expertise. Baudouin 2012/11/9 Izumi AIZU > Dear list, > > It 's been a great 2 years for me as one of the co-cos of the CS IGC, > to work with you guys all. > > Now, the Charter says the coordinator has two years term, and election > should be done by mid summer, or if not, later but asap. > > So, I here put my intention to step down, and hope we will have many > excellent candidates, nominated, or self-nominated. > > And I ask my colleague Sala to take the responsibility of the > election, perhaps with the help, if so needed from past coordinators. > > Again, thank you all, from Baku. > > 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 > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ ACADEMIE DES TIC FACILITATEUR GAID/AFRIQUE Membre At-Large Member NCSG Member email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com baudouin.schombe at ticafrica.net tél:+243998983491 skype:b.schombe wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Nov 9 02:49:44 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 03:49:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] it's time for me In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Izumi, you've been a wonderful co- coordinator. We'll miss you, Deirdre On 9 November 2012 03:30, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear list, > > It 's been a great 2 years for me as one of the co-cos of the CS IGC, > to work with you guys all. > > Now, the Charter says the coordinator has two years term, and election > should be done by mid summer, or if not, later but asap. > > So, I here put my intention to step down, and hope we will have many > excellent candidates, nominated, or self-nominated. > > And I ask my colleague Sala to take the responsibility of the > election, perhaps with the help, if so needed from past coordinators. > > Again, thank you all, from Baku. > > 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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 9 03:09:23 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 13:39:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] it's time for me In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0F7F70D6-93B0-4C67-A8D3-2B2C2B0DFAA5@hserus.net> all the best, izumi san --srs (iPad) On 09-Nov-2012, at 13:19, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Dear Izumi, you've been a wonderful co- coordinator. > We'll miss you, > Deirdre > > On 9 November 2012 03:30, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> Dear list, >> >> It 's been a great 2 years for me as one of the co-cos of the CS IGC, >> to work with you guys all. >> >> Now, the Charter says the coordinator has two years term, and election >> should be done by mid summer, or if not, later but asap. >> >> So, I here put my intention to step down, and hope we will have many >> excellent candidates, nominated, or self-nominated. >> >> And I ask my colleague Sala to take the responsibility of the >> election, perhaps with the help, if so needed from past coordinators. >> >> Again, thank you all, from Baku. >> >> 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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Nov 9 03:20:28 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 13:50:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] it's time for me In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congratulations Izumi, for your good work. Sivasubramanian M On Nov 9, 2012 11:50 AM, "Deirdre Williams" wrote: > Dear Izumi, you've been a wonderful co- coordinator. > We'll miss you, > Deirdre > > On 9 November 2012 03:30, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> Dear list, >> >> It 's been a great 2 years for me as one of the co-cos of the CS IGC, >> to work with you guys all. >> >> Now, the Charter says the coordinator has two years term, and election >> should be done by mid summer, or if not, later but asap. >> >> So, I here put my intention to step down, and hope we will have many >> excellent candidates, nominated, or self-nominated. >> >> And I ask my colleague Sala to take the responsibility of the >> election, perhaps with the help, if so needed from past coordinators. >> >> Again, thank you all, from Baku. >> >> 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Nov 9 04:21:28 2012 From: judyokite at gmail.com (Judy Okite) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 13:21:28 +0400 Subject: [governance] it's time for me In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congratulations Izumi, thank you for all the time that you dedicated to this course and efforts. All the best! Kind Regards, *“Don't undertake a project unless it is manifestly important and nearly impossible” Edwin Land* On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > Congratulations Izumi, for your good work. > > Sivasubramanian M > On Nov 9, 2012 11:50 AM, "Deirdre Williams" > wrote: > >> Dear Izumi, you've been a wonderful co- coordinator. >> We'll miss you, >> Deirdre >> >> On 9 November 2012 03:30, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >>> Dear list, >>> >>> It 's been a great 2 years for me as one of the co-cos of the CS IGC, >>> to work with you guys all. >>> >>> Now, the Charter says the coordinator has two years term, and election >>> should be done by mid summer, or if not, later but asap. >>> >>> So, I here put my intention to step down, and hope we will have many >>> excellent candidates, nominated, or self-nominated. >>> >>> And I ask my colleague Sala to take the responsibility of the >>> election, perhaps with the help, if so needed from past coordinators. >>> >>> Again, thank you all, from Baku. >>> >>> 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 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 9 04:51:19 2012 From: ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com (Narine Khachatryan) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 13:51:19 +0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Refugee Issue Message-ID: Dear Nobert, Thank you very much for your interest. The problems of ethnic Armenian refugees and ethnic Azeri refugees are very sensitive: numbers, sources, context, etc. Before discussing this issue, I would kindly ask you to familiarize yourself with the trustworthy UN information, which I think is universally considered to be more accurate and unbiased: http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/page?page=49e48d1e6&submit=GO http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/page?page=49e48d126&submit=GO I had never doubt that the refugee issue is under close attention of very skillful experts with international background. Refugee issue is one of the central issues UN is very profoundly engaged in. You say that “the conflict probably needs a long-term externally mediated peace-building effort”. However, what exactly do you mean: the return of Armenian refugees to Shahumian, Dashkesan, Khanlar, Ganja, Khazakh and Nakhichevan? Or, maybe, the establishment of a security zone along the frontage of the Kura River, so that the 150.000 citizens of Nagorno Karabakh could continue to build its democratic state in a more secure environment? Instead of organizing such flashy events as Eurovision (cost $500 million, see link (1) below) or pursuing caviar diplomacy (see link (2) below), Azerbaijan’s government could finally pay some attention to the refugee issue. Interestingly, you bring an example of a refugee living in Sumgait. Concerning Sumgait, or its neighboring Baku, only the living areas of more than 250 000 Armenian civilians exiled with massive pogroms and massacres from Baku and Sumgait plus money (such as wasted on Eurovision) are more than enough for the problem of refugees had been solved long ago. Not to speak about living areas left by Armenians in Shahumian, Dashkesan, Khanlar, Ganja, Khazakh, etc. If I were in Baku within the last four days and was so much concerned with refugee issue, I would, instead of enjoying lavish gala dinners, stay on starvation and ask the organizers to send the food to Azeri refugees. Armenia managed to solve the issue of its refugees being under miserable economic conditions and destructed by the disastrous earthquake of 1988. And, mark, without the help of oil dollars. It’s just the value system has been different in Armenia. Taking this opportunity, I herewith attach a brief background paper on the Refugee Issue (attached), which, I hope, will give you a full and unbiased picture on the subject. Truly, Narine (1) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/azerbaijan/9658427/Why-is-a-crucial-conference-on-internet-freedom-taking-place-in-a-dictatorship.html (2) http://williamleeadams.com/2012/05/04/selling-azerbaijan-at-eurovision-2012/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: The Refugee Issue_Background_Paper.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 12076 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Nov 9 05:26:55 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 14:26:55 +0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Refugee Issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Narine Khachatryan wrote: >You say that “the conflict probably needs a long-term externally mediated peace-building effort”. > However, what exactly do you mean: the return of Armenian refugees to Shahumian, Dashkesan, > Khanlar, Ganja, Khazakh and Nakhichevan? With the words "peace-building effort" I was not thinking immediately of any ideas on how the conflict might be resolved (which due to lack of familiarity with the region I don't really have) but I was thinking of efforts aiming at helping people on both sides of the conflict get to the point of being able to communicate with each other (by which I mean not only talking but also listening and understanding the other side's viewpoint). Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Nov 9 06:15:28 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 09:15:28 -0200 Subject: Suggestions for remote participation Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for the feedback Ginger. The times zones were difficult to reconcile, but I will look for the transcripts online. Maybe we could send the result of the discussions of the workshop today and the suggestions for improvement that will be made on the list as a contribution to the next Open Consultation. Marília On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > These are excellent points, Marilia. We have been discussing similar > ideas, including Pranesh's suggestion that as remote participants we must > 'make ourselves be noticed'. I think we do need to raise our concerns in a > dynamic, strong, constructive way to make this possible. I ask that you > join us tomorrow at WS 52 Remote Participation: Reality and Principles, at > 11:00 a.m. Baku time, conference room 9, where we will discuss these issues > and the way forward. We will continue collaborative work on the Remote > Participation principles, started last year in Nairobi, on an open etherpad > document. The url and password will be published tomorrow morning. If you > cannot join us, we will add your points to the document. We invite others > to make their voices heard, so we can include your points in our final > document. We hope to see you there, or to include you with our work. This > is an important issue of access, and must be addressed. > Obrigada, saludos, > Ginger > > > > On 8 November 2012 10:28, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I would like to start a thread of concrete suggestions for improving RP. >> I know all of us who participated remotely have our impressions of what >> could be better, so why not share them? >> >> My personal views about being a remote participant today - for the first >> time in the IGF - is that the webcast of all sessions and the captioning >> are tremendous tools, the existence of hubs multiplies IGF discussions, and >> the fact that RP is available to any individual in the world is a >> remarkable sign of openness. But, in spite of all the undeniable >> achievements, progress needs to be made to ensure inclusion of views of >> remote participants into the IGF debate. >> >> That difficulty, in my opinion, has to do with one main reason: In spite >> of the huge number of remote participants (47 hubs, more than 800 people >> last year), the *methodology of most workshop sessions* *remains >> unchanged*. We have not adjust to the new reality and the sessions are >> planned exclusively for those who are physically in the IGF. One possible >> reason for that could be that we have too many sessions on the schedule and >> too many issues to discuss. My feeling was that session moderators were so >> under pressure that, on the heat of the debate, they tended to see remote >> participants as an obstacle to "moving the discussion forward", not as IGF >> participants. >> >> Maybe* less and longer sessions* on IGF schedule would reduce pressure. >> Time pressure makes people impatient with the difficulties that non-native >> English speakers may have, or with occasional technical glitches, which we >> need to cope with, if we really want to include remote participants. It is >> up to us to decide what we value the most as a community: Speed of >> discussions? Inclusion? Sometimes they are in a trade-off. >> >> It would be important to r*educe the distance between remote >> participants and the session moderator*. Most session moderators don't >> remember to look at the screen and check if questions are popping up in >> Webex. So remote participants lose the "timing" of making interventions. >> Maybe we could establish a procedure so remote participants could *send >> questions to the session moderator before the IGF*, so he could >> incorporate some of them into his own set of questions to the panelists. >> For the "live" questions, the remote participation moderator should have a >> *clear visual way* to sign to the session moderator that a remote >> question has been asked, like raising a red flag. Of course, audio >> interventions need to be more encouraged, even if their moment needs to be >> carefully planned and agreed upon between the session moderators and the >> technical team. >> >> *There should not be a session without a remote moderator*. Imagine >> someone who blocked her agenda to participate in a workshop and then, >> surprise: you stay in a room talking to the walls. If remote participation >> is an integral part of the IGF, this is unacceptable. Workshops without >> remote moderators should not be approved (for real), and those physically >> present in the room should confirm if the moderator is indeed there. As a >> last resort, anyone could take the role of being a moderator in case the >> person is missing. >> >> My main point is that, in spite of the technical improvements that should >> always be made, *making remote participation inclusive is up to the >> community, especially of those who plan the sessions*. Some organizers >> did a great job in linking up with remote hubs, planing for the >> participation of remote speakers and participants. But I seems they were >> still a minority. >> >> To mention the *technical aspects*, to me the greater problem was lack >> of integration between webex, webcast and captioning. Going back and forth >> in different windows was not practical. On a positive side, the quality of >> the image of the webcast seemed to be better, and the cameras were placed >> in a better position inside the room. It helped to read facial and body >> expressions. >> >> One last point: some time ago, it was proposed that a task force would be >> created to *exchange knowledge and best practices regarding RP* with >> other organizations that have also been struggling and making progress at >> it, such as ITU (and many others as a matter of fact) in the UN. I don't >> know why it did not fly. I hope that political sensitivities do not hamper >> what could be a fruitful dialogue about a topic that is a common challenge. >> >> Best wishes and a safe journey to all returning from Baku! >> >> Marília >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> I was logged into Room #10 remotely, webex but there was no other >>> attendee. >>> The webex Schedule (as on 6th and 7th) has single first day pre-meeting >>> of 5th Nov but after refreshing promt appear for login and after login it >>> connected me Room # 7th Nov meeting. >>> >>> I keep trying to obtain response from Moderator (Ms Nina), but could not >>> established interactive response, and I do not know that have she read my >>> text input or not. I think Moderator was too busy in the meeting >>> physically and given zero importance to single Remote Participant. So, RP >>> was useless. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Imran >>> (for IGFPAK) >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* Jean-Yves GATETE >>> *To:* "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; >>> Rudi Vansnick >>> *Sent:* Thursday, 8 November 2012, 3:18 >>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection >>> >>> Hi all, >>> as Mr Rudi, I ve been following via that webcast tool too. I have the >>> same problem too and the Room10 is not working either. >>> >>> Wishing you all the best, >>> >>> Jean-Yves GATETE >>> >>> *De :* Rudi Vansnick >>> *À :* Crepin-Leblond Olivier >>> *Cc :* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> *Envoyé le :* Jeudi 8 novembre 2012 10h54 >>> *Objet :* Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection >>> >>> I've used the remote participation tools daily (till today). The webex >>> allows to participate through the chat and the Q&A windows, but the webcast >>> is always giving me the same error. >>> If I want to see the room I have to use the webcast tool ( >>> http://webcast.igf2012.com/) , which is of course not fully >>> synchronised with the webex session. From room 6 till room 9 the audio in >>> the webcast is very low. With the volume on the max here I can hardly >>> understand the speakers. >>> >>> The descriptions of the rooms workshops in the webcast window is not >>> updated and gives sometimes wrong session information. >>> >>> Rudi Vansnick >>> ------------------ Internet Society Belgium --------------------- >>> President - CEO Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16 >>> rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 >>> Dendermondesteenweg 143 B-9070 Destelbergen >>> www.internetsociety.be "The Internet is for everyone" >>> >>> Op 8-nov-2012, om 04:29 heeft Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond het volgende >>> geschreven: >>> >>> > I suppose rp has probably been flooded with enquiries. >>> > Since the beginning of the week, I saw Bernard run around trying to fix >>> > things. >>> > The remote participation computers running Webex are all wired in and >>> > appear to work well but the network sometimes goes through some periods >>> > of being very slow. This is when the WIFI works and guess what, the >>> WIFI >>> > does not work well at all. In fact, I have spent complete afternoons >>> > without WIFI. (not enough IPv4 addresses to allocate -- and no IPv6 >>> > connectivity at all in case you ask) >>> > >>> > Whilst so far, I have been super impressed with the host country, this >>> > is, in my opinion, the poorest Internet connectivity we've had at the >>> > venue in recent IGFs. >>> > >>> > Kind regards, >>> > >>> > Olivier >>> > >>> > On 07/11/2012 00:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:16 PM, shaila mistry >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi everyone >>> >>> I too have tried several times to participate. Each time I am sent a >>> >>> different route of downloads and logins , finally leading to a dead >>> end. >>> >>> Please advise what can be done ? >>> >>> Shaila Rao Mistry >>> >> Have you tried contacting >>> >> >>> >> "Remote Participation general help" >>> >> >>> >> ? >>> >> >>> >> Do they respond? >>> >> >>> >> If yes, what are they saying? >>> >> >>> >> If no, let us know, so that we can push locally for those help email >>> >> addresses to be handled in a meaningful way. >>> >> >>> >> In the long run, what we need is funding to put a competent person in >>> >> charge of ensuring in an ongoing manner (year after year) that IGF >>> >> remote participation is made available in a way that can be expected >>> >> to work (which presupposes learning from what went wrong in earlier >>> >> years, and it presupposes serious testing well before the first day of >>> >> the IGF). It is simply unacceptable for an entirely new technical team >>> >> to put in charge of remote participation every year, and the remote >>> >> participation infrastructure again and again being so absurdly >>> >> unreliable.) >>> >> >>> >> Greetings, >>> >> Norbert >>> >> >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD >>> > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >>> > >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> > >>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> > >>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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 >> >> > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Fri Nov 9 06:37:20 2012 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 15:37:20 +0400 Subject: Suggestions for remote participation Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am very attracted by this very observation pertienente. I propose that a moderator is identified by countries to channel the contributions of participants at a distance. At the moderator has the IGF, it may be assisted by one or two people to organize interventions to present to the public. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2012/11/8 Marilia Maciel > Hi all, > > I would like to start a thread of concrete suggestions for improving RP. I > know all of us who participated remotely have our impressions of what could > be better, so why not share them? > > My personal views about being a remote participant today - for the first > time in the IGF - is that the webcast of all sessions and the captioning > are tremendous tools, the existence of hubs multiplies IGF discussions, and > the fact that RP is available to any individual in the world is a > remarkable sign of openness. But, in spite of all the undeniable > achievements, progress needs to be made to ensure inclusion of views of > remote participants into the IGF debate. > > That difficulty, in my opinion, has to do with one main reason: In spite > of the huge number of remote participants (47 hubs, more than 800 people > last year), the *methodology of most workshop sessions* *remains unchanged > *. We have not adjust to the new reality and the sessions are planned > exclusively for those who are physically in the IGF. One possible reason > for that could be that we have too many sessions on the schedule and too > many issues to discuss. My feeling was that session moderators were so > under pressure that, on the heat of the debate, they tended to see remote > participants as an obstacle to "moving the discussion forward", not as IGF > participants. > > Maybe* less and longer sessions* on IGF schedule would reduce pressure. > Time pressure makes people impatient with the difficulties that non-native > English speakers may have, or with occasional technical glitches, which we > need to cope with, if we really want to include remote participants. It is > up to us to decide what we value the most as a community: Speed of > discussions? Inclusion? Sometimes they are in a trade-off. > > It would be important to r*educe the distance between remote participants > and the session moderator*. Most session moderators don't remember to > look at the screen and check if questions are popping up in Webex. So > remote participants lose the "timing" of making interventions. Maybe we > could establish a procedure so remote participants could *send questions > to the session moderator before the IGF*, so he could incorporate some of > them into his own set of questions to the panelists. For the "live" > questions, the remote participation moderator should have a *clear visual > way* to sign to the session moderator that a remote question has been > asked, like raising a red flag. Of course, audio interventions need to be > more encouraged, even if their moment needs to be carefully planned and > agreed upon between the session moderators and the technical team. > > *There should not be a session without a remote moderator*. Imagine > someone who blocked her agenda to participate in a workshop and then, > surprise: you stay in a room talking to the walls. If remote participation > is an integral part of the IGF, this is unacceptable. Workshops without > remote moderators should not be approved (for real), and those physically > present in the room should confirm if the moderator is indeed there. As a > last resort, anyone could take the role of being a moderator in case the > person is missing. > > My main point is that, in spite of the technical improvements that should > always be made, *making remote participation inclusive is up to the > community, especially of those who plan the sessions*. Some organizers > did a great job in linking up with remote hubs, planing for the > participation of remote speakers and participants. But I seems they were > still a minority. > > To mention the *technical aspects*, to me the greater problem was lack of > integration between webex, webcast and captioning. Going back and forth in > different windows was not practical. On a positive side, the quality of the > image of the webcast seemed to be better, and the cameras were placed in a > better position inside the room. It helped to read facial and body > expressions. > > One last point: some time ago, it was proposed that a task force would be > created to *exchange knowledge and best practices regarding RP* with > other organizations that have also been struggling and making progress at > it, such as ITU (and many others as a matter of fact) in the UN. I don't > know why it did not fly. I hope that political sensitivities do not hamper > what could be a fruitful dialogue about a topic that is a common challenge. > > Best wishes and a safe journey to all returning from Baku! > > Marília > > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > >> Hi all, >> I was logged into Room #10 remotely, webex but there was no other >> attendee. >> The webex Schedule (as on 6th and 7th) has single first day pre-meeting >> of 5th Nov but after refreshing promt appear for login and after login it >> connected me Room # 7th Nov meeting. >> >> I keep trying to obtain response from Moderator (Ms Nina), but could not >> established interactive response, and I do not know that have she read my >> text input or not. I think Moderator was too busy in the meeting >> physically and given zero importance to single Remote Participant. So, RP >> was useless. >> >> Regards >> >> Imran >> (for IGFPAK) >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Jean-Yves GATETE >> *To:* "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; >> Rudi Vansnick >> *Sent:* Thursday, 8 November 2012, 3:18 >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection >> >> Hi all, >> as Mr Rudi, I ve been following via that webcast tool too. I have the >> same problem too and the Room10 is not working either. >> >> Wishing you all the best, >> >> Jean-Yves GATETE >> >> *De :* Rudi Vansnick >> *À :* Crepin-Leblond Olivier >> *Cc :* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> *Envoyé le :* Jeudi 8 novembre 2012 10h54 >> *Objet :* Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection >> >> I've used the remote participation tools daily (till today). The webex >> allows to participate through the chat and the Q&A windows, but the webcast >> is always giving me the same error. >> If I want to see the room I have to use the webcast tool ( >> http://webcast.igf2012.com/) , which is of course not fully synchronised >> with the webex session. From room 6 till room 9 the audio in the webcast is >> very low. With the volume on the max here I can hardly understand the >> speakers. >> >> The descriptions of the rooms workshops in the webcast window is not >> updated and gives sometimes wrong session information. >> >> Rudi Vansnick >> ------------------ Internet Society Belgium --------------------- >> President - CEO Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16 >> rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 >> Dendermondesteenweg 143 B-9070 Destelbergen >> www.internetsociety.be "The Internet is for everyone" >> >> Op 8-nov-2012, om 04:29 heeft Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond het volgende >> geschreven: >> >> > I suppose rp has probably been flooded with enquiries. >> > Since the beginning of the week, I saw Bernard run around trying to fix >> > things. >> > The remote participation computers running Webex are all wired in and >> > appear to work well but the network sometimes goes through some periods >> > of being very slow. This is when the WIFI works and guess what, the WIFI >> > does not work well at all. In fact, I have spent complete afternoons >> > without WIFI. (not enough IPv4 addresses to allocate -- and no IPv6 >> > connectivity at all in case you ask) >> > >> > Whilst so far, I have been super impressed with the host country, this >> > is, in my opinion, the poorest Internet connectivity we've had at the >> > venue in recent IGFs. >> > >> > Kind regards, >> > >> > Olivier >> > >> > On 07/11/2012 00:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:16 PM, shaila mistry >> wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone >> >>> I too have tried several times to participate. Each time I am sent a >> >>> different route of downloads and logins , finally leading to a dead >> end. >> >>> Please advise what can be done ? >> >>> Shaila Rao Mistry >> >> Have you tried contacting >> >> >> >> "Remote Participation general help" >> >> >> >> ? >> >> >> >> Do they respond? >> >> >> >> If yes, what are they saying? >> >> >> >> If no, let us know, so that we can push locally for those help email >> >> addresses to be handled in a meaningful way. >> >> >> >> In the long run, what we need is funding to put a competent person in >> >> charge of ensuring in an ongoing manner (year after year) that IGF >> >> remote participation is made available in a way that can be expected >> >> to work (which presupposes learning from what went wrong in earlier >> >> years, and it presupposes serious testing well before the first day of >> >> the IGF). It is simply unacceptable for an entirely new technical team >> >> to put in charge of remote participation every year, and the remote >> >> participation infrastructure again and again being so absurdly >> >> unreliable.) >> >> >> >> Greetings, >> >> Norbert >> >> >> > >> > -- >> > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD >> > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com Fri Nov 9 06:37:33 2012 From: ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com (Narine Khachatryan) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 15:37:33 +0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Refugee Issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Nobert, Thank you very much for your quick response. Of course, this is a very delicate subject, and without being familiar with it, it very risky to make assumptions in already very tense atmosphere. Verified links and trustworthy information are of utter importance in this situation. Undoubtedly, all efforts should be directed to establishing a constructive dialog, which should not be dependent on the price of oil, but guided by universal human values. The IGF is particularly aimed to promote these universal human values. Our common wish at this moment is the fulfillment of the goals of the 7th IGF and its successful completion. Truly, 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 iza at anr.org Fri Nov 9 07:36:02 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 21:36:02 +0900 Subject: [governance] Civil Society outnumbered Message-ID: Here is the number of participants by stakeholder groups, taken from the closing speech by UN DESA. Total - 1630 government - 429 technical - 161 private sector - 266 civil society - 541 international organizations - 96 media - 123 (this totals 1616, not 1630), but my note might be inaccurate. He did not disclose regional breakdown. I see few participation from Asia Pacific, Africa, and Latin and South America, as an impression, especially, on the speakers/panelists/moderators level. Geographic position of Azerbaijan may be one factor, but also lack of financial resources be another. 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 iza at anr.org Fri Nov 9 07:36:04 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 21:36:04 +0900 Subject: [governance] MAG meeting this afternoon Message-ID: There was no plan to have MAG meeting during this IGF, unlike the past ones. In part, Secretariat did not have enough capacity in the beginning days of IGF, which was usually the date. In part, no one at MAG inquired or proposed MAG meeting. Thinking that no MAG meeting when leave Baku is a big loss, I proposed this morning to have ad hoc MAG meeting during lunch time. With very short notice, a total of 22 people gathered and discussed our take-aways of this IGF and also discussed about the way forward. There will be more official minutes prepared and shared I hope, but we reviewed this IGF with serious and critical views, around the duties of MAG, as well as some logistical aspects. WE also discussed things between now and February MAG meeting in Paris, agreed to work together for practical and effective preparation. I will report more later, 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 presidencia at internauta.org.ar Fri Nov 9 07:52:25 2012 From: presidencia at internauta.org.ar (Presidencia Internauta) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 09:52:25 -0300 Subject: [governance] Civil Society outnumbered In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Izumi: I see your point of view and I agree with your line of thought. As for those who live in LAC wish we could partipate many more, but as we all know, the civil society organizations do not have sufficient financial resources to be there. I I have expectations that this will change at some point. A big hug to everyone. *Sergio Salinas Porto Presidente Internauta Argentina Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet /CTA FLUI- Federación Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet facebook:salinasporto twitter:sergiosalinas MSN/MSN YAHOO/Talk: salinasporto... Skype:internautaargentina Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +54 9 223 5 215819 end_of_the_skype_highlighting* 2012/11/9 Izumi AIZU > Here is the number of participants by stakeholder groups, taken from > the closing speech by UN DESA. > > Total - 1630 > > government - 429 > technical - 161 > private sector - 266 > civil society - 541 > international organizations - 96 > media - 123 > (this totals 1616, not 1630), but my note might be inaccurate. > > He did not disclose regional breakdown. > > I see few participation from Asia Pacific, Africa, and Latin and South > America, as an impression, especially, on the > speakers/panelists/moderators level. > > Geographic position of Azerbaijan may be one factor, but also lack of > financial resources be another. > > 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Nov 9 08:07:11 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 14:07:11 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Civil Society outnumbered References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD5C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Is this the number of registered participants or of participants who really participated? w ________________________________ Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU Gesendet: Fr 09.11.2012 13:36 An: governance Betreff: [governance] Civil Society outnumbered Here is the number of participants by stakeholder groups, taken from the closing speech by UN DESA. Total - 1630 government - 429 technical - 161 private sector - 266 civil society - 541 international organizations - 96 media - 123 (this totals 1616, not 1630), but my note might be inaccurate. He did not disclose regional breakdown. I see few participation from Asia Pacific, Africa, and Latin and South America, as an impression, especially, on the speakers/panelists/moderators level. Geographic position of Azerbaijan may be one factor, but also lack of financial resources be another. 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 iza at anr.org Fri Nov 9 08:12:54 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 22:12:54 +0900 Subject: [governance] Indonesia for IGF 2013 Message-ID: Here's the note of speech by Indonesia Government's head of delegation, Mr. Djoko Agung Harijadi. Secretary of Director General of ICT Application, Ministry of Commtmication and Information Technology, Indonesia (government) ---- Indonesia welcomes the outcome of the forum, which aims to foster the sustainability ,,,,, of the Internet. Indonesia is a strong believer in the role of Internet ins supporting the development. 240 million people, spanning three time zones, Support by our economic growth, spread penetration of Internet subscribers. WE reiterate the commitment of ubiquitous Information Society. Reiterate Indonesia’s interest to host the 8th IGF in 2013. It will be in Bali. With strong support and coordination with International MSHs we will be able to make the 8th IGF productive and meaningful. followed by a video depicting Indonesia's wide spread use of Internet, blog, and scenes from Bali, the site. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri Nov 9 08:14:02 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 22:14:02 +0900 Subject: [governance] Civil Society outnumbered In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD5C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD5C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: welll not sure, perhaps registered. as total did not change much from Day 1. izumi 2012/11/9 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" : > Is this the number of registered participants or of participants who really participated? > > w > > > ________________________________ > > Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU > Gesendet: Fr 09.11.2012 13:36 > An: governance > Betreff: [governance] Civil Society outnumbered > > > > Here is the number of participants by stakeholder groups, taken from > the closing speech by UN DESA. > > Total - 1630 > > government - 429 > technical - 161 > private sector - 266 > civil society - 541 > international organizations - 96 > media - 123 > (this totals 1616, not 1630), but my note might be inaccurate. > > He did not disclose regional breakdown. > > I see few participation from Asia Pacific, Africa, and Latin and South > America, as an impression, especially, on the > speakers/panelists/moderators level. > > Geographic position of Azerbaijan may be one factor, but also lack of > financial resources be another. > > 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 tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Fri Nov 9 08:16:29 2012 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 17:16:29 +0400 Subject: [governance] Civil Society outnumbered In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD5C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <20121109131629.GA24457@tarvainen.info> 1200 real participants, apparently. On Nov 09 22:14, Izumi AIZU (iza at anr.org) wrote: > welll not sure, perhaps registered. as total did not change much from Day 1. > > izumi > > > 2012/11/9 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > : > > Is this the number of registered participants or of participants who really participated? > > > > w > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU > > Gesendet: Fr 09.11.2012 13:36 > > An: governance > > Betreff: [governance] Civil Society outnumbered > > > > > > > > Here is the number of participants by stakeholder groups, taken from > > the closing speech by UN DESA. > > > > Total - 1630 > > > > government - 429 > > technical - 161 > > private sector - 266 > > civil society - 541 > > international organizations - 96 > > media - 123 > > (this totals 1616, not 1630), but my note might be inaccurate. > > > > He did not disclose regional breakdown. > > > > I see few participation from Asia Pacific, Africa, and Latin and South > > America, as an impression, especially, on the > > speakers/panelists/moderators level. > > > > Geographic position of Azerbaijan may be one factor, but also lack of > > financial resources be another. > > > > 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 -- Tapani Tarvainen -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 9 08:21:42 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 18:51:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] Civil Society outnumbered In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <055A52B1-2778-4666-A3E8-E853861D07F4@hserus.net> In such cases it is always expedient not to hold these at exotic locations and instead pick major airline hubs, even if these are in relatively developed countries. Of course visa restrictions on various countries (or excessive paperwork in any case) might need to be slightly relaxed for conference participants .. but there are places that are airline hubs but don't need a visa from most countries in the world, such as Hong Kong for example. --srs (iPad) On 09-Nov-2012, at 18:22, Presidencia Internauta wrote: > Dear Izumi: I see your point of view and I agree with your line of thought. > As for those who live in LAC wish we could partipate many more, but as we all know, the civil society organizations do not have sufficient financial resources to be there. I I have expectations that this will change at some point. > A big hug to everyone. > > Sergio Salinas Porto > Presidente Internauta Argentina > Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet/CTA > > > FLUI- Federación Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet > facebook:salinasporto > twitter:sergiosalinas > MSN/MSN YAHOO/Talk: salinasporto... > Skype:internautaargentina > > > Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +54 9 223 5 215819 end_of_the_skype_highlighting > > > > 2012/11/9 Izumi AIZU >> Here is the number of participants by stakeholder groups, taken from >> the closing speech by UN DESA. >> >> Total - 1630 >> >> government - 429 >> technical - 161 >> private sector - 266 >> civil society - 541 >> international organizations - 96 >> media - 123 >> (this totals 1616, not 1630), but my note might be inaccurate. >> >> He did not disclose regional breakdown. >> >> I see few participation from Asia Pacific, Africa, and Latin and South >> America, as an impression, especially, on the >> speakers/panelists/moderators level. >> >> Geographic position of Azerbaijan may be one factor, but also lack of >> financial resources be another. >> >> 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Nov 9 08:31:54 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 13:31:54 +0000 Subject: AW: [governance] Civil Society outnumbered In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD5C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD5C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: In message <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD5C8 at server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de >, at 14:07:11 on Fri, 9 Nov 2012, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" writes >Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU >Gesendet: Fr 09.11.2012 13:36 >An: governance >Betreff: [governance] Civil Society outnumbered > >Here is the number of participants by stakeholder groups, taken from >the closing speech by UN DESA. > >Total - 1630 > >government - 429 >technical - 161 >private sector - 266 >civil society - 541 >international organizations - 96 >media - 123 >(this totals 1616, not 1630), but my note might be inaccurate. >--- >Is this the number of registered participants or of participants who really participated? And how many of the "Government" registrants are local contractors working for the organisers. I recall one IGF where many of the hotel staff at the venue were issued with badges, for example, so they could circulate freely. -- 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 valeriab at apc.org Fri Nov 9 08:45:49 2012 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 08:45:49 -0500 Subject: [governance] Valentina Pellizzer's speech Message-ID: Dear all, I am passing on Valentina Pellizzer 's speech in the IGF 2012 closing ceremony. She was not able to share it with you before as she was not able to connect to the internet. Best, Valeria ------------- Trust! Government does not have the answer. Business does not have the answer. Civil society has to propose its answer which is dialogue on the unavoidable human rights framework which is the only one that allows respect for the smallest in the community: the single individual/person. Those individuals can be looked as user, consumers but primarily they are citizens. And in them reside the legitimacy we all need to derive from. And this legitimacy asks for open protocols and not for closed ones. Trust should be our default on privacy but also on security, trust that can generate and host dissent and relegate censorship to the place of bad memories and instead enforce trust as an actual practice in a world of dis-balanced powers. Leaving our own / stepping out from our comfort zone Being here in the IGF has not been easy. As a new-comer I had the privilege but also the burden of the invisible. It is easy to get along with the old same well known plot: where governments are the stronger ones and “good” or “bad” according to geography; where business are the strongest because of their overwhelming wealth; where technical community own the key of the mechanism and the code of the answers; where academia analyze and evaluate from the distance; and where, last but not least, civil society is expected to act, scream, contest, protest and most of the time unlistened to. But in a way or another if we want to inhabit the space, this space, roles need to be challenged and each of us has to step out from his/ her own comfort zone. Dialogue ask for critical thinking first of all of ourselves and then of the “antagonist or simply diverse other”. Dialogue asks for the ability to host, acknowledge and recognize others not from an empty politically correctness but from a truthful problem solving attitude. And the IGF should be and must be such a space. Terms of Service In the layers of the internet that connect people one to each other we need to acknowledge the immense power that Terms of Service have and acknowledging this, say that they cannot become the “accidental constitution” and the pre-condition of all our relationship and transactions. The constitution and pre-condition of our “content and others internet transactions” must be based on a human rights framework because it is only this framework than can guarantee legitimacy and accountability in the interaction between users/ citizens and internet intermediaries and the government. Last but not least practices that offer premium services of a “better” internet to those who can afford it will only serve to exacerbate discrimination and inequality between the rich and the poor, the privileged and the marginalized. This we must reject fully. Autocracy 2.0 Here in Azerbaijan I learned, we all learned from Emin Milli, a writer, about Autocracy 2.0 and we cannot leave this space, this country without expressing our strong disagreement with the practice of intimidating and violating human rights in particular freedom of expression of journalists and activists. What is Autocracy 2.0? Autocracy 2.0 hides behind formal online freedom to identify and monitor critical voices which are then silenced in the offline world So Autocracy 2.0 is not only the efficient and effective framework of Azerbaijan but it is becoming more and more the preferred framework of all the imperfect democracy we live in, in our “least” but also “most” developed countries. Autocracy 2.0 signs conventions, declarations and do not formally restrict the internet but use others laws to shrink the space. One example for all countries: copyrights claims against bloggers! Guarantee human rights online as much as offline IGF as a multi-stakeholder space should not only work towards creating frameworks for an open, diverse and accessible future but has to be understood and practiced as a safe harbor for online human rights activists. Also it is a physical space that must acknowledge and accept dissent and host it in a transparent and accountable manner. We can never stop or limit freedom of expression, even less we can deny solidarity to local voices that ask to be heard. A no-censorship policy should be embedded in the code of IGF as space where each and every one accepts challenges to their own comfort zone and its power of denial. People's security has to be understood not in terms of excluding and preventing incidents but in the ability to accept, include and host diversity. In short, human rights must be encoded into the fabric of our dialogues, the space we create for these negotiations and the future of the internet we are walking towards. ------------- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Fri Nov 9 08:56:11 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 19:26:11 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] Civil Society outnumbered In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD5C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Surely they wouldn't count them towards the attendees list? -C On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F**1A8010CD5C8 at server1.** > medienkomm.uni-halle.de<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD5C8 at server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > >, at 14:07:11 on Fri, 9 Nov 2012, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter@**medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > writes > > > Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU >> Gesendet: Fr 09.11.2012 13:36 >> An: governance >> Betreff: [governance] Civil Society outnumbered >> >> Here is the number of participants by stakeholder groups, taken from >> the closing speech by UN DESA. >> >> Total - 1630 >> >> government - 429 >> technical - 161 >> private sector - 266 >> civil society - 541 >> international organizations - 96 >> media - 123 >> (this totals 1616, not 1630), but my note might be inaccurate. >> > > >--- > > Is this the number of registered participants or of participants who >> really participated? >> > > And how many of the "Government" registrants are local contractors working > for the organisers. I recall one IGF where many of the hotel staff at the > venue were issued with badges, for example, so they could circulate freely. > -- > Roland Perry > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ginger at paque.net Fri Nov 9 09:16:53 2012 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 08:16:53 -0600 Subject: Suggestions for remote participation Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, Marilia, this is very important. We will be working on this document before posting to the IGC list and Secretariat. If you--or anyone else-- would like to join us, please let me know offlist. We will be actively working to join forces with the DCAD, Tim Davies, and others to work towards a compilation of guidelines, principles and standards for remote participation, in particular to avoid (as noted by Norbert in the session) repeating the same mistakes. We expect to be actively involved in the next open consultation to provide this support to the RP efforts of the IGF Secretariat (Chengetai and Bernard). This is an evolving, maturing process, which cannot be sustained by tech preparation alone. My first impression is that we now have a lot of information that we need, to put together the bigger picture, involving the strategies and awareness-raising of panel design, workshop structure and event planning. We need an organizational structure that counts remote participants as 'real' participants from the beginning. We need not only trained remote moderators, but aware and inclusive panels and panel moderators who consider remote participation to be part of the meeting. Thanks to everyone for their efforts and energy to include the rest of the world, isolated and/or excluded by distance and different access from the meetings in Baku. Best regards, Ginger On 9 November 2012 05:15, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Thanks for the feedback Ginger. The times zones were difficult to > reconcile, but I will look for the transcripts online. > Maybe we could send the result of the discussions of the workshop today > and the suggestions for improvement that will be made on the list as a > contribution to the next Open Consultation. > > Marília > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> These are excellent points, Marilia. We have been discussing similar >> ideas, including Pranesh's suggestion that as remote participants we must >> 'make ourselves be noticed'. I think we do need to raise our concerns in a >> dynamic, strong, constructive way to make this possible. I ask that you >> join us tomorrow at WS 52 Remote Participation: Reality and Principles, at >> 11:00 a.m. Baku time, conference room 9, where we will discuss these issues >> and the way forward. We will continue collaborative work on the Remote >> Participation principles, started last year in Nairobi, on an open etherpad >> document. The url and password will be published tomorrow morning. If you >> cannot join us, we will add your points to the document. We invite others >> to make their voices heard, so we can include your points in our final >> document. We hope to see you there, or to include you with our work. This >> is an important issue of access, and must be addressed. >> Obrigada, saludos, >> Ginger >> >> >> >> On 8 November 2012 10:28, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I would like to start a thread of concrete suggestions for improving RP. >>> I know all of us who participated remotely have our impressions of what >>> could be better, so why not share them? >>> >>> My personal views about being a remote participant today - for the first >>> time in the IGF - is that the webcast of all sessions and the captioning >>> are tremendous tools, the existence of hubs multiplies IGF discussions, and >>> the fact that RP is available to any individual in the world is a >>> remarkable sign of openness. But, in spite of all the undeniable >>> achievements, progress needs to be made to ensure inclusion of views of >>> remote participants into the IGF debate. >>> >>> That difficulty, in my opinion, has to do with one main reason: In spite >>> of the huge number of remote participants (47 hubs, more than 800 people >>> last year), the *methodology of most workshop sessions* *remains >>> unchanged*. We have not adjust to the new reality and the sessions are >>> planned exclusively for those who are physically in the IGF. One possible >>> reason for that could be that we have too many sessions on the schedule and >>> too many issues to discuss. My feeling was that session moderators were so >>> under pressure that, on the heat of the debate, they tended to see remote >>> participants as an obstacle to "moving the discussion forward", not as IGF >>> participants. >>> >>> Maybe* less and longer sessions* on IGF schedule would reduce pressure. >>> Time pressure makes people impatient with the difficulties that non-native >>> English speakers may have, or with occasional technical glitches, which we >>> need to cope with, if we really want to include remote participants. It is >>> up to us to decide what we value the most as a community: Speed of >>> discussions? Inclusion? Sometimes they are in a trade-off. >>> >>> It would be important to r*educe the distance between remote >>> participants and the session moderator*. Most session moderators don't >>> remember to look at the screen and check if questions are popping up in >>> Webex. So remote participants lose the "timing" of making interventions. >>> Maybe we could establish a procedure so remote participants could *send >>> questions to the session moderator before the IGF*, so he could >>> incorporate some of them into his own set of questions to the panelists. >>> For the "live" questions, the remote participation moderator should have a >>> *clear visual way* to sign to the session moderator that a remote >>> question has been asked, like raising a red flag. Of course, audio >>> interventions need to be more encouraged, even if their moment needs to be >>> carefully planned and agreed upon between the session moderators and the >>> technical team. >>> >>> *There should not be a session without a remote moderator*. Imagine >>> someone who blocked her agenda to participate in a workshop and then, >>> surprise: you stay in a room talking to the walls. If remote participation >>> is an integral part of the IGF, this is unacceptable. Workshops without >>> remote moderators should not be approved (for real), and those physically >>> present in the room should confirm if the moderator is indeed there. As a >>> last resort, anyone could take the role of being a moderator in case the >>> person is missing. >>> >>> My main point is that, in spite of the technical improvements that >>> should always be made, *making remote participation inclusive is up to >>> the community, especially of those who plan the sessions*. Some >>> organizers did a great job in linking up with remote hubs, planing for the >>> participation of remote speakers and participants. But I seems they were >>> still a minority. >>> >>> To mention the *technical aspects*, to me the greater problem was lack >>> of integration between webex, webcast and captioning. Going back and forth >>> in different windows was not practical. On a positive side, the quality of >>> the image of the webcast seemed to be better, and the cameras were placed >>> in a better position inside the room. It helped to read facial and body >>> expressions. >>> >>> One last point: some time ago, it was proposed that a task force would >>> be created to *exchange knowledge and best practices regarding RP* with >>> other organizations that have also been struggling and making progress at >>> it, such as ITU (and many others as a matter of fact) in the UN. I don't >>> know why it did not fly. I hope that political sensitivities do not hamper >>> what could be a fruitful dialogue about a topic that is a common challenge. >>> >>> Best wishes and a safe journey to all returning from Baku! >>> >>> Marília >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> I was logged into Room #10 remotely, webex but there was no other >>>> attendee. >>>> The webex Schedule (as on 6th and 7th) has single first day >>>> pre-meeting of 5th Nov but after refreshing promt appear for login and >>>> after login it connected me Room # 7th Nov meeting. >>>> >>>> I keep trying to obtain response from Moderator (Ms Nina), but could >>>> not established interactive response, and I do not know that have she read >>>> my text input or not. I think Moderator was too busy in the meeting >>>> physically and given zero importance to single Remote Participant. So, RP >>>> was useless. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Imran >>>> (for IGFPAK) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> *From:* Jean-Yves GATETE >>>> *To:* "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; >>>> Rudi Vansnick >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, 8 November 2012, 3:18 >>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> as Mr Rudi, I ve been following via that webcast tool too. I have the >>>> same problem too and the Room10 is not working either. >>>> >>>> Wishing you all the best, >>>> >>>> Jean-Yves GATETE >>>> >>>> *De :* Rudi Vansnick >>>> *À :* Crepin-Leblond Olivier >>>> *Cc :* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> *Envoyé le :* Jeudi 8 novembre 2012 10h54 >>>> *Objet :* Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection >>>> >>>> I've used the remote participation tools daily (till today). The webex >>>> allows to participate through the chat and the Q&A windows, but the webcast >>>> is always giving me the same error. >>>> If I want to see the room I have to use the webcast tool ( >>>> http://webcast.igf2012.com/) , which is of course not fully >>>> synchronised with the webex session. From room 6 till room 9 the audio in >>>> the webcast is very low. With the volume on the max here I can hardly >>>> understand the speakers. >>>> >>>> The descriptions of the rooms workshops in the webcast window is not >>>> updated and gives sometimes wrong session information. >>>> >>>> Rudi Vansnick >>>> ------------------ Internet Society Belgium --------------------- >>>> President - CEO Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16 >>>> rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 >>>> Dendermondesteenweg 143 B-9070 Destelbergen >>>> www.internetsociety.be "The Internet is for everyone" >>>> >>>> Op 8-nov-2012, om 04:29 heeft Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond het volgende >>>> geschreven: >>>> >>>> > I suppose rp has probably been flooded with enquiries. >>>> > Since the beginning of the week, I saw Bernard run around trying to >>>> fix >>>> > things. >>>> > The remote participation computers running Webex are all wired in and >>>> > appear to work well but the network sometimes goes through some >>>> periods >>>> > of being very slow. This is when the WIFI works and guess what, the >>>> WIFI >>>> > does not work well at all. In fact, I have spent complete afternoons >>>> > without WIFI. (not enough IPv4 addresses to allocate -- and no IPv6 >>>> > connectivity at all in case you ask) >>>> > >>>> > Whilst so far, I have been super impressed with the host country, this >>>> > is, in my opinion, the poorest Internet connectivity we've had at the >>>> > venue in recent IGFs. >>>> > >>>> > Kind regards, >>>> > >>>> > Olivier >>>> > >>>> > On 07/11/2012 00:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>> >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:16 PM, shaila mistry >>>> wrote: >>>> >>> Hi everyone >>>> >>> I too have tried several times to participate. Each time I am sent a >>>> >>> different route of downloads and logins , finally leading to a dead >>>> end. >>>> >>> Please advise what can be done ? >>>> >>> Shaila Rao Mistry >>>> >> Have you tried contacting >>>> >> >>>> >> "Remote Participation general help" >>>> >> >>>> >> ? >>>> >> >>>> >> Do they respond? >>>> >> >>>> >> If yes, what are they saying? >>>> >> >>>> >> If no, let us know, so that we can push locally for those help email >>>> >> addresses to be handled in a meaningful way. >>>> >> >>>> >> In the long run, what we need is funding to put a competent person in >>>> >> charge of ensuring in an ongoing manner (year after year) that IGF >>>> >> remote participation is made available in a way that can be expected >>>> >> to work (which presupposes learning from what went wrong in earlier >>>> >> years, and it presupposes serious testing well before the first day >>>> of >>>> >> the IGF). It is simply unacceptable for an entirely new technical >>>> team >>>> >> to put in charge of remote participation every year, and the remote >>>> >> participation infrastructure again and again being so absurdly >>>> >> unreliable.) >>>> >> >>>> >> Greetings, >>>> >> Norbert >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD >>>> > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> > >>>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> > >>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To 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 >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Nov 9 09:30:11 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 14:30:11 +0000 Subject: Suggestions for remote participation Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16A712@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, If I may comment, and recognizing everyone's hard work; and the need for participants and moderators to become more familiar with the processes. I previously suggested changing the terminology from 'remote' to 'distributed' participation. But whatever we call it, the main challenge is the psychological one of retraining our own minds/understanding of who is 'in the room.' Since it is a virtual room. For example, the just released statistics by category of who 'really' attended the 7th IGF: do those include distributed participants? Lee ________________________________ From: gpaque at gmail.com [gpaque at gmail.com] on behalf of Ginger Paque [ginger at paque.net] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 9:16 AM To: Marilia Maciel Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: Suggestions for remote participation Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection Yes, Marilia, this is very important. We will be working on this document before posting to the IGC list and Secretariat. If you--or anyone else-- would like to join us, please let me know offlist. We will be actively working to join forces with the DCAD, Tim Davies, and others to work towards a compilation of guidelines, principles and standards for remote participation, in particular to avoid (as noted by Norbert in the session) repeating the same mistakes. We expect to be actively involved in the next open consultation to provide this support to the RP efforts of the IGF Secretariat (Chengetai and Bernard). This is an evolving, maturing process, which cannot be sustained by tech preparation alone. My first impression is that we now have a lot of information that we need, to put together the bigger picture, involving the strategies and awareness-raising of panel design, workshop structure and event planning. We need an organizational structure that counts remote participants as 'real' participants from the beginning. We need not only trained remote moderators, but aware and inclusive panels and panel moderators who consider remote participation to be part of the meeting. Thanks to everyone for their efforts and energy to include the rest of the world, isolated and/or excluded by distance and different access from the meetings in Baku. Best regards, Ginger On 9 November 2012 05:15, Marilia Maciel > wrote: Thanks for the feedback Ginger. The times zones were difficult to reconcile, but I will look for the transcripts online. Maybe we could send the result of the discussions of the workshop today and the suggestions for improvement that will be made on the list as a contribution to the next Open Consultation. Marília On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Ginger Paque > wrote: These are excellent points, Marilia. We have been discussing similar ideas, including Pranesh's suggestion that as remote participants we must 'make ourselves be noticed'. I think we do need to raise our concerns in a dynamic, strong, constructive way to make this possible. I ask that you join us tomorrow at WS 52 Remote Participation: Reality and Principles, at 11:00 a.m. Baku time, conference room 9, where we will discuss these issues and the way forward. We will continue collaborative work on the Remote Participation principles, started last year in Nairobi, on an open etherpad document. The url and password will be published tomorrow morning. If you cannot join us, we will add your points to the document. We invite others to make their voices heard, so we can include your points in our final document. We hope to see you there, or to include you with our work. This is an important issue of access, and must be addressed. Obrigada, saludos, Ginger On 8 November 2012 10:28, Marilia Maciel > wrote: Hi all, I would like to start a thread of concrete suggestions for improving RP. I know all of us who participated remotely have our impressions of what could be better, so why not share them? My personal views about being a remote participant today - for the first time in the IGF - is that the webcast of all sessions and the captioning are tremendous tools, the existence of hubs multiplies IGF discussions, and the fact that RP is available to any individual in the world is a remarkable sign of openness. But, in spite of all the undeniable achievements, progress needs to be made to ensure inclusion of views of remote participants into the IGF debate. That difficulty, in my opinion, has to do with one main reason: In spite of the huge number of remote participants (47 hubs, more than 800 people last year), the methodology of most workshop sessions remains unchanged. We have not adjust to the new reality and the sessions are planned exclusively for those who are physically in the IGF. One possible reason for that could be that we have too many sessions on the schedule and too many issues to discuss. My feeling was that session moderators were so under pressure that, on the heat of the debate, they tended to see remote participants as an obstacle to "moving the discussion forward", not as IGF participants. Maybe less and longer sessions on IGF schedule would reduce pressure. Time pressure makes people impatient with the difficulties that non-native English speakers may have, or with occasional technical glitches, which we need to cope with, if we really want to include remote participants. It is up to us to decide what we value the most as a community: Speed of discussions? Inclusion? Sometimes they are in a trade-off. It would be important to reduce the distance between remote participants and the session moderator. Most session moderators don't remember to look at the screen and check if questions are popping up in Webex. So remote participants lose the "timing" of making interventions. Maybe we could establish a procedure so remote participants could send questions to the session moderator before the IGF, so he could incorporate some of them into his own set of questions to the panelists. For the "live" questions, the remote participation moderator should have a clear visual way to sign to the session moderator that a remote question has been asked, like raising a red flag. Of course, audio interventions need to be more encouraged, even if their moment needs to be carefully planned and agreed upon between the session moderators and the technical team. There should not be a session without a remote moderator. Imagine someone who blocked her agenda to participate in a workshop and then, surprise: you stay in a room talking to the walls. If remote participation is an integral part of the IGF, this is unacceptable. Workshops without remote moderators should not be approved (for real), and those physically present in the room should confirm if the moderator is indeed there. As a last resort, anyone could take the role of being a moderator in case the person is missing. My main point is that, in spite of the technical improvements that should always be made, making remote participation inclusive is up to the community, especially of those who plan the sessions. Some organizers did a great job in linking up with remote hubs, planing for the participation of remote speakers and participants. But I seems they were still a minority. To mention the technical aspects, to me the greater problem was lack of integration between webex, webcast and captioning. Going back and forth in different windows was not practical. On a positive side, the quality of the image of the webcast seemed to be better, and the cameras were placed in a better position inside the room. It helped to read facial and body expressions. One last point: some time ago, it was proposed that a task force would be created to exchange knowledge and best practices regarding RP with other organizations that have also been struggling and making progress at it, such as ITU (and many others as a matter of fact) in the UN. I don't know why it did not fly. I hope that political sensitivities do not hamper what could be a fruitful dialogue about a topic that is a common challenge. Best wishes and a safe journey to all returning from Baku! Marília On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah > wrote: Hi all, I was logged into Room #10 remotely, webex but there was no other attendee. The webex Schedule (as on 6th and 7th) has single first day pre-meeting of 5th Nov but after refreshing promt appear for login and after login it connected me Room # 7th Nov meeting. I keep trying to obtain response from Moderator (Ms Nina), but could not established interactive response, and I do not know that have she read my text input or not. I think Moderator was too busy in the meeting physically and given zero importance to single Remote Participant. So, RP was useless. Regards Imran (for IGFPAK) ________________________________ From: Jean-Yves GATETE > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >; Rudi Vansnick > Sent: Thursday, 8 November 2012, 3:18 Subject: Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection Hi all, as Mr Rudi, I ve been following via that webcast tool too. I have the same problem too and the Room10 is not working either. Wishing you all the best, Jean-Yves GATETE De : Rudi Vansnick > À : Crepin-Leblond Olivier > Cc : governance at lists.igcaucus.org Envoyé le : Jeudi 8 novembre 2012 10h54 Objet : Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection I've used the remote participation tools daily (till today). The webex allows to participate through the chat and the Q&A windows, but the webcast is always giving me the same error. If I want to see the room I have to use the webcast tool (http://webcast.igf2012.com/) , which is of course not fully synchronised with the webex session. From room 6 till room 9 the audio in the webcast is very low. With the volume on the max here I can hardly understand the speakers. The descriptions of the rooms workshops in the webcast window is not updated and gives sometimes wrong session information. Rudi Vansnick ------------------ Internet Society Belgium --------------------- President - CEO Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16 rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 Dendermondesteenweg 143 B-9070 Destelbergen www.internetsociety.be "The Internet is for everyone" Op 8-nov-2012, om 04:29 heeft Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond het volgende geschreven: > I suppose rp has probably been flooded with enquiries. > Since the beginning of the week, I saw Bernard run around trying to fix > things. > The remote participation computers running Webex are all wired in and > appear to work well but the network sometimes goes through some periods > of being very slow. This is when the WIFI works and guess what, the WIFI > does not work well at all. In fact, I have spent complete afternoons > without WIFI. (not enough IPv4 addresses to allocate -- and no IPv6 > connectivity at all in case you ask) > > Whilst so far, I have been super impressed with the host country, this > is, in my opinion, the poorest Internet connectivity we've had at the > venue in recent IGFs. > > Kind regards, > > Olivier > > On 07/11/2012 00:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:16 PM, shaila mistry > wrote: >>> Hi everyone >>> I too have tried several times to participate. Each time I am sent a >>> different route of downloads and logins , finally leading to a dead end. >>> Please advise what can be done ? >>> Shaila Rao Mistry >> Have you tried contacting >> >> "Remote Participation general help" > >> >> ? >> >> Do they respond? >> >> If yes, what are they saying? >> >> If no, let us know, so that we can push locally for those help email >> addresses to be handled in a meaningful way. >> >> In the long run, what we need is funding to put a competent person in >> charge of ensuring in an ongoing manner (year after year) that IGF >> remote participation is made available in a way that can be expected >> to work (which presupposes learning from what went wrong in earlier >> years, and it presupposes serious testing well before the first day of >> the IGF). It is simply unacceptable for an entirely new technical team >> to put in charge of remote participation every year, and the remote >> participation infrastructure again and again being so absurdly >> unreliable.) >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> > > -- > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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 -- 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 ginger at paque.net Fri Nov 9 09:36:55 2012 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 08:36:55 -0600 Subject: Suggestions for remote participation Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16A712@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16A712@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Definitely, Lee, thanks for pointing this out. Twitter: *paqueg* @paqueg 1600 participants at #IGF12 ? What about the remote participants? Where is that very important count? Inclusion INCLUDES #eparticipation On 9 November 2012 08:30, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Hi, > > If I may comment, and recognizing everyone's hard work; and the need for > participants and moderators to become more familiar with the processes. > > I previously suggested changing the terminology from 'remote' to > 'distributed' participation. > > But whatever we call it, the main challenge is the psychological one of > retraining our own minds/understanding of who is 'in the room.' Since it > is a virtual room. > > For example, the just released statistics by category of who 'really' > attended the 7th IGF: do those include distributed participants? > > Lee > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* gpaque at gmail.com [gpaque at gmail.com] on behalf of Ginger Paque [ > ginger at paque.net] > *Sent:* Friday, November 09, 2012 9:16 AM > *To:* Marilia Maciel > *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: Suggestions for remote participation Re: [governance] > IGF2012, Remote Connection > > Yes, Marilia, this is very important. We will be working on this > document before posting to the IGC list and Secretariat. If you--or anyone > else-- would like to join us, please let me know offlist. > > We will be actively working to join forces with the DCAD, Tim Davies, and > others to work towards a compilation of guidelines, principles and > standards for remote participation, in particular to avoid (as noted by > Norbert in the session) repeating the same mistakes. We expect to be > actively involved in the next open consultation to provide this support to > the RP efforts of the IGF Secretariat (Chengetai and Bernard). > > This is an evolving, maturing process, which cannot be sustained by tech > preparation alone. My first impression is that we now have a lot of > information that we need, to put together the bigger picture, involving the > strategies and awareness-raising of panel design, workshop structure and > event planning. We need an organizational structure that counts remote > participants as 'real' participants from the beginning. We need not only > trained remote moderators, but aware and inclusive panels and panel > moderators who consider remote participation to be part of the meeting. > > Thanks to everyone for their efforts and energy to include the rest of the > world, isolated and/or excluded by distance and different access from the > meetings in Baku. > > Best regards, > Ginger > > > On 9 November 2012 05:15, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> Thanks for the feedback Ginger. The times zones were difficult to >> reconcile, but I will look for the transcripts online. >> Maybe we could send the result of the discussions of the workshop today >> and the suggestions for improvement that will be made on the list as a >> contribution to the next Open Consultation. >> >> Marília >> >> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >>> These are excellent points, Marilia. We have been discussing similar >>> ideas, including Pranesh's suggestion that as remote participants we must >>> 'make ourselves be noticed'. I think we do need to raise our concerns in a >>> dynamic, strong, constructive way to make this possible. I ask that you >>> join us tomorrow at WS 52 Remote Participation: Reality and Principles, at >>> 11:00 a.m. Baku time, conference room 9, where we will discuss these issues >>> and the way forward. We will continue collaborative work on the Remote >>> Participation principles, started last year in Nairobi, on an open etherpad >>> document. The url and password will be published tomorrow morning. If you >>> cannot join us, we will add your points to the document. We invite others >>> to make their voices heard, so we can include your points in our final >>> document. We hope to see you there, or to include you with our work. This >>> is an important issue of access, and must be addressed. >>> Obrigada, saludos, >>> Ginger >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8 November 2012 10:28, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I would like to start a thread of concrete suggestions for improving >>>> RP. I know all of us who participated remotely have our impressions of what >>>> could be better, so why not share them? >>>> >>>> My personal views about being a remote participant today - for the >>>> first time in the IGF - is that the webcast of all sessions and the >>>> captioning are tremendous tools, the existence of hubs multiplies IGF >>>> discussions, and the fact that RP is available to any individual in the >>>> world is a remarkable sign of openness. But, in spite of all the undeniable >>>> achievements, progress needs to be made to ensure inclusion of views of >>>> remote participants into the IGF debate. >>>> >>>> That difficulty, in my opinion, has to do with one main reason: In >>>> spite of the huge number of remote participants (47 hubs, more than 800 >>>> people last year), the *methodology of most workshop sessions* *remains >>>> unchanged*. We have not adjust to the new reality and the sessions are >>>> planned exclusively for those who are physically in the IGF. One possible >>>> reason for that could be that we have too many sessions on the schedule and >>>> too many issues to discuss. My feeling was that session moderators were so >>>> under pressure that, on the heat of the debate, they tended to see remote >>>> participants as an obstacle to "moving the discussion forward", not as IGF >>>> participants. >>>> >>>> Maybe* less and longer sessions* on IGF schedule would reduce >>>> pressure. Time pressure makes people impatient with the difficulties that >>>> non-native English speakers may have, or with occasional technical >>>> glitches, which we need to cope with, if we really want to include remote >>>> participants. It is up to us to decide what we value the most as a >>>> community: Speed of discussions? Inclusion? Sometimes they are in a >>>> trade-off. >>>> >>>> It would be important to r*educe the distance between remote >>>> participants and the session moderator*. Most session moderators don't >>>> remember to look at the screen and check if questions are popping up in >>>> Webex. So remote participants lose the "timing" of making interventions. >>>> Maybe we could establish a procedure so remote participants could *send >>>> questions to the session moderator before the IGF*, so he could >>>> incorporate some of them into his own set of questions to the panelists. >>>> For the "live" questions, the remote participation moderator should have a >>>> *clear visual way* to sign to the session moderator that a remote >>>> question has been asked, like raising a red flag. Of course, audio >>>> interventions need to be more encouraged, even if their moment needs to be >>>> carefully planned and agreed upon between the session moderators and the >>>> technical team. >>>> >>>> *There should not be a session without a remote moderator*. Imagine >>>> someone who blocked her agenda to participate in a workshop and then, >>>> surprise: you stay in a room talking to the walls. If remote participation >>>> is an integral part of the IGF, this is unacceptable. Workshops without >>>> remote moderators should not be approved (for real), and those physically >>>> present in the room should confirm if the moderator is indeed there. As a >>>> last resort, anyone could take the role of being a moderator in case the >>>> person is missing. >>>> >>>> My main point is that, in spite of the technical improvements that >>>> should always be made, *making remote participation inclusive is up to >>>> the community, especially of those who plan the sessions*. Some >>>> organizers did a great job in linking up with remote hubs, planing for the >>>> participation of remote speakers and participants. But I seems they were >>>> still a minority. >>>> >>>> To mention the *technical aspects*, to me the greater problem was >>>> lack of integration between webex, webcast and captioning. Going back and >>>> forth in different windows was not practical. On a positive side, the >>>> quality of the image of the webcast seemed to be better, and the cameras >>>> were placed in a better position inside the room. It helped to read facial >>>> and body expressions. >>>> >>>> One last point: some time ago, it was proposed that a task force >>>> would be created to *exchange knowledge and best practices regarding RP >>>> * with other organizations that have also been struggling and making >>>> progress at it, such as ITU (and many others as a matter of fact) in the >>>> UN. I don't know why it did not fly. I hope that political sensitivities do >>>> not hamper what could be a fruitful dialogue about a topic that is a common >>>> challenge. >>>> >>>> Best wishes and a safe journey to all returning from Baku! >>>> >>>> Marília >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> I was logged into Room #10 remotely, webex but there was no other >>>>> attendee. >>>>> The webex Schedule (as on 6th and 7th) has single first day >>>>> pre-meeting of 5th Nov but after refreshing promt appear for login and >>>>> after login it connected me Room # 7th Nov meeting. >>>>> >>>>> I keep trying to obtain response from Moderator (Ms Nina), but could >>>>> not established interactive response, and I do not know that have she read >>>>> my text input or not. I think Moderator was too busy in the meeting >>>>> physically and given zero importance to single Remote Participant. So, RP >>>>> was useless. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> Imran >>>>> (for IGFPAK) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> *From:* Jean-Yves GATETE >>>>> *To:* "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; >>>>> Rudi Vansnick >>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, 8 November 2012, 3:18 >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> as Mr Rudi, I ve been following via that webcast tool too. I have >>>>> the same problem too and the Room10 is not working either. >>>>> >>>>> Wishing you all the best, >>>>> >>>>> Jean-Yves GATETE >>>>> >>>>> *De :* Rudi Vansnick >>>>> *À :* Crepin-Leblond Olivier >>>>> *Cc :* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> *Envoyé le :* Jeudi 8 novembre 2012 10h54 >>>>> *Objet :* Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection >>>>> >>>>> I've used the remote participation tools daily (till today). The webex >>>>> allows to participate through the chat and the Q&A windows, but the webcast >>>>> is always giving me the same error. >>>>> If I want to see the room I have to use the webcast tool ( >>>>> http://webcast.igf2012.com/) , which is of course not fully >>>>> synchronised with the webex session. From room 6 till room 9 the audio in >>>>> the webcast is very low. With the volume on the max here I can hardly >>>>> understand the speakers. >>>>> >>>>> The descriptions of the rooms workshops in the webcast window is not >>>>> updated and gives sometimes wrong session information. >>>>> >>>>> Rudi Vansnick >>>>> ------------------ Internet Society Belgium --------------------- >>>>> President - CEO Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16 >>>>> rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 >>>>> Dendermondesteenweg 143 B-9070 Destelbergen >>>>> www.internetsociety.be "The Internet is for everyone" >>>>> >>>>> Op 8-nov-2012, om 04:29 heeft Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond het volgende >>>>> geschreven: >>>>> >>>>> > I suppose rp has probably been flooded with enquiries. >>>>> > Since the beginning of the week, I saw Bernard run around trying to >>>>> fix >>>>> > things. >>>>> > The remote participation computers running Webex are all wired in and >>>>> > appear to work well but the network sometimes goes through some >>>>> periods >>>>> > of being very slow. This is when the WIFI works and guess what, the >>>>> WIFI >>>>> > does not work well at all. In fact, I have spent complete afternoons >>>>> > without WIFI. (not enough IPv4 addresses to allocate -- and no IPv6 >>>>> > connectivity at all in case you ask) >>>>> > >>>>> > Whilst so far, I have been super impressed with the host country, >>>>> this >>>>> > is, in my opinion, the poorest Internet connectivity we've had at the >>>>> > venue in recent IGFs. >>>>> > >>>>> > Kind regards, >>>>> > >>>>> > Olivier >>>>> > >>>>> > On 07/11/2012 00:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>> >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:16 PM, shaila mistry >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>> Hi everyone >>>>> >>> I too have tried several times to participate. Each time I am sent >>>>> a >>>>> >>> different route of downloads and logins , finally leading to a >>>>> dead end. >>>>> >>> Please advise what can be done ? >>>>> >>> Shaila Rao Mistry >>>>> >> Have you tried contacting >>>>> >> >>>>> >> "Remote Participation general help" >>>>> >> >>>>> >> ? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Do they respond? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> If yes, what are they saying? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> If no, let us know, so that we can push locally for those help email >>>>> >> addresses to be handled in a meaningful way. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> In the long run, what we need is funding to put a competent person >>>>> in >>>>> >> charge of ensuring in an ongoing manner (year after year) that IGF >>>>> >> remote participation is made available in a way that can be expected >>>>> >> to work (which presupposes learning from what went wrong in earlier >>>>> >> years, and it presupposes serious testing well before the first day >>>>> of >>>>> >> the IGF). It is simply unacceptable for an entirely new technical >>>>> team >>>>> >> to put in charge of remote participation every year, and the remote >>>>> >> participation infrastructure again and again being so absurdly >>>>> >> unreliable.) >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Greetings, >>>>> >> Norbert >>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>> > -- >>>>> > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD >>>>> > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> > >>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> > >>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Nov 9 09:43:50 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 14:43:50 +0000 Subject: AW: [governance] Civil Society outnumbered In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD5C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Chaitanya Dhareshwar writes > >> government - 429 > And how many of the "Government" registrants are local contractors > working for the organisers. I recall one IGF where many of the hotel > staff at the venue were issued with badges, for example, so they > could circulate freely. >Surely they wouldn't count them towards the attendees list? I'm pretty sure they have in the past. And on another occasion there were if I recall correctly quite a few local people with only a passing interest in IG encouraged to attend. (They probably gained from the experience, but it's not a good way to construct a benchmark of organisational success). The figures I would rely upon the most (given that it's a global gathering) are those which exclude all host-country registrants. That might be unfair if one day the IGF is hosted in (for want of a better description) a G8 country, but it's a risk we have to take. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Fri Nov 9 10:04:22 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 16:04:22 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Valentina Pellizzer's speech In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1877449590.21132.1352473462474.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k24> My warmest thanks to Valeria and -prinipally- to Valentina for her courageous speech in Baku. It expresses the strongest CS values and therefore deserves our total support. Lets hope that its content reaches all the azeri citizens, especially those who fight for their democracy and freedom.   Best regards   Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 09/11/12 14:46 > De : "Valeria Betancourt" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] Valentina Pellizzer's speech > > Dear all,  > I am passing on Valentina Pellizzer 's speech in the IGF 2012 closing ceremony. She was not able to share it with you before as she was not able to connect to the internet.  > Best,  > Valeria  ------------- Trust! Government does not have the answer. Business does not have the answer. Civil society has to propose its answer which is dialogue on the unavoidable human rights framework which is the only one that allows respect for the smallest in the community: the single individual/person. Those individuals can be looked as user, consumers but primarily they are citizens. And in them reside the legitimacy we all need to derive from. And this legitimacy asks for open protocols and not for closed ones. Trust should be our default on privacy but also on security, trust that can generate and host dissent and relegate censorship to the place of bad memories and instead enforce trust as an actual practice in a world of dis-balanced powers. > Leaving our own / stepping out from our comfort zone Being here in the IGF has not been easy. As a new-comer I had the privilege but also the burden of the invisible. It is easy to get along with the old same well known plot: where governments are the stronger ones and “good” or “bad” according to geography; where business are the strongest because of their overwhelming wealth; where technical community own the key of the mechanism and the code of the answers; where academia analyze and evaluate from the distance; and where, last but not least, civil society is expected to act, scream, contest, protest and most of the time unlistened to. But in a way or another if we want to inhabit the space, this space, roles need to be challenged and each of us has to step out from his/her own comfort zone. Dialogue ask for critical thinking first of all of ourselves and then of the “antagonist or simply diverse other”. Dialogue asks for the ability to host, acknowledge and recognize others not from an empty politically correctness but from a truthful problem solving attitude. And the IGF should be and must be such a space. > Terms of Service In the layers of the internet that connect people one to each other we need to acknowledge the immense power that Terms of Service have and acknowledging this, say that they cannot become the “accidental constitution” and the pre-condition of all our relationship and transactions. The constitution and pre-condition of our “content and others internet transactions” must be based on a human rights framework because it is only this framework than can guarantee legitimacy and accountability in the interaction between users/citizens and internet intermediaries and the government. Last but not least practices that offer premium services of a “better” internet to those who can afford it will only serve to exacerbate discrimination and inequality between the rich and the poor, the privileged and the marginalized. This we must reject fully. > Autocracy 2.0 Here in Azerbaijan I learned, we all learned from Emin Milli, a writer, about Autocracy 2.0 and we cannot leave this space, this country without expressing our strong disagreement with the practice of intimidating and violating human rights in particular freedom of expression of journalists and activists. What is Autocracy 2.0? > Autocracy 2.0 hides behind formal online freedom to identify and monitor critical voices which are then silenced in the offline world > So Autocracy 2.0 is not only the efficient and effective framework of Azerbaijan but it is becoming more and more the preferred framework of all the imperfect democracy we live in, in our “least” but also “most” developed countries. Autocracy 2.0 signs conventions, declarations and do not formally restrict the internet but use others laws to shrink the space. One example for all countries: copyrights claims against bloggers! > Guarantee human rights online as much as offline IGF as a multi-stakeholder space should not only work towards creating frameworks for an open, diverse and accessible future but has to be understood and practiced as a safe harbor for online human rights activists. Also it is a physical space that must acknowledge and accept dissent and host it in a transparent and accountable manner. We can never stop or limit freedom of expression, even less we can deny solidarity to local voices that ask to be heard. A no-censorship policy should be embedded in the code of IGF as space where each and every one accepts challenges to their own comfort zone and its power of denial. People's security has to be understood not in terms of excluding and preventing incidents but in the ability to accept, include and host diversity. In short, human rights must be encoded into the fabric of our dialogues, the space we create for these negotiations and the future of the internet we are walking towards. > > ------------- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rpelletier at isoc.org Fri Nov 9 11:28:31 2012 From: rpelletier at isoc.org (Ray Pelletier) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 11:28:31 -0500 Subject: Suggestions for remote participation Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: All; I just want to invite your attention to some work in the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) to establish requirements for want we are calling Remote Participation Services. The IETF is quite keen to provide for non-attendees to our three meetings per year and multiple interim meetings to participate in our Internet Standards Development efforts. That draft can be found here: We have used WebEx and lately have been experimenting with Meetecho, which has endeavored to incorporate the IETF requrements. We are now concluding IETF 85 in Atlanta. At this site you can find recordings of some of the sessions: . Also: I hope this is useful. Ray On Nov 9, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Yes, Marilia, this is very important. We will be working on this document before posting to the IGC list and Secretariat. If you--or anyone else-- would like to join us, please let me know offlist. > > We will be actively working to join forces with the DCAD, Tim Davies, and others to work towards a compilation of guidelines, principles and standards for remote participation, in particular to avoid (as noted by Norbert in the session) repeating the same mistakes. We expect to be actively involved in the next open consultation to provide this support to the RP efforts of the IGF Secretariat (Chengetai and Bernard). > > This is an evolving, maturing process, which cannot be sustained by tech preparation alone. My first impression is that we now have a lot of information that we need, to put together the bigger picture, involving the strategies and awareness-raising of panel design, workshop structure and event planning. We need an organizational structure that counts remote participants as 'real' participants from the beginning. We need not only trained remote moderators, but aware and inclusive panels and panel moderators who consider remote participation to be part of the meeting. > > Thanks to everyone for their efforts and energy to include the rest of the world, isolated and/or excluded by distance and different access from the meetings in Baku. > > Best regards, > Ginger > > > On 9 November 2012 05:15, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Thanks for the feedback Ginger. The times zones were difficult to reconcile, but I will look for the transcripts online. > Maybe we could send the result of the discussions of the workshop today and the suggestions for improvement that will be made on the list as a contribution to the next Open Consultation. > > Marília > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > These are excellent points, Marilia. We have been discussing similar ideas, including Pranesh's suggestion that as remote participants we must 'make ourselves be noticed'. I think we do need to raise our concerns in a dynamic, strong, constructive way to make this possible. I ask that you join us tomorrow at WS 52 Remote Participation: Reality and Principles, at 11:00 a.m. Baku time, conference room 9, where we will discuss these issues and the way forward. We will continue collaborative work on the Remote Participation principles, started last year in Nairobi, on an open etherpad document. The url and password will be published tomorrow morning. If you cannot join us, we will add your points to the document. We invite others to make their voices heard, so we can include your points in our final document. We hope to see you there, or to include you with our work. This is an important issue of access, and must be addressed. > Obrigada, saludos, > Ginger > > > > On 8 November 2012 10:28, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to start a thread of concrete suggestions for improving RP. I know all of us who participated remotely have our impressions of what could be better, so why not share them? > > My personal views about being a remote participant today - for the first time in the IGF - is that the webcast of all sessions and the captioning are tremendous tools, the existence of hubs multiplies IGF discussions, and the fact that RP is available to any individual in the world is a remarkable sign of openness. But, in spite of all the undeniable achievements, progress needs to be made to ensure inclusion of views of remote participants into the IGF debate. > > That difficulty, in my opinion, has to do with one main reason: In spite of the huge number of remote participants (47 hubs, more than 800 people last year), the methodology of most workshop sessions remains unchanged. We have not adjust to the new reality and the sessions are planned exclusively for those who are physically in the IGF. One possible reason for that could be that we have too many sessions on the schedule and too many issues to discuss. My feeling was that session moderators were so under pressure that, on the heat of the debate, they tended to see remote participants as an obstacle to "moving the discussion forward", not as IGF participants. > > Maybe less and longer sessions on IGF schedule would reduce pressure. Time pressure makes people impatient with the difficulties that non-native English speakers may have, or with occasional technical glitches, which we need to cope with, if we really want to include remote participants. It is up to us to decide what we value the most as a community: Speed of discussions? Inclusion? Sometimes they are in a trade-off. > > It would be important to reduce the distance between remote participants and the session moderator. Most session moderators don't remember to look at the screen and check if questions are popping up in Webex. So remote participants lose the "timing" of making interventions. Maybe we could establish a procedure so remote participants could send questions to the session moderator before the IGF, so he could incorporate some of them into his own set of questions to the panelists. For the "live" questions, the remote participation moderator should have a clear visual way to sign to the session moderator that a remote question has been asked, like raising a red flag. Of course, audio interventions need to be more encouraged, even if their moment needs to be carefully planned and agreed upon between the session moderators and the technical team. > > There should not be a session without a remote moderator. Imagine someone who blocked her agenda to participate in a workshop and then, surprise: you stay in a room talking to the walls. If remote participation is an integral part of the IGF, this is unacceptable. Workshops without remote moderators should not be approved (for real), and those physically present in the room should confirm if the moderator is indeed there. As a last resort, anyone could take the role of being a moderator in case the person is missing. > > My main point is that, in spite of the technical improvements that should always be made, making remote participation inclusive is up to the community, especially of those who plan the sessions. Some organizers did a great job in linking up with remote hubs, planing for the participation of remote speakers and participants. But I seems they were still a minority. > > To mention the technical aspects, to me the greater problem was lack of integration between webex, webcast and captioning. Going back and forth in different windows was not practical. On a positive side, the quality of the image of the webcast seemed to be better, and the cameras were placed in a better position inside the room. It helped to read facial and body expressions. > > One last point: some time ago, it was proposed that a task force would be created to exchange knowledge and best practices regarding RP with other organizations that have also been struggling and making progress at it, such as ITU (and many others as a matter of fact) in the UN. I don't know why it did not fly. I hope that political sensitivities do not hamper what could be a fruitful dialogue about a topic that is a common challenge. > > Best wishes and a safe journey to all returning from Baku! > > Marília > > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Hi all, > I was logged into Room #10 remotely, webex but there was no other attendee. > The webex Schedule (as on 6th and 7th) has single first day pre-meeting of 5th Nov but after refreshing promt appear for login and after login it connected me Room # 7th Nov meeting. > > I keep trying to obtain response from Moderator (Ms Nina), but could not established interactive response, and I do not know that have she read my text input or not. I think Moderator was too busy in the meeting physically and given zero importance to single Remote Participant. So, RP was useless. > > Regards > > Imran > (for IGFPAK) > > > > From: Jean-Yves GATETE > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Rudi Vansnick > Sent: Thursday, 8 November 2012, 3:18 > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection > > Hi all, > as Mr Rudi, I ve been following via that webcast tool too. I have the same problem too and the Room10 is not working either. > > Wishing you all the best, > > Jean-Yves GATETE > > De : Rudi Vansnick > À : Crepin-Leblond Olivier > Cc : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Envoyé le : Jeudi 8 novembre 2012 10h54 > Objet : Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection > > I've used the remote participation tools daily (till today). The webex allows to participate through the chat and the Q&A windows, but the webcast is always giving me the same error. > If I want to see the room I have to use the webcast tool (http://webcast.igf2012.com/) , which is of course not fully synchronised with the webex session. From room 6 till room 9 the audio in the webcast is very low. With the volume on the max here I can hardly understand the speakers. > > The descriptions of the rooms workshops in the webcast window is not updated and gives sometimes wrong session information. > > Rudi Vansnick > ------------------ Internet Society Belgium --------------------- > President - CEO Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16 > rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 > Dendermondesteenweg 143 B-9070 Destelbergen > www.internetsociety.be "The Internet is for everyone" > > Op 8-nov-2012, om 04:29 heeft Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond het volgende geschreven: > > > I suppose rp has probably been flooded with enquiries. > > Since the beginning of the week, I saw Bernard run around trying to fix > > things. > > The remote participation computers running Webex are all wired in and > > appear to work well but the network sometimes goes through some periods > > of being very slow. This is when the WIFI works and guess what, the WIFI > > does not work well at all. In fact, I have spent complete afternoons > > without WIFI. (not enough IPv4 addresses to allocate -- and no IPv6 > > connectivity at all in case you ask) > > > > Whilst so far, I have been super impressed with the host country, this > > is, in my opinion, the poorest Internet connectivity we've had at the > > venue in recent IGFs. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Olivier > > > > On 07/11/2012 00:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:16 PM, shaila mistry wrote: > >>> Hi everyone > >>> I too have tried several times to participate. Each time I am sent a > >>> different route of downloads and logins , finally leading to a dead end. > >>> Please advise what can be done ? > >>> Shaila Rao Mistry > >> Have you tried contacting > >> > >> "Remote Participation general help" > >> > >> ? > >> > >> Do they respond? > >> > >> If yes, what are they saying? > >> > >> If no, let us know, so that we can push locally for those help email > >> addresses to be handled in a meaningful way. > >> > >> In the long run, what we need is funding to put a competent person in > >> charge of ensuring in an ongoing manner (year after year) that IGF > >> remote participation is made available in a way that can be expected > >> to work (which presupposes learning from what went wrong in earlier > >> years, and it presupposes serious testing well before the first day of > >> the IGF). It is simply unacceptable for an entirely new technical team > >> to put in charge of remote participation every year, and the remote > >> participation infrastructure again and again being so absurdly > >> unreliable.) > >> > >> Greetings, > >> Norbert > >> > > > > -- > > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD > > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 > > > > > > -- > 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 ginger at paque.net Fri Nov 9 11:37:22 2012 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 10:37:22 -0600 Subject: Suggestions for remote participation Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks very much, Ray, I will follow up on this! Best, Ginger On 9 November 2012 10:28, Ray Pelletier wrote: > All; > > I just want to invite your attention to some work in the Internet > Engineering Task Force (IETF) to establish requirements for want we are > calling Remote Participation Services. The IETF is quite keen to provide > for non-attendees to our three meetings per year and multiple interim > meetings to participate in our Internet Standards Development efforts. > > That draft can be found here: < > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-genarea-rps-reqs/?include_text=1 > > > > We have used WebEx and lately have been experimenting with Meetecho, which > has endeavored to incorporate the IETF requrements. > > We are now concluding IETF 85 in Atlanta. At this site you can find > recordings of some of the sessions: > . > > Also: > > I hope this is useful. > > Ray > > > On Nov 9, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Yes, Marilia, this is very important. We will be working on this document > before posting to the IGC list and Secretariat. If you--or anyone else-- > would like to join us, please let me know offlist. > > We will be actively working to join forces with the DCAD, Tim Davies, and > others to work towards a compilation of guidelines, principles and > standards for remote participation, in particular to avoid (as noted by > Norbert in the session) repeating the same mistakes. We expect to be > actively involved in the next open consultation to provide this support to > the RP efforts of the IGF Secretariat (Chengetai and Bernard). > > This is an evolving, maturing process, which cannot be sustained by tech > preparation alone. My first impression is that we now have a lot of > information that we need, to put together the bigger picture, involving the > strategies and awareness-raising of panel design, workshop structure and > event planning. We need an organizational structure that counts remote > participants as 'real' participants from the beginning. We need not only > trained remote moderators, but aware and inclusive panels and panel > moderators who consider remote participation to be part of the meeting. > > Thanks to everyone for their efforts and energy to include the rest of the > world, isolated and/or excluded by distance and different access from the > meetings in Baku. > > Best regards, > Ginger > > > On 9 November 2012 05:15, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> Thanks for the feedback Ginger. The times zones were difficult to >> reconcile, but I will look for the transcripts online. >> Maybe we could send the result of the discussions of the workshop today >> and the suggestions for improvement that will be made on the list as a >> contribution to the next Open Consultation. >> >> Marília >> >> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >>> These are excellent points, Marilia. We have been discussing similar >>> ideas, including Pranesh's suggestion that as remote participants we must >>> 'make ourselves be noticed'. I think we do need to raise our concerns in a >>> dynamic, strong, constructive way to make this possible. I ask that you >>> join us tomorrow at WS 52 Remote Participation: Reality and Principles, at >>> 11:00 a.m. Baku time, conference room 9, where we will discuss these issues >>> and the way forward. We will continue collaborative work on the Remote >>> Participation principles, started last year in Nairobi, on an open etherpad >>> document. The url and password will be published tomorrow morning. If you >>> cannot join us, we will add your points to the document. We invite others >>> to make their voices heard, so we can include your points in our final >>> document. We hope to see you there, or to include you with our work. This >>> is an important issue of access, and must be addressed. >>> Obrigada, saludos, >>> Ginger >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8 November 2012 10:28, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I would like to start a thread of concrete suggestions for improving >>>> RP. I know all of us who participated remotely have our impressions of what >>>> could be better, so why not share them? >>>> >>>> My personal views about being a remote participant today - for the >>>> first time in the IGF - is that the webcast of all sessions and the >>>> captioning are tremendous tools, the existence of hubs multiplies IGF >>>> discussions, and the fact that RP is available to any individual in the >>>> world is a remarkable sign of openness. But, in spite of all the undeniable >>>> achievements, progress needs to be made to ensure inclusion of views of >>>> remote participants into the IGF debate. >>>> >>>> That difficulty, in my opinion, has to do with one main reason: In >>>> spite of the huge number of remote participants (47 hubs, more than 800 >>>> people last year), the *methodology of most workshop sessions* *remains >>>> unchanged*. We have not adjust to the new reality and the sessions are >>>> planned exclusively for those who are physically in the IGF. One possible >>>> reason for that could be that we have too many sessions on the schedule and >>>> too many issues to discuss. My feeling was that session moderators were so >>>> under pressure that, on the heat of the debate, they tended to see remote >>>> participants as an obstacle to "moving the discussion forward", not as IGF >>>> participants. >>>> >>>> Maybe* less and longer sessions* on IGF schedule would reduce >>>> pressure. Time pressure makes people impatient with the difficulties that >>>> non-native English speakers may have, or with occasional technical >>>> glitches, which we need to cope with, if we really want to include remote >>>> participants. It is up to us to decide what we value the most as a >>>> community: Speed of discussions? Inclusion? Sometimes they are in a >>>> trade-off. >>>> >>>> It would be important to r*educe the distance between remote >>>> participants and the session moderator*. Most session moderators don't >>>> remember to look at the screen and check if questions are popping up in >>>> Webex. So remote participants lose the "timing" of making interventions. >>>> Maybe we could establish a procedure so remote participants could *send >>>> questions to the session moderator before the IGF*, so he could >>>> incorporate some of them into his own set of questions to the panelists. >>>> For the "live" questions, the remote participation moderator should have a >>>> *clear visual way* to sign to the session moderator that a remote >>>> question has been asked, like raising a red flag. Of course, audio >>>> interventions need to be more encouraged, even if their moment needs to be >>>> carefully planned and agreed upon between the session moderators and the >>>> technical team. >>>> >>>> *There should not be a session without a remote moderator*. Imagine >>>> someone who blocked her agenda to participate in a workshop and then, >>>> surprise: you stay in a room talking to the walls. If remote participation >>>> is an integral part of the IGF, this is unacceptable. Workshops without >>>> remote moderators should not be approved (for real), and those physically >>>> present in the room should confirm if the moderator is indeed there. As a >>>> last resort, anyone could take the role of being a moderator in case the >>>> person is missing. >>>> >>>> My main point is that, in spite of the technical improvements that >>>> should always be made, *making remote participation inclusive is up to >>>> the community, especially of those who plan the sessions*. Some >>>> organizers did a great job in linking up with remote hubs, planing for the >>>> participation of remote speakers and participants. But I seems they were >>>> still a minority. >>>> >>>> To mention the *technical aspects*, to me the greater problem was lack >>>> of integration between webex, webcast and captioning. Going back and forth >>>> in different windows was not practical. On a positive side, the quality of >>>> the image of the webcast seemed to be better, and the cameras were placed >>>> in a better position inside the room. It helped to read facial and body >>>> expressions. >>>> >>>> One last point: some time ago, it was proposed that a task force would >>>> be created to *exchange knowledge and best practices regarding RP*with other organizations that have also been struggling and making progress >>>> at it, such as ITU (and many others as a matter of fact) in the UN. I don't >>>> know why it did not fly. I hope that political sensitivities do not hamper >>>> what could be a fruitful dialogue about a topic that is a common challenge. >>>> >>>> Best wishes and a safe journey to all returning from Baku! >>>> >>>> Marília >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> I was logged into Room #10 remotely, webex but there was no other >>>>> attendee. >>>>> The webex Schedule (as on 6th and 7th) has single first day >>>>> pre-meeting of 5th Nov but after refreshing promt appear for login and >>>>> after login it connected me Room # 7th Nov meeting. >>>>> >>>>> I keep trying to obtain response from Moderator (Ms Nina), but could >>>>> not established interactive response, and I do not know that have she read >>>>> my text input or not. I think Moderator was too busy in the meeting >>>>> physically and given zero importance to single Remote Participant. So, RP >>>>> was useless. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> Imran >>>>> (for IGFPAK) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> *From:* Jean-Yves GATETE >>>>> *To:* "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; >>>>> Rudi Vansnick >>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, 8 November 2012, 3:18 >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> as Mr Rudi, I ve been following via that webcast tool too. I have the >>>>> same problem too and the Room10 is not working either. >>>>> >>>>> Wishing you all the best, >>>>> >>>>> Jean-Yves GATETE >>>>> >>>>> *De :* Rudi Vansnick >>>>> *À :* Crepin-Leblond Olivier >>>>> *Cc :* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> *Envoyé le :* Jeudi 8 novembre 2012 10h54 >>>>> *Objet :* Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection >>>>> >>>>> I've used the remote participation tools daily (till today). The webex >>>>> allows to participate through the chat and the Q&A windows, but the webcast >>>>> is always giving me the same error. >>>>> If I want to see the room I have to use the webcast tool ( >>>>> http://webcast.igf2012.com/) , which is of course not fully >>>>> synchronised with the webex session. From room 6 till room 9 the audio in >>>>> the webcast is very low. With the volume on the max here I can hardly >>>>> understand the speakers. >>>>> >>>>> The descriptions of the rooms workshops in the webcast window is not >>>>> updated and gives sometimes wrong session information. >>>>> >>>>> Rudi Vansnick >>>>> ------------------ Internet Society Belgium --------------------- >>>>> President - CEO Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16 >>>>> rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 >>>>> Dendermondesteenweg 143 B-9070 Destelbergen >>>>> www.internetsociety.be "The Internet is for everyone" >>>>> >>>>> Op 8-nov-2012, om 04:29 heeft Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond het volgende >>>>> geschreven: >>>>> >>>>> > I suppose rp has probably been flooded with enquiries. >>>>> > Since the beginning of the week, I saw Bernard run around trying to >>>>> fix >>>>> > things. >>>>> > The remote participation computers running Webex are all wired in and >>>>> > appear to work well but the network sometimes goes through some >>>>> periods >>>>> > of being very slow. This is when the WIFI works and guess what, the >>>>> WIFI >>>>> > does not work well at all. In fact, I have spent complete afternoons >>>>> > without WIFI. (not enough IPv4 addresses to allocate -- and no IPv6 >>>>> > connectivity at all in case you ask) >>>>> > >>>>> > Whilst so far, I have been super impressed with the host country, >>>>> this >>>>> > is, in my opinion, the poorest Internet connectivity we've had at the >>>>> > venue in recent IGFs. >>>>> > >>>>> > Kind regards, >>>>> > >>>>> > Olivier >>>>> > >>>>> > On 07/11/2012 00:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>> >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:16 PM, shaila mistry >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>> Hi everyone >>>>> >>> I too have tried several times to participate. Each time I am sent >>>>> a >>>>> >>> different route of downloads and logins , finally leading to a >>>>> dead end. >>>>> >>> Please advise what can be done ? >>>>> >>> Shaila Rao Mistry >>>>> >> Have you tried contacting >>>>> >> >>>>> >> "Remote Participation general help" >>>>> >> >>>>> >> ? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Do they respond? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> If yes, what are they saying? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> If no, let us know, so that we can push locally for those help email >>>>> >> addresses to be handled in a meaningful way. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> In the long run, what we need is funding to put a competent person >>>>> in >>>>> >> charge of ensuring in an ongoing manner (year after year) that IGF >>>>> >> remote participation is made available in a way that can be expected >>>>> >> to work (which presupposes learning from what went wrong in earlier >>>>> >> years, and it presupposes serious testing well before the first day >>>>> of >>>>> >> the IGF). It is simply unacceptable for an entirely new technical >>>>> team >>>>> >> to put in charge of remote participation every year, and the remote >>>>> >> participation infrastructure again and again being so absurdly >>>>> >> unreliable.) >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Greetings, >>>>> >> Norbert >>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>> > -- >>>>> > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD >>>>> > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> > >>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> > >>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Fri Nov 9 11:54:47 2012 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 17:54:47 +0100 Subject: Suggestions for remote participation Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I never enjoyed the remote participation at all! Wishing you all, a lovely trip back.... Sonigitu On Nov 8, 2012 5:29 PM, "Marilia Maciel" wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to start a thread of concrete suggestions for improving RP. I > know all of us who participated remotely have our impressions of what could > be better, so why not share them? > > My personal views about being a remote participant today - for the first > time in the IGF - is that the webcast of all sessions and the captioning > are tremendous tools, the existence of hubs multiplies IGF discussions, and > the fact that RP is available to any individual in the world is a > remarkable sign of openness. But, in spite of all the undeniable > achievements, progress needs to be made to ensure inclusion of views of > remote participants into the IGF debate. > > That difficulty, in my opinion, has to do with one main reason: In spite > of the huge number of remote participants (47 hubs, more than 800 people > last year), the *methodology of most workshop sessions* *remains unchanged > *. We have not adjust to the new reality and the sessions are planned > exclusively for those who are physically in the IGF. One possible reason > for that could be that we have too many sessions on the schedule and too > many issues to discuss. My feeling was that session moderators were so > under pressure that, on the heat of the debate, they tended to see remote > participants as an obstacle to "moving the discussion forward", not as IGF > participants. > > Maybe* less and longer sessions* on IGF schedule would reduce pressure. > Time pressure makes people impatient with the difficulties that non-native > English speakers may have, or with occasional technical glitches, which we > need to cope with, if we really want to include remote participants. It is > up to us to decide what we value the most as a community: Speed of > discussions? Inclusion? Sometimes they are in a trade-off. > > It would be important to r*educe the distance between remote participants > and the session moderator*. Most session moderators don't remember to > look at the screen and check if questions are popping up in Webex. So > remote participants lose the "timing" of making interventions. Maybe we > could establish a procedure so remote participants could *send questions > to the session moderator before the IGF*, so he could incorporate some of > them into his own set of questions to the panelists. For the "live" > questions, the remote participation moderator should have a *clear visual > way* to sign to the session moderator that a remote question has been > asked, like raising a red flag. Of course, audio interventions need to be > more encouraged, even if their moment needs to be carefully planned and > agreed upon between the session moderators and the technical team. > > *There should not be a session without a remote moderator*. Imagine > someone who blocked her agenda to participate in a workshop and then, > surprise: you stay in a room talking to the walls. If remote participation > is an integral part of the IGF, this is unacceptable. Workshops without > remote moderators should not be approved (for real), and those physically > present in the room should confirm if the moderator is indeed there. As a > last resort, anyone could take the role of being a moderator in case the > person is missing. > > My main point is that, in spite of the technical improvements that should > always be made, *making remote participation inclusive is up to the > community, especially of those who plan the sessions*. Some organizers > did a great job in linking up with remote hubs, planing for the > participation of remote speakers and participants. But I seems they were > still a minority. > > To mention the *technical aspects*, to me the greater problem was lack of > integration between webex, webcast and captioning. Going back and forth in > different windows was not practical. On a positive side, the quality of the > image of the webcast seemed to be better, and the cameras were placed in a > better position inside the room. It helped to read facial and body > expressions. > > One last point: some time ago, it was proposed that a task force would be > created to *exchange knowledge and best practices regarding RP* with > other organizations that have also been struggling and making progress at > it, such as ITU (and many others as a matter of fact) in the UN. I don't > know why it did not fly. I hope that political sensitivities do not hamper > what could be a fruitful dialogue about a topic that is a common challenge. > > Best wishes and a safe journey to all returning from Baku! > > Marília > > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > >> Hi all, >> I was logged into Room #10 remotely, webex but there was no other >> attendee. >> The webex Schedule (as on 6th and 7th) has single first day pre-meeting >> of 5th Nov but after refreshing promt appear for login and after login it >> connected me Room # 7th Nov meeting. >> >> I keep trying to obtain response from Moderator (Ms Nina), but could not >> established interactive response, and I do not know that have she read my >> text input or not. I think Moderator was too busy in the meeting >> physically and given zero importance to single Remote Participant. So, RP >> was useless. >> >> Regards >> >> Imran >> (for IGFPAK) >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Jean-Yves GATETE >> *To:* "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; >> Rudi Vansnick >> *Sent:* Thursday, 8 November 2012, 3:18 >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection >> >> Hi all, >> as Mr Rudi, I ve been following via that webcast tool too. I have the >> same problem too and the Room10 is not working either. >> >> Wishing you all the best, >> >> Jean-Yves GATETE >> >> *De :* Rudi Vansnick >> *À :* Crepin-Leblond Olivier >> *Cc :* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> *Envoyé le :* Jeudi 8 novembre 2012 10h54 >> *Objet :* Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection >> >> I've used the remote participation tools daily (till today). The webex >> allows to participate through the chat and the Q&A windows, but the webcast >> is always giving me the same error. >> If I want to see the room I have to use the webcast tool ( >> http://webcast.igf2012.com/) , which is of course not fully synchronised >> with the webex session. From room 6 till room 9 the audio in the webcast is >> very low. With the volume on the max here I can hardly understand the >> speakers. >> >> The descriptions of the rooms workshops in the webcast window is not >> updated and gives sometimes wrong session information. >> >> Rudi Vansnick >> ------------------ Internet Society Belgium --------------------- >> President - CEO Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16 >> rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 >> Dendermondesteenweg 143 B-9070 Destelbergen >> www.internetsociety.be "The Internet is for everyone" >> >> Op 8-nov-2012, om 04:29 heeft Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond het volgende >> geschreven: >> >> > I suppose rp has probably been flooded with enquiries. >> > Since the beginning of the week, I saw Bernard run around trying to fix >> > things. >> > The remote participation computers running Webex are all wired in and >> > appear to work well but the network sometimes goes through some periods >> > of being very slow. This is when the WIFI works and guess what, the WIFI >> > does not work well at all. In fact, I have spent complete afternoons >> > without WIFI. (not enough IPv4 addresses to allocate -- and no IPv6 >> > connectivity at all in case you ask) >> > >> > Whilst so far, I have been super impressed with the host country, this >> > is, in my opinion, the poorest Internet connectivity we've had at the >> > venue in recent IGFs. >> > >> > Kind regards, >> > >> > Olivier >> > >> > On 07/11/2012 00:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:16 PM, shaila mistry >> wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone >> >>> I too have tried several times to participate. Each time I am sent a >> >>> different route of downloads and logins , finally leading to a dead >> end. >> >>> Please advise what can be done ? >> >>> Shaila Rao Mistry >> >> Have you tried contacting >> >> >> >> "Remote Participation general help" >> >> >> >> ? >> >> >> >> Do they respond? >> >> >> >> If yes, what are they saying? >> >> >> >> If no, let us know, so that we can push locally for those help email >> >> addresses to be handled in a meaningful way. >> >> >> >> In the long run, what we need is funding to put a competent person in >> >> charge of ensuring in an ongoing manner (year after year) that IGF >> >> remote participation is made available in a way that can be expected >> >> to work (which presupposes learning from what went wrong in earlier >> >> years, and it presupposes serious testing well before the first day of >> >> the IGF). It is simply unacceptable for an entirely new technical team >> >> to put in charge of remote participation every year, and the remote >> >> participation infrastructure again and again being so absurdly >> >> unreliable.) >> >> >> >> Greetings, >> >> Norbert >> >> >> > >> > -- >> > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD >> > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Fri Nov 9 14:21:52 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 21:21:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] Indonesia for IGF 2013 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bali... Sounds like a late vacation next year. I just hope the hotels are not far away from the venue (this is one reason why ICANN did not choose Bali to host the June 2011 meeting). Fahd On Nov 9, 2012 4:14 PM, "Izumi AIZU" wrote: > Here's the note of speech by Indonesia Government's head of delegation, > Mr. Djoko Agung Harijadi. > Secretary of Director General of ICT Application, Ministry of > Commtmication and Information Technology, Indonesia (government) > > ---- > > Indonesia welcomes the outcome of the forum, which aims to foster the > sustainability ,,,,, of the Internet. > > Indonesia is a strong believer in the role of Internet ins supporting > the development. 240 million people, spanning three time zones, > > Support by our economic growth, spread penetration of Internet subscribers. > > WE reiterate the commitment of ubiquitous Information Society. > > Reiterate Indonesia’s interest to host the 8th IGF in 2013. It will be in > Bali. > > With strong support and coordination with International MSHs we will > be able to make the 8th IGF productive and meaningful. > > followed by a video depicting Indonesia's wide spread use of Internet, > blog, and scenes from Bali, the site. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jfcallo at ciencitec.com Fri Nov 9 14:54:08 2012 From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 14:54:08 -0500 Subject: [governance] Civil Society outnumbered In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20121109145408.20872w091pdg2iqo@www.ciencitec.com> Distinguido Sergio: Rqueiero urgente comunicarme contigo. Un abrazo, desde Lima, Peru. Gracias José F. Callo Romero CEO ciencitec.com Presidencia Internauta escribió: > Dear Izumi: I see your point of view and I agree with your line of thought. > As for those who live in LAC wish we could partipate many more, but as we > all know, the civil society organizations do not have sufficient financial > resources to be there. I I have expectations that this will change at some > point. > A big hug to everyone. > > *Sergio Salinas Porto > Presidente Internauta Argentina > Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet > /CTA > FLUI- Federación Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet > > facebook:salinasporto > twitter:sergiosalinas > MSN/MSN YAHOO/Talk: salinasporto... > Skype:internautaargentina > > Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +54 > 9 223 5 215819 end_of_the_skype_highlighting* > > > > > 2012/11/9 Izumi AIZU > >> Here is the number of participants by stakeholder groups, taken from >> the closing speech by UN DESA. >> >> Total - 1630 >> >> government - 429 >> technical - 161 >> private sector - 266 >> civil society - 541 >> international organizations - 96 >> media - 123 >> (this totals 1616, not 1630), but my note might be inaccurate. >> >> He did not disclose regional breakdown. >> >> I see few participation from Asia Pacific, Africa, and Latin and South >> America, as an impression, especially, on the >> speakers/panelists/moderators level. >> >> Geographic position of Azerbaijan may be one factor, but also lack of >> financial resources be another. >> >> 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Fri Nov 9 15:08:13 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 20:08:13 +0000 Subject: AW: [governance] Civil Society outnumbered In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD5C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D59F39518@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Roland, to add to the color, a significant number of quite apparent sexual workers wore badges in the social event one of these years in one of these events. The offers of similar services by venue staff were astounding. It is not the largest number but it adds to the potential or suspect astroturfing. Seen plenty of the second since the preparatory process in WSIS and that's only in this sequence of events. Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] Enviado el: viernes, 09 de noviembre de 2012 07:31 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: AW: [governance] Civil Society outnumbered In message <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD5C8 at server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de >, at 14:07:11 on Fri, 9 Nov 2012, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" writes >Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU >Gesendet: Fr 09.11.2012 13:36 >An: governance >Betreff: [governance] Civil Society outnumbered > >Here is the number of participants by stakeholder groups, taken from >the closing speech by UN DESA. > >Total - 1630 > >government - 429 >technical - 161 >private sector - 266 >civil society - 541 >international organizations - 96 >media - 123 >(this totals 1616, not 1630), but my note might be inaccurate. >--- >Is this the number of registered participants or of participants who really participated? And how many of the "Government" registrants are local contractors working for the organisers. I recall one IGF where many of the hotel staff at the venue were issued with badges, for example, so they could circulate freely. -- 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 apisan at unam.mx Fri Nov 9 15:10:31 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 20:10:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] Indonesia for IGF 2013 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D59F39538@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Colleagues, I don't know Indonesia, nor Bali in particular, so, question: is holding the meeting in Bali the ultimate in sending the community to a venue isolated from society? this time with a smile? Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] en nombre de Izumi AIZU [iza at anr.org] Enviado el: viernes, 09 de noviembre de 2012 07:12 Hasta: governance Asunto: [governance] Indonesia for IGF 2013 Here's the note of speech by Indonesia Government's head of delegation, Mr. Djoko Agung Harijadi. Secretary of Director General of ICT Application, Ministry of Commtmication and Information Technology, Indonesia (government) ---- Indonesia welcomes the outcome of the forum, which aims to foster the sustainability ,,,,, of the Internet. Indonesia is a strong believer in the role of Internet ins supporting the development. 240 million people, spanning three time zones, Support by our economic growth, spread penetration of Internet subscribers. WE reiterate the commitment of ubiquitous Information Society. Reiterate Indonesia’s interest to host the 8th IGF in 2013. It will be in Bali. With strong support and coordination with International MSHs we will be able to make the 8th IGF productive and meaningful. followed by a video depicting Indonesia's wide spread use of Internet, blog, and scenes from Bali, the site. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri Nov 9 15:17:29 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 05:17:29 +0900 Subject: [governance] Indonesia for IGF 2013 In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D59F39538@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D59F39538@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Holding International Conferences in Bali is very often observed in Indonesia. They have good conference facility, International Convention Center, and I assume that will be the venue unless there will be a new one. http://www.baliconvention.com I think APRICOT was held there, as well as APNIC meetings. So the organizers of these events could tell more. Hotels are not too close, but I think most major international hotels are within 30 min bus ride. Unlike Jakarta, where there will be not much traffic jam, the traffic will be not that bad. It is not that close to the local places, but that is, for IGF, a secondary condition, I guess. izumi 2012/11/10 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch : > Colleagues, > > I don't know Indonesia, nor Bali in particular, so, question: is holding the meeting in Bali the ultimate in sending the community to a venue isolated from society? this time with a smile? > > Alejandro Pisanty > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________________ > Desde: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] en nombre de Izumi AIZU [iza at anr.org] > Enviado el: viernes, 09 de noviembre de 2012 07:12 > Hasta: governance > Asunto: [governance] Indonesia for IGF 2013 > > Here's the note of speech by Indonesia Government's head of delegation, > Mr. Djoko Agung Harijadi. > Secretary of Director General of ICT Application, Ministry of > Commtmication and Information Technology, Indonesia (government) > > ---- > > Indonesia welcomes the outcome of the forum, which aims to foster the > sustainability ,,,,, of the Internet. > > Indonesia is a strong believer in the role of Internet ins supporting > the development. 240 million people, spanning three time zones, > > Support by our economic growth, spread penetration of Internet subscribers. > > WE reiterate the commitment of ubiquitous Information Society. > > Reiterate Indonesia’s interest to host the 8th IGF in 2013. It will be in Bali. > > With strong support and coordination with International MSHs we will > be able to make the 8th IGF productive and meaningful. > > followed by a video depicting Indonesia's wide spread use of Internet, > blog, and scenes from Bali, the site. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Nov 9 15:25:58 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 07:25:58 +1100 Subject: [governance] Indonesia for IGF 2013 In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D59F39538@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Glad to hear it is in Bali - I will be able to afford to attend! Bali has a unique culture for those who have not been there - make sure you allow time to visit some of the less touristed areas. Will be interested to know dates and venue, there are other possibilities in addition to the one mentioned by Izumi. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Izumi AIZU Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 7:17 AM To: governance ; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Subject: Re: [governance] Indonesia for IGF 2013 Holding International Conferences in Bali is very often observed in Indonesia. They have good conference facility, International Convention Center, and I assume that will be the venue unless there will be a new one. http://www.baliconvention.com I think APRICOT was held there, as well as APNIC meetings. So the organizers of these events could tell more. Hotels are not too close, but I think most major international hotels are within 30 min bus ride. Unlike Jakarta, where there will be not much traffic jam, the traffic will be not that bad. It is not that close to the local places, but that is, for IGF, a secondary condition, I guess. izumi 2012/11/10 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch : > Colleagues, > > I don't know Indonesia, nor Bali in particular, so, question: is holding > the meeting in Bali the ultimate in sending the community to a venue > isolated from society? this time with a smile? > > Alejandro Pisanty > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________________ > Desde: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] en nombre de Izumi AIZU > [iza at anr.org] > Enviado el: viernes, 09 de noviembre de 2012 07:12 > Hasta: governance > Asunto: [governance] Indonesia for IGF 2013 > > Here's the note of speech by Indonesia Government's head of delegation, > Mr. Djoko Agung Harijadi. > Secretary of Director General of ICT Application, Ministry of > Commtmication and Information Technology, Indonesia (government) > > ---- > > Indonesia welcomes the outcome of the forum, which aims to foster the > sustainability ,,,,, of the Internet. > > Indonesia is a strong believer in the role of Internet ins supporting > the development. 240 million people, spanning three time zones, > > Support by our economic growth, spread penetration of Internet > subscribers. > > WE reiterate the commitment of ubiquitous Information Society. > > Reiterate Indonesia’s interest to host the 8th IGF in 2013. It will be in > Bali. > > With strong support and coordination with International MSHs we will > be able to make the 8th IGF productive and meaningful. > > followed by a video depicting Indonesia's wide spread use of Internet, > blog, and scenes from Bali, the site. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Fri Nov 9 17:02:14 2012 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 23:02:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 9 17:09:10 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:09:10 +1300 Subject: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Tijani and YJ for your report. On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 11:02 AM, wrote: > Dear all, > > Sorry for the late report: No Internet access in the meeting rooms. > > We met with some European parliament members from various countries, and > we discussed several issues related to the internet governance such as the > Future of the IGF, IG4D, Data Security, Human Rights, Outreach, Capacity > Building, and multi-stakeholder model. Diplo foundation and ISOC attended > too. > > The IGC representatives insisted on > •Their attachment to the multi-stakeholders model > •the necessity of the European governments and parliamentarians support > for the IGF sustainability > •the lack of efforts to make the Internet, and more broadly the ICT serve > the development > •the importance of human rights including the freedom of expression in the > internet governance > •capacity building as a mean to foster an Internet Governance culture > •the importance of the data security with the growing use of clouds > > The European parliamentarians expressed their support to all those issues, > and introduced a concept of intermediate international standards accepted > by all and easily applicable, to be between the international general > principals such as the human rights declaration and the national laws. > > Dioplo Foundation emphasized the importance of the Governments’ commitment > to support the IGF and its multi-stakeholder model > > The meeting was held in a warm and friendly ambience. > > Y.J. PARK and Tijani BEN JEMAA > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tijani BEN JEMAA > Executive Director > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations > Phone: +216 70 825 231 > Mobile: +216 98 330 114 > Fax: +216 70 825 231 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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 Fri Nov 9 18:00:24 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 18:00:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] Indonesia for IGF 2013 In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D59F39538@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Holding International Conferences in Bali is very often observed in Indonesia. > > They have good conference facility, International Convention Center, > and I assume that will be the venue unless there will be a new one. > http://www.baliconvention.com > > I think APRICOT was held there, as well as APNIC meetings. So the > organizers of these events could tell more. > > Hotels are not too close, but I think most major international hotels > are within 30 min bus ride. You can walk from several of the hotels in Nusa Dua to BICC. The Westin Resort is adjacent. The cheaper hotels will be in Kuta, but that will mean longer bus/taxi rides. I walked around Nusa Dua easily (back in the day). -- 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 kovenronald at aol.com Fri Nov 9 18:32:53 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 18:32:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] Azerbaijan's harassment of minority religions Message-ID: <8CF8CE9AC95522F-BA0-3229F@webmail-m029.sysops.aol.com> http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=1765 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 9 19:25:45 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 05:55:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] Indonesia for IGF 2013 In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D59F39538@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <6B37F838-0FB5-4050-900A-C42A59EC6B72@hserus.net> As I was still on the APIA board during apricot Bali, the venue is quite good as far as facilities go, but in Nusa dua, with luxury resorts rather outnumbering budget hotels if you look for a 10 to 15 minute radius around the hotel. --srs (iPad) On 10-Nov-2012, at 1:47, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Holding International Conferences in Bali is very often observed in Indonesia. > > They have good conference facility, International Convention Center, > and I assume that will be the venue unless there will be a new one. > http://www.baliconvention.com > > I think APRICOT was held there, as well as APNIC meetings. So the > organizers of these events could tell more. > > Hotels are not too close, but I think most major international hotels > are within 30 min bus ride. > > Unlike Jakarta, where there will be not much traffic jam, the traffic > will be not that bad. > It is not that close to the local places, but that is, for IGF, a > secondary condition, I guess. > > izumi > > > 2012/11/10 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch : >> Colleagues, >> >> I don't know Indonesia, nor Bali in particular, so, question: is holding the meeting in Bali the ultimate in sending the community to a venue isolated from society? this time with a smile? >> >> Alejandro Pisanty >> >> ! !! !!! !!!! >> NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO >> >> >> >> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD >> >> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO >> >> SMS +525541444475 >> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >> UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >> >> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty >> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> >> ________________________________________ >> Desde: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] en nombre de Izumi AIZU [iza at anr.org] >> Enviado el: viernes, 09 de noviembre de 2012 07:12 >> Hasta: governance >> Asunto: [governance] Indonesia for IGF 2013 >> >> Here's the note of speech by Indonesia Government's head of delegation, >> Mr. Djoko Agung Harijadi. >> Secretary of Director General of ICT Application, Ministry of >> Commtmication and Information Technology, Indonesia (government) >> >> ---- >> >> Indonesia welcomes the outcome of the forum, which aims to foster the >> sustainability ,,,,, of the Internet. >> >> Indonesia is a strong believer in the role of Internet ins supporting >> the development. 240 million people, spanning three time zones, >> >> Support by our economic growth, spread penetration of Internet subscribers. >> >> WE reiterate the commitment of ubiquitous Information Society. >> >> Reiterate Indonesia’s interest to host the 8th IGF in 2013. It will be in Bali. >> >> With strong support and coordination with International MSHs we will >> be able to make the 8th IGF productive and meaningful. >> >> followed by a video depicting Indonesia's wide spread use of Internet, >> blog, and scenes from Bali, the site. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Fri Nov 9 19:42:24 2012 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 04:42:24 +0400 Subject: [governance] Indonesia for IGF 2013 In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D59F39538@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Indonesian officials at the IGF 2012 Booth said it will be at Bali Nusa Dua (http://www.baliconventioncenter.com) not Bali International ( http://www.baliconvention.com) There are several hotels within walking distance and had a map available for distribution to confirm. The Caribbean has some historical affinity to Indonesia ... many descendants in Suriname are originally from Java. On Nov 9, 2012 3:18 PM, "Izumi AIZU" wrote: > Holding International Conferences in Bali is very often observed in > Indonesia. > > They have good conference facility, International Convention Center, > and I assume that will be the venue unless there will be a new one. > http://www.baliconvention.com > > I think APRICOT was held there, as well as APNIC meetings. So the > organizers of these events could tell more. > > Hotels are not too close, but I think most major international hotels > are within 30 min bus ride. > > Unlike Jakarta, where there will be not much traffic jam, the traffic > will be not that bad. > It is not that close to the local places, but that is, for IGF, a > secondary condition, I guess. > > izumi > > > 2012/11/10 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch : > > Colleagues, > > > > I don't know Indonesia, nor Bali in particular, so, question: is holding > the meeting in Bali the ultimate in sending the community to a venue > isolated from society? this time with a smile? > > > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > > ! !! !!! !!!! > > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > > > SMS +525541444475 > > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > > > ________________________________________ > > Desde: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] en nombre de Izumi > AIZU [iza at anr.org] > > Enviado el: viernes, 09 de noviembre de 2012 07:12 > > Hasta: governance > > Asunto: [governance] Indonesia for IGF 2013 > > > > Here's the note of speech by Indonesia Government's head of delegation, > > Mr. Djoko Agung Harijadi. > > Secretary of Director General of ICT Application, Ministry of > > Commtmication and Information Technology, Indonesia (government) > > > > ---- > > > > Indonesia welcomes the outcome of the forum, which aims to foster the > > sustainability ,,,,, of the Internet. > > > > Indonesia is a strong believer in the role of Internet ins supporting > > the development. 240 million people, spanning three time zones, > > > > Support by our economic growth, spread penetration of Internet > subscribers. > > > > WE reiterate the commitment of ubiquitous Information Society. > > > > Reiterate Indonesia’s interest to host the 8th IGF in 2013. It will be > in Bali. > > > > With strong support and coordination with International MSHs we will > > be able to make the 8th IGF productive and meaningful. > > > > followed by a video depicting Indonesia's wide spread use of Internet, > > blog, and scenes from Bali, the site. > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To 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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 9 19:50:14 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 06:20:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] Indonesia for IGF 2013 Message-ID: Yes, that is where we did apricot --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" To: "Izumi AIZU" , Cc: "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" Subject: [governance] Indonesia for IGF 2013 Date: Sat, Nov 10, 2012 6:12 AM Indonesian officials at the IGF 2012 Booth said it will be at Bali Nusa Dua (http://www.baliconventioncenter.com) not Bali International ( http://www.baliconvention.com) There are several hotels within walking distance and had a map available for distribution to confirm. The Caribbean has some historical affinity to Indonesia ... many descendants in Suriname are originally from Java. On Nov 9, 2012 3:18 PM, "Izumi AIZU" wrote: > Holding International Conferences in Bali is very often observed in > Indonesia. > > They have good conference facility, International Convention Center, > and I assume that will be the venue unless there will be a new one. > http://www.baliconvention.com > > I think APRICOT was held there, as well as APNIC meetings. So the > organizers of these events could tell more. > > Hotels are not too close, but I think most major international hotels > are within 30 min bus ride. > > Unlike Jakarta, where there will be not much traffic jam, the traffic > will be not that bad. > It is not that close to the local places, but that is, for IGF, a > secondary condition, I guess. > > izumi > > > 2012/11/10 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch : > > Colleagues, > > > > I don't know Indonesia, nor Bali in particular, so, question: is holding > the meeting in Bali the ultimate in sending the community to a venue > isolated from society? this time with a smile? > > > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > > ! !! !!! !!!! > > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > > > SMS +525541444475 > > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > > > ________________________________________ > > Desde: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] en nombre de Izumi > AIZU [iza at anr.org] > > Enviado el: viernes, 09 de noviembre de 2012 07:12 > > Hasta: governance > > Asunto: [governance] Indonesia for IGF 2013 > > > > Here's the note of speech by Indonesia Government's head of delegation, > > Mr. Djoko Agung Harijadi. > > Secretary of Director General of ICT Application, Ministry of > > Commtmication and Information Technology, Indonesia (government) > > > > ---- > > > > Indonesia welcomes the outcome of the forum, which aims to foster the > > sustainability ,,,,, of the Internet. > > > > Indonesia is a strong believer in the role of Internet ins supporting > > the development. 240 million people, spanning three time zones, > > > > Support by our economic growth, spread penetration of Internet > subscribers. > > > > WE reiterate the commitment of ubiquitous Information Society. > > > > Reiterate Indonesia’s interest to host the 8th IGF in 2013. It will be > in Bali. > > > > With strong support and coordination with International MSHs we will > > be able to make the 8th IGF productive and meaningful. > > > > followed by a video depicting Indonesia's wide spread use of Internet, > > blog, and scenes from Bali, the site. > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Nov 10 00:39:12 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 09:39:12 +0400 Subject: [governance] Valentina Pellizzer's speech Message-ID: Grande Valentina! Courageous and very significant speech! []s fraternos --c.a. Carlos A. AfonsoJean-Louis FULLSACK escreveu:My warmest thanks to Valeria and -prinipally- to Valentina for her courageous speech in Baku. It expresses the strongest CS values and therefore deserves our total support. Lets hope that its content reaches all the azeri citizens, especially those who fight for their democracy and freedom.   Best regards   Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 09/11/12 14:46 > De : "Valeria Betancourt" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] Valentina Pellizzer's speech > > Dear all,  > I am passing on Valentina Pellizzer 's speech in the IGF 2012 closing ceremony. She was not able to share it with you before as she was not able to connect to the internet.  > Best,  > Valeria  ------------- Trust! Government does not have the answer. Business does not have the answer. Civil society has to propose its answer which is dialogue on the unavoidable human rights framework which is the only one that allows respect for the smallest in the community: the single individual/person. Those individuals can be looked as user, consumers but primarily they are citizens. And in them reside the legitimacy we all need to derive from. And this legitimacy asks for open protocols and not for closed ones. Trust should be our default on privacy but also on security, trust that can generate and host dissent and relegate censorship to the place of bad memories and instead enforce trust as an actual practice in a world of dis-balanced powers. > Leaving our own / stepping out from our comfort zone Being here in the IGF has not been easy. As a new-comer I had the privilege but also the burden of the invisible. It is easy to get along with the old same well known plot: where governments are the stronger ones and “good” or “bad” according to geography; where business are the strongest because of their overwhelming wealth; where technical community own the key of the mechanism and the code of the answers; where academia analyze and evaluate from the distance; and where, last but not least, civil society is expected to act, scream, contest, protest and most of the time unlistened to. But in a way or another if we want to inhabit the space, this space, roles need to be challenged and each of us has to step out from his/her own comfort zone. Dialogue ask for critical thinking first of all of ourselves and then of the “antagonist or simply diverse other”. Dialogue asks for the ability to host, acknowledge and recognize others not from an empty politically correctness but from a truthful problem solving attitude. And the IGF should be and must be such a space. > Terms of Service In the layers of the internet that connect people one to each other we need to acknowledge the immense power that Terms of Service have and acknowledging this, say that they cannot become the “accidental constitution” and the pre-condition of all our relationship and transactions. The constitution and pre-condition of our “content and others internet transactions” must be based on a human rights framework because it is only this framework than can guarantee legitimacy and accountability in the interaction between users/citizens and internet intermediaries and the government. Last but not least practices that offer premium services of a “better” internet to those who can afford it will only serve to exacerbate discrimination and inequality between the rich and the poor, the privileged and the marginalized. This we must reject fully. > Autocracy 2.0 Here in Azerbaijan I learned, we all learned from Emin Milli, a writer, about Autocracy 2.0 and we cannot leave this space, this country without expressing our strong disagreement with the practice of intimidating and violating human rights in particular freedom of expression of journalists and activists. What is Autocracy 2.0? > Autocracy 2.0 hides behind formal online freedom to identify and monitor critical voices which are then silenced in the offline world > So Autocracy 2.0 is not only the efficient and effective framework of Azerbaijan but it is becoming more and more the preferred framework of all the imperfect democracy we live in, in our “least” but also “most” developed countries. Autocracy 2.0 signs conventions, declarations and do not formally restrict the internet but use others laws to shrink the space. One example for all countries: copyrights claims against bloggers! > Guarantee human rights online as much as offline IGF as a multi-stakeholder space should not only work towards creating frameworks for an open, diverse and accessible future but has to be understood and practiced as a safe harbor for online human rights activists. Also it is a physical space that must acknowledge and accept dissent and host it in a transparent and accountable manner. We can never stop or limit freedom of expression, even less we can deny solidarity to local voices that ask to be heard. A no-censorship policy should be embedded in the code of IGF as space where each and every one accepts challenges to their own comfort zone and its power of denial. People's security has to be understood not in terms of excluding and preventing incidents but in the ability to accept, include and host diversity. In short, human rights must be encoded into the fabric of our dialogues, the space we create for these negotiations and the future of the internet we are walking towards. > > ------------- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From capdasiege at gmail.com Sat Nov 10 02:35:43 2012 From: capdasiege at gmail.com (CAPDA CAPDA) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 08:35:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Tijani, Thank you for this very important report. Best 2012/11/9 > Dear all, > > Sorry for the late report: No Internet access in the meeting rooms. > > We met with some European parliament members from various countries, and > we discussed several issues related to the internet governance such as the > Future of the IGF, IG4D, Data Security, Human Rights, Outreach, Capacity > Building, and multi-stakeholder model. Diplo foundation and ISOC attended > too. > > The IGC representatives insisted on > *Their attachment to the multi-stakeholders model > *the necessity of the European governments and parliamentarians support > for the IGF sustainability > *the lack of efforts to make the Internet, and more broadly the ICT serve > the development > *the importance of human rights including the freedom of expression in the > internet governance > *capacity building as a mean to foster an Internet Governance culture > *the importance of the data security with the growing use of clouds > > The European parliamentarians expressed their support to all those issues, > and introduced a concept of intermediate international standards accepted > by all and easily applicable, to be between the international general > principals such as the human rights declaration and the national laws. > > Dioplo Foundation emphasized the importance of the Governments' commitment > to support the IGF and its multi-stakeholder model > > The meeting was held in a warm and friendly ambience. > > Y.J. PARK and Tijani BEN JEMAA > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tijani BEN JEMAA > Executive Director > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations > Phone: +216 70 825 231 > Mobile: +216 98 330 114 > Fax: +216 70 825 231 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Michel TCHONANG LINZE* Coordinateur Général Coordonnateur Régional Afrique Centrale Réseau Panafricain Société Civile (ACSIS) *ÉVÈNEMENTS SUR LES TIC** ! * - FGI du 06 au 09 novembre 2012 Baku, Azerbaïdjan - Colloque mondial sur la normalisation (GSS-12) le 19 novembre 2012, Dubaï - *AMNT-12* du 20 au 29 novembre 2012 à Dubaï - *AFRINIC-17* du 24 - 29 Novembre 2012 à Khartoum-Soudan - *Africa-EU* Cooperation Forum on ICT du 26-30 Novembre 2012 à Lisbonne - Portugal - *CMTI-12* du 3 au 14 décembre 2012 à Dubaï CAPDA (Consortium d'Appui aux Actions pour la Promotion et le Développement de l'Afrique) BP : 15 151 DOUALA - CAMEROUN Tél. : (237) 7775-39-63 / 2212-9493/ 3340-46-49 Fax : (237) 3340-46-49 Email : capdasiege at gmail.com / forumtic2005 at yahoo.fr Site : www.ict-forum.org ; www.ict-africa.org ; *www.tic-afrique.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 baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Sat Nov 10 05:38:30 2012 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 14:38:30 +0400 Subject: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Tijani has done a very good account of this meeting. I have nothing to add. Tijani thank you, you're a model. Baudouin 2012/11/10 > Dear all, > > Sorry for the late report: No Internet access in the meeting rooms. > > We met with some European parliament members from various countries, and > we discussed several issues related to the internet governance such as the > Future of the IGF, IG4D, Data Security, Human Rights, Outreach, Capacity > Building, and multi-stakeholder model. Diplo foundation and ISOC attended > too. > > The IGC representatives insisted on > •Their attachment to the multi-stakeholders model > •the necessity of the European governments and parliamentarians support > for the IGF sustainability > •the lack of efforts to make the Internet, and more broadly the ICT serve > the development > •the importance of human rights including the freedom of expression in the > internet governance > •capacity building as a mean to foster an Internet Governance culture > •the importance of the data security with the growing use of clouds > > The European parliamentarians expressed their support to all those issues, > and introduced a concept of intermediate international standards accepted > by all and easily applicable, to be between the international general > principals such as the human rights declaration and the national laws. > > Dioplo Foundation emphasized the importance of the Governments’ commitment > to support the IGF and its multi-stakeholder model > > The meeting was held in a warm and friendly ambience. > > Y.J. PARK and Tijani BEN JEMAA > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tijani BEN JEMAA > Executive Director > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations > Phone: +216 70 825 231 > Mobile: +216 98 330 114 > Fax: +216 70 825 231 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ ACADEMIE DES TIC FACILITATEUR GAID/AFRIQUE Membre At-Large Member NCSG Member email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com baudouin.schombe at ticafrica.net tél:+243998983491 skype:b.schombe wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pwilson at apnic.net Sat Nov 10 08:34:39 2012 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 23:34:39 +1000 Subject: [governance] Civil Society outnumbered In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D59F39518@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD5C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D59F39518@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <108F25E8-5C33-4351-9CCD-251EA980B577@apnic.net> I'm not arguing with Alejandro but for the record, I personally didn't notice any such services, or receive any offers. Nor have I even heard about this until now! (just in case people who weren't there get the wrong impression of what was going on in the corridors!) Paul. On 10/11/2012, at 6:08 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Roland, > > to add to the color, a significant number of quite apparent sexual workers wore badges in the social event one of these years in one of these events. The offers of similar services by venue staff were astounding. It is not the largest number but it adds to the potential or suspect astroturfing. Seen plenty of the second since the preparatory process in WSIS and that's only in this sequence of events. > > Alejandro Pisanty > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________________ > Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] > Enviado el: viernes, 09 de noviembre de 2012 07:31 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Asunto: Re: AW: [governance] Civil Society outnumbered > > In message > <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD5C8 at server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de >> , at 14:07:11 on Fri, 9 Nov 2012, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > writes > >> Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU >> Gesendet: Fr 09.11.2012 13:36 >> An: governance >> Betreff: [governance] Civil Society outnumbered >> >> Here is the number of participants by stakeholder groups, taken from >> the closing speech by UN DESA. >> >> Total - 1630 >> >> government - 429 >> technical - 161 >> private sector - 266 >> civil society - 541 >> international organizations - 96 >> media - 123 >> (this totals 1616, not 1630), but my note might be inaccurate. > >> --- >> Is this the number of registered participants or of participants who really participated? > > And how many of the "Government" registrants are local contractors > working for the organisers. I recall one IGF where many of the hotel > staff at the venue were issued with badges, for example, so they could > circulate freely. > -- > 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 ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 10 09:07:00 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 23:07:00 +0900 Subject: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Many thanks Tijani and YJ. Good collaboration. Izumi 2012年11月10日土曜日 Baudouin Schombe baudouin.schombe at gmail.com: > Hello > > Tijani has done a very good account of this meeting. I have nothing to > add. > Tijani thank you, you're a model. > > > Baudouin > > > 2012/11/10 'tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn');>> > >> Dear all, >> >> Sorry for the late report: No Internet access in the meeting rooms. >> >> We met with some European parliament members from various countries, and >> we discussed several issues related to the internet governance such as the >> Future of the IGF, IG4D, Data Security, Human Rights, Outreach, Capacity >> Building, and multi-stakeholder model. Diplo foundation and ISOC attended >> too. >> >> The IGC representatives insisted on >> •Their attachment to the multi-stakeholders model >> •the necessity of the European governments and parliamentarians support >> for the IGF sustainability >> •the lack of efforts to make the Internet, and more broadly the ICT serve >> the development >> •the importance of human rights including the freedom of expression in >> the internet governance >> •capacity building as a mean to foster an Internet Governance culture >> •the importance of the data security with the growing use of clouds >> >> The European parliamentarians expressed their support to all those >> issues, and introduced a concept of intermediate international standards >> accepted by all and easily applicable, to be between the international >> general principals such as the human rights declaration and the national >> laws. >> >> Dioplo Foundation emphasized the importance of the Governments’ >> commitment to support the IGF and its multi-stakeholder model >> >> The meeting was held in a warm and friendly ambience. >> >> Y.J. PARK and Tijani BEN JEMAA >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Tijani BEN JEMAA >> Executive Director >> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations >> Phone: +216 70 825 231 >> Mobile: +216 98 330 114 >> Fax: +216 70 825 231 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ > ACADEMIE DES TIC > FACILITATEUR GAID/AFRIQUE Membre > At-Large Member > NCSG Member > > email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com 'email%3Abaudouin.schombe at gmail.com');> > baudouin.schombe at ticafrica.net 'baudouin.schombe at ticafrica.net');> > tél:+243998983491 > skype:b.schombe > wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net > blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr > > -- >> 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 Sat Nov 10 09:09:51 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 23:09:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Civil Society outnumbered In-Reply-To: <108F25E8-5C33-4351-9CCD-251EA980B577@apnic.net> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD5C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D59F39518@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <108F25E8-5C33-4351-9CCD-251EA980B577@apnic.net> Message-ID: I also second Paul's observation. There were young ladies hired as local staffs on site, but nothing sexual in the strict sense of words. Just for the record and the host country. Izumi 2012年11月10日土曜日 Paul Wilson pwilson at apnic.net: > I'm not arguing with Alejandro but for the record, I personally didn't > notice any such services, or receive any offers. Nor have I even heard > about this until now! > > (just in case people who weren't there get the wrong impression of what > was going on in the corridors!) > > Paul. > > > > On 10/11/2012, at 6:08 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > > > Roland, > > > > to add to the color, a significant number of quite apparent sexual > workers wore badges in the social event one of these years in one of these > events. The offers of similar services by venue staff were astounding. It > is not the largest number but it adds to the potential or suspect > astroturfing. Seen plenty of the second since the preparatory process in > WSIS and that's only in this sequence of events. > > > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > > ! !! !!! !!!! > > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > > > SMS +525541444475 > > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > > > ________________________________________ > > Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org ] en nombre de Roland > Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com ] > > Enviado el: viernes, 09 de noviembre de 2012 07:31 > > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Asunto: Re: AW: [governance] Civil Society outnumbered > > > > In message > > < > 2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD5C8 at server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de > >> , at 14:07:11 on Fri, 9 Nov 2012, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > > > writes > > > >> Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU > >> Gesendet: Fr 09.11.2012 13:36 > >> An: governance > >> Betreff: [governance] Civil Society outnumbered > >> > >> Here is the number of participants by stakeholder groups, taken from > >> the closing speech by UN DESA. > >> > >> Total - 1630 > >> > >> government - 429 > >> technical - 161 > >> private sector - 266 > >> civil society - 541 > >> international organizations - 96 > >> media - 123 > >> (this totals 1616, not 1630), but my note might be inaccurate. > > > >> --- > >> Is this the number of registered participants or of participants who > really participated? > > > > And how many of the "Government" registrants are local contractors > > working for the organisers. I recall one IGF where many of the hotel > > staff at the venue were issued with badges, for example, so they could > > circulate freely. > > -- > > 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 > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC > > > http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 > > > -- >> 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Nov 10 09:26:17 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 14:26:17 +0000 Subject: [governance] Civil Society outnumbered In-Reply-To: <108F25E8-5C33-4351-9CCD-251EA980B577@apnic.net> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD5C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D59F39518@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <108F25E8-5C33-4351-9CCD-251EA980B577@apnic.net> Message-ID: In message <108F25E8-5C33-4351-9CCD-251EA980B577 at apnic.net>, at 23:34:39 on Sat, 10 Nov 2012, Paul Wilson writes >I'm not arguing with Alejandro but for the record, I personally didn't notice any such services, or receive any offers. Nor have I even heard >about this until now! > >(just in case people who weren't there get the wrong impression of what was going on in the corridors!) Alejandro was referring to a previous IGF, but I didn't receive any offers either. My best guess is that I wouldn't recognise such an offer. (The last time I did was 25 years ago in a Las Vegas casino hotel) -- 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 Sat Nov 10 11:27:45 2012 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 17:27:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Civil Society outnumbered In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD5C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D59F39518@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <108F25E8-5C33-4351-9CCD-251EA980B577@apnic.net> Message-ID: <008901cdbf60$51422f30$f3c68d90$@benjemaa@planet.tn> I absolutely agree with Paul. I didn’t notice such behavior our offer. All the young volunteers (male and female) were students. They were very helpful: always smiling even when I got angry for the Internet connectivity inside the meeting rooms. They tried their best to find solutions for me. We can say that the host country wasn’t very successful in some aspects of the organization, but its willing and its efforts to make the event successful were very clear. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Vice Chair of the CIC World Federation of Engineering Organizations (WFEO) Phone: +216 98 330 114 Mobile: +216 41 649 605 Fax: +216 70 825 231 --------------------------------------------------------------------- De : izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] De la part de Izumi AIZU Envoyé : samedi 10 novembre 2012 15:10 À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org Objet : [governance] Re: Civil Society outnumbered I also second Paul's observation. There were young ladies hired as local staffs on site, but nothing sexual in the strict sense of words. Just for the record and the host country. Izumi 2012年11月10日土曜日 Paul Wilson pwilson at apnic.net: I'm not arguing with Alejandro but for the record, I personally didn't notice any such services, or receive any offers. Nor have I even heard about this until now! (just in case people who weren't there get the wrong impression of what was going on in the corridors!) Paul. On 10/11/2012, at 6:08 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Roland, > > to add to the color, a significant number of quite apparent sexual workers wore badges in the social event one of these years in one of these events. The offers of similar services by venue staff were astounding. It is not the largest number but it adds to the potential or suspect astroturfing. Seen plenty of the second since the preparatory process in WSIS and that's only in this sequence of events. > > Alejandro Pisanty > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________________ > Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org ] en nombre de Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com ] > Enviado el: viernes, 09 de noviembre de 2012 07:31 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Asunto: Re: AW: [governance] Civil Society outnumbered > > In message > <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD5C8 at server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de >> , at 14:07:11 on Fri, 9 Nov 2012, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > > writes > >> Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU >> Gesendet: Fr 09.11.2012 13:36 >> An: governance >> Betreff: [governance] Civil Society outnumbered >> >> Here is the number of participants by stakeholder groups, taken from >> the closing speech by UN DESA. >> >> Total - 1630 >> >> government - 429 >> technical - 161 >> private sector - 266 >> civil society - 541 >> international organizations - 96 >> media - 123 >> (this totals 1616, not 1630), but my note might be inaccurate. > >> --- >> Is this the number of registered participants or of participants who really participated? > > And how many of the "Government" registrants are local contractors > working for the organisers. I recall one IGF where many of the hotel > staff at the venue were issued with badges, for example, so they could > circulate freely. > -- > 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 ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC > http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org _____ Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2624/5884 - Date: 09/11/2012 -------------- 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 vanda at uol.com.br Sat Nov 10 12:14:09 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 15:14:09 -0200 Subject: RES: [governance] it's time for me In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <015201cdbf66$cf12af10$6d380d30$@uol.com.br> Congratulations for you huge and successful work Izumi, as we really expected you would do! Hope your substitute continue the great work. All the best, Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados IT Trend Avenida Paulista 1159 cj 1004 01311-200 São Paulo,SP, Brasil Tel + 5511 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 98181.1464 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: sexta-feira, 9 de novembro de 2012 05:30 Para: governance Assunto: [governance] it's time for me Dear list, It 's been a great 2 years for me as one of the co-cos of the CS IGC, to work with you guys all. Now, the Charter says the coordinator has two years term, and election should be done by mid summer, or if not, later but asap. So, I here put my intention to step down, and hope we will have many excellent candidates, nominated, or self-nominated. And I ask my colleague Sala to take the responsibility of the election, perhaps with the help, if so needed from past coordinators. Again, thank you all, from Baku. 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 apisan at unam.mx Sat Nov 10 13:40:58 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:40:58 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Civil Society outnumbered In-Reply-To: <008901cdbf60$51422f30$f3c68d90$@benjemaa@planet.tn> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD5C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D59F39518@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <108F25E8-5C33-4351-9CCD-251EA980B577@apnic.net> ,<008901cdbf60$51422f30$f3c68d90$@benjemaa@planet.tn> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D59F397DC@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Hi, no reference to the 7th IGF implied. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Tijani BEN JEMAA [tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn] Enviado el: sábado, 10 de noviembre de 2012 10:27 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Izumi AIZU' Asunto: RE: [governance] Re: Civil Society outnumbered I absolutely agree with Paul. I didn’t notice such behavior our offer. All the young volunteers (male and female) were students. They were very helpful: always smiling even when I got angry for the Internet connectivity inside the meeting rooms. They tried their best to find solutions for me. We can say that the host country wasn’t very successful in some aspects of the organization, but its willing and its efforts to make the event successful were very clear. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Vice Chair of the CIC World Federation of Engineering Organizations (WFEO) Phone: +216 98 330 114 Mobile: +216 41 649 605 Fax: +216 70 825 231 --------------------------------------------------------------------- De : izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] De la part de Izumi AIZU Envoyé : samedi 10 novembre 2012 15:10 À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org Objet : [governance] Re: Civil Society outnumbered I also second Paul's observation. There were young ladies hired as local staffs on site, but nothing sexual in the strict sense of words. Just for the record and the host country. Izumi 2012年11月10日土曜日 Paul Wilson pwilson at apnic.net: I'm not arguing with Alejandro but for the record, I personally didn't notice any such services, or receive any offers. Nor have I even heard about this until now! (just in case people who weren't there get the wrong impression of what was going on in the corridors!) Paul. On 10/11/2012, at 6:08 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Roland, > > to add to the color, a significant number of quite apparent sexual workers wore badges in the social event one of these years in one of these events. The offers of similar services by venue staff were astounding. It is not the largest number but it adds to the potential or suspect astroturfing. Seen plenty of the second since the preparatory process in WSIS and that's only in this sequence of events. > > Alejandro Pisanty > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________________ > Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] > Enviado el: viernes, 09 de noviembre de 2012 07:31 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Asunto: Re: AW: [governance] Civil Society outnumbered > > In message > <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD5C8 at server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de >> , at 14:07:11 on Fri, 9 Nov 2012, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > > writes > >> Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU >> Gesendet: Fr 09.11.2012 13:36 >> An: governance >> Betreff: [governance] Civil Society outnumbered >> >> Here is the number of participants by stakeholder groups, taken from >> the closing speech by UN DESA. >> >> Total - 1630 >> >> government - 429 >> technical - 161 >> private sector - 266 >> civil society - 541 >> international organizations - 96 >> media - 123 >> (this totals 1616, not 1630), but my note might be inaccurate. > >> --- >> Is this the number of registered participants or of participants who really participated? > > And how many of the "Government" registrants are local contractors > working for the organisers. I recall one IGF where many of the hotel > staff at the venue were issued with badges, for example, so they could > circulate freely. > -- > 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 ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC > http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org ________________________________ Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2624/5884 - Date: 09/11/2012 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk Sat Nov 10 17:02:53 2012 From: tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk (Tim Davies) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:02:53 +0000 Subject: Suggestions for remote participation Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Ray, Many thanks for sharing this. Having looked through the IETF draft, it appears to address very clearly many of the issues that were discussed in the RP workshop at this years IGF. I would very much encourage any Remote Participation report to IGF Secretariat / MAG etc. to use this as a basis for setting out clear technical and process principles for future RP. All best wishes Tim On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Ray Pelletier wrote: > All; > > I just want to invite your attention to some work in the Internet > Engineering Task Force (IETF) to establish requirements for want we are > calling Remote Participation Services. The IETF is quite keen to provide > for non-attendees to our three meetings per year and multiple interim > meetings to participate in our Internet Standards Development efforts. > > That draft can be found here: < > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-genarea-rps-reqs/?include_text=1 > > > > We have used WebEx and lately have been experimenting with Meetecho, which > has endeavored to incorporate the IETF requrements. > > We are now concluding IETF 85 in Atlanta. At this site you can find > recordings of some of the sessions: > . > > Also: > > I hope this is useful. > > Ray > > > On Nov 9, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Yes, Marilia, this is very important. We will be working on this document > before posting to the IGC list and Secretariat. If you--or anyone else-- > would like to join us, please let me know offlist. > > We will be actively working to join forces with the DCAD, Tim Davies, and > others to work towards a compilation of guidelines, principles and > standards for remote participation, in particular to avoid (as noted by > Norbert in the session) repeating the same mistakes. We expect to be > actively involved in the next open consultation to provide this support to > the RP efforts of the IGF Secretariat (Chengetai and Bernard). > > This is an evolving, maturing process, which cannot be sustained by tech > preparation alone. My first impression is that we now have a lot of > information that we need, to put together the bigger picture, involving the > strategies and awareness-raising of panel design, workshop structure and > event planning. We need an organizational structure that counts remote > participants as 'real' participants from the beginning. We need not only > trained remote moderators, but aware and inclusive panels and panel > moderators who consider remote participation to be part of the meeting. > > Thanks to everyone for their efforts and energy to include the rest of the > world, isolated and/or excluded by distance and different access from the > meetings in Baku. > > Best regards, > Ginger > > > On 9 November 2012 05:15, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> Thanks for the feedback Ginger. The times zones were difficult to >> reconcile, but I will look for the transcripts online. >> Maybe we could send the result of the discussions of the workshop today >> and the suggestions for improvement that will be made on the list as a >> contribution to the next Open Consultation. >> >> Marília >> >> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >>> These are excellent points, Marilia. We have been discussing similar >>> ideas, including Pranesh's suggestion that as remote participants we must >>> 'make ourselves be noticed'. I think we do need to raise our concerns in a >>> dynamic, strong, constructive way to make this possible. I ask that you >>> join us tomorrow at WS 52 Remote Participation: Reality and Principles, at >>> 11:00 a.m. Baku time, conference room 9, where we will discuss these issues >>> and the way forward. We will continue collaborative work on the Remote >>> Participation principles, started last year in Nairobi, on an open etherpad >>> document. The url and password will be published tomorrow morning. If you >>> cannot join us, we will add your points to the document. We invite others >>> to make their voices heard, so we can include your points in our final >>> document. We hope to see you there, or to include you with our work. This >>> is an important issue of access, and must be addressed. >>> Obrigada, saludos, >>> Ginger >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8 November 2012 10:28, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I would like to start a thread of concrete suggestions for improving >>>> RP. I know all of us who participated remotely have our impressions of what >>>> could be better, so why not share them? >>>> >>>> My personal views about being a remote participant today - for the >>>> first time in the IGF - is that the webcast of all sessions and the >>>> captioning are tremendous tools, the existence of hubs multiplies IGF >>>> discussions, and the fact that RP is available to any individual in the >>>> world is a remarkable sign of openness. But, in spite of all the undeniable >>>> achievements, progress needs to be made to ensure inclusion of views of >>>> remote participants into the IGF debate. >>>> >>>> That difficulty, in my opinion, has to do with one main reason: In >>>> spite of the huge number of remote participants (47 hubs, more than 800 >>>> people last year), the *methodology of most workshop sessions* *remains >>>> unchanged*. We have not adjust to the new reality and the sessions are >>>> planned exclusively for those who are physically in the IGF. One possible >>>> reason for that could be that we have too many sessions on the schedule and >>>> too many issues to discuss. My feeling was that session moderators were so >>>> under pressure that, on the heat of the debate, they tended to see remote >>>> participants as an obstacle to "moving the discussion forward", not as IGF >>>> participants. >>>> >>>> Maybe* less and longer sessions* on IGF schedule would reduce >>>> pressure. Time pressure makes people impatient with the difficulties that >>>> non-native English speakers may have, or with occasional technical >>>> glitches, which we need to cope with, if we really want to include remote >>>> participants. It is up to us to decide what we value the most as a >>>> community: Speed of discussions? Inclusion? Sometimes they are in a >>>> trade-off. >>>> >>>> It would be important to r*educe the distance between remote >>>> participants and the session moderator*. Most session moderators don't >>>> remember to look at the screen and check if questions are popping up in >>>> Webex. So remote participants lose the "timing" of making interventions. >>>> Maybe we could establish a procedure so remote participants could *send >>>> questions to the session moderator before the IGF*, so he could >>>> incorporate some of them into his own set of questions to the panelists. >>>> For the "live" questions, the remote participation moderator should have a >>>> *clear visual way* to sign to the session moderator that a remote >>>> question has been asked, like raising a red flag. Of course, audio >>>> interventions need to be more encouraged, even if their moment needs to be >>>> carefully planned and agreed upon between the session moderators and the >>>> technical team. >>>> >>>> *There should not be a session without a remote moderator*. Imagine >>>> someone who blocked her agenda to participate in a workshop and then, >>>> surprise: you stay in a room talking to the walls. If remote participation >>>> is an integral part of the IGF, this is unacceptable. Workshops without >>>> remote moderators should not be approved (for real), and those physically >>>> present in the room should confirm if the moderator is indeed there. As a >>>> last resort, anyone could take the role of being a moderator in case the >>>> person is missing. >>>> >>>> My main point is that, in spite of the technical improvements that >>>> should always be made, *making remote participation inclusive is up to >>>> the community, especially of those who plan the sessions*. Some >>>> organizers did a great job in linking up with remote hubs, planing for the >>>> participation of remote speakers and participants. But I seems they were >>>> still a minority. >>>> >>>> To mention the *technical aspects*, to me the greater problem was lack >>>> of integration between webex, webcast and captioning. Going back and forth >>>> in different windows was not practical. On a positive side, the quality of >>>> the image of the webcast seemed to be better, and the cameras were placed >>>> in a better position inside the room. It helped to read facial and body >>>> expressions. >>>> >>>> One last point: some time ago, it was proposed that a task force would >>>> be created to *exchange knowledge and best practices regarding RP*with other organizations that have also been struggling and making progress >>>> at it, such as ITU (and many others as a matter of fact) in the UN. I don't >>>> know why it did not fly. I hope that political sensitivities do not hamper >>>> what could be a fruitful dialogue about a topic that is a common challenge. >>>> >>>> Best wishes and a safe journey to all returning from Baku! >>>> >>>> Marília >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> I was logged into Room #10 remotely, webex but there was no other >>>>> attendee. >>>>> The webex Schedule (as on 6th and 7th) has single first day >>>>> pre-meeting of 5th Nov but after refreshing promt appear for login and >>>>> after login it connected me Room # 7th Nov meeting. >>>>> >>>>> I keep trying to obtain response from Moderator (Ms Nina), but could >>>>> not established interactive response, and I do not know that have she read >>>>> my text input or not. I think Moderator was too busy in the meeting >>>>> physically and given zero importance to single Remote Participant. So, RP >>>>> was useless. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> Imran >>>>> (for IGFPAK) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> *From:* Jean-Yves GATETE >>>>> *To:* "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; >>>>> Rudi Vansnick >>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, 8 November 2012, 3:18 >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> as Mr Rudi, I ve been following via that webcast tool too. I have the >>>>> same problem too and the Room10 is not working either. >>>>> >>>>> Wishing you all the best, >>>>> >>>>> Jean-Yves GATETE >>>>> >>>>> *De :* Rudi Vansnick >>>>> *À :* Crepin-Leblond Olivier >>>>> *Cc :* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> *Envoyé le :* Jeudi 8 novembre 2012 10h54 >>>>> *Objet :* Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection >>>>> >>>>> I've used the remote participation tools daily (till today). The webex >>>>> allows to participate through the chat and the Q&A windows, but the webcast >>>>> is always giving me the same error. >>>>> If I want to see the room I have to use the webcast tool ( >>>>> http://webcast.igf2012.com/) , which is of course not fully >>>>> synchronised with the webex session. From room 6 till room 9 the audio in >>>>> the webcast is very low. With the volume on the max here I can hardly >>>>> understand the speakers. >>>>> >>>>> The descriptions of the rooms workshops in the webcast window is not >>>>> updated and gives sometimes wrong session information. >>>>> >>>>> Rudi Vansnick >>>>> ------------------ Internet Society Belgium --------------------- >>>>> President - CEO Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16 >>>>> rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 >>>>> Dendermondesteenweg 143 B-9070 Destelbergen >>>>> www.internetsociety.be "The Internet is for everyone" >>>>> >>>>> Op 8-nov-2012, om 04:29 heeft Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond het volgende >>>>> geschreven: >>>>> >>>>> > I suppose rp has probably been flooded with enquiries. >>>>> > Since the beginning of the week, I saw Bernard run around trying to >>>>> fix >>>>> > things. >>>>> > The remote participation computers running Webex are all wired in and >>>>> > appear to work well but the network sometimes goes through some >>>>> periods >>>>> > of being very slow. This is when the WIFI works and guess what, the >>>>> WIFI >>>>> > does not work well at all. In fact, I have spent complete afternoons >>>>> > without WIFI. (not enough IPv4 addresses to allocate -- and no IPv6 >>>>> > connectivity at all in case you ask) >>>>> > >>>>> > Whilst so far, I have been super impressed with the host country, >>>>> this >>>>> > is, in my opinion, the poorest Internet connectivity we've had at the >>>>> > venue in recent IGFs. >>>>> > >>>>> > Kind regards, >>>>> > >>>>> > Olivier >>>>> > >>>>> > On 07/11/2012 00:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>> >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:16 PM, shaila mistry >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>> Hi everyone >>>>> >>> I too have tried several times to participate. Each time I am sent >>>>> a >>>>> >>> different route of downloads and logins , finally leading to a >>>>> dead end. >>>>> >>> Please advise what can be done ? >>>>> >>> Shaila Rao Mistry >>>>> >> Have you tried contacting >>>>> >> >>>>> >> "Remote Participation general help" >>>>> >> >>>>> >> ? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Do they respond? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> If yes, what are they saying? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> If no, let us know, so that we can push locally for those help email >>>>> >> addresses to be handled in a meaningful way. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> In the long run, what we need is funding to put a competent person >>>>> in >>>>> >> charge of ensuring in an ongoing manner (year after year) that IGF >>>>> >> remote participation is made available in a way that can be expected >>>>> >> to work (which presupposes learning from what went wrong in earlier >>>>> >> years, and it presupposes serious testing well before the first day >>>>> of >>>>> >> the IGF). It is simply unacceptable for an entirely new technical >>>>> team >>>>> >> to put in charge of remote participation every year, and the remote >>>>> >> participation infrastructure again and again being so absurdly >>>>> >> unreliable.) >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Greetings, >>>>> >> Norbert >>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>> > -- >>>>> > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD >>>>> > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> > >>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> > >>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 > > -- http://www.timdavies.org.uk 07834 856 303. @timdavies Co-director of Practical Participation: http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk -------------------------- Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - #5381958. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Nov 10 20:28:33 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 05:28:33 +0400 Subject: [governance] The EU and Kroes on IGF 7 Message-ID: <0a6e01cdbfab$f71c43f0$e554cbd0$@gmail.com> A joint statement of the multipartisan EU delegation during the IGF http://www.eu-un.europa.eu/articles/es/article_12826_es.htm Commissioner Kroes' blog http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/neelie-kroes/malala-day-power-internet/ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sana.pryhod at gmail.com Sun Nov 11 01:31:36 2012 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 08:31:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] it's time for me In-Reply-To: <015201cdbf66$cf12af10$6d380d30$@uol.com.br> References: <015201cdbf66$cf12af10$6d380d30$@uol.com.br> Message-ID: Dear Izumi, I am really happy to meet you in person in Baku. I do not understand yet how IGC works, but I highly appreciate all your personal contributions. Thank you very much, Oksana 2012/11/10 Vanda UOL : > Congratulations for you huge and successful work Izumi, as we really > expected you would do! Hope your substitute continue the great work. > All the best, > > > Vanda Scartezini > Polo Consultores Associados > IT Trend > Avenida Paulista 1159 cj 1004 > 01311-200 São Paulo,SP, Brasil > Tel + 5511 3266.6253 > Mob + 5511 98181.1464 > 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: sexta-feira, 9 de novembro de 2012 05:30 > Para: governance > Assunto: [governance] it's time for me > > Dear list, > > It 's been a great 2 years for me as one of the co-cos of the CS IGC, to > work with you guys all. > > Now, the Charter says the coordinator has two years term, and election > should be done by mid summer, or if not, later but asap. > > So, I here put my intention to step down, and hope we will have many > excellent candidates, nominated, or self-nominated. > > And I ask my colleague Sala to take the responsibility of the election, > perhaps with the help, if so needed from past coordinators. > > Again, thank you all, from Baku. > > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Nov 11 11:58:00 2012 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 20:58:00 +0400 Subject: [governance] it's time for me In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Izumi, It was good to meet you in IGF 2012, you have done a wonderful job. Keep it up. Regards @K On 9 November 2012 11:30, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear list, > > It 's been a great 2 years for me as one of the co-cos of the CS IGC, > to work with you guys all. > > Now, the Charter says the coordinator has two years term, and election > should be done by mid summer, or if not, later but asap. > > So, I here put my intention to step down, and hope we will have many > excellent candidates, nominated, or self-nominated. > > And I ask my colleague Sala to take the responsibility of the > election, perhaps with the help, if so needed from past coordinators. > > Again, thank you all, from Baku. > > 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 > > -- *Follow me @* * **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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun Nov 11 15:59:40 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 02:29:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50A011BC.1060802@itforchange.net> On Saturday 10 November 2012 03:32 AM, tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn wrote: > Dear all, > > Sorry for the late report: No Internet access in the meeting rooms. > > snip > > The European parliamentarians expressed their support to all those > issues, and introduced a concept of intermediate international > standards accepted by all and easily applicable, to be between the > international general principals such as the human rights declaration > and the national laws. Very interested to know what kind of international standards they were referring to that fall in between " general principals such as the human rights declaration and the national laws". Can someone throw some light on the nuances involved here. parminder > > Dioplo Foundation emphasized the importance of the Governments’ > commitment to support the IGF and its multi-stakeholder model > > The meeting was held in a warm and friendly ambience. > > Y.J. PARK and Tijani BEN JEMAA > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tijani BEN JEMAA > Executive Director > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations > Phone: +216 70 825 231 > Mobile: +216 98 330 114 > Fax: +216 70 825 231 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From marie.georges at noos.fr Sun Nov 11 17:18:11 2012 From: marie.georges at noos.fr (marie.georges at noos.fr) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 23:18:11 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report In-Reply-To: <50A011BC.1060802@itforchange.net> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From naveedpta at hotmail.com Sun Nov 11 23:39:26 2012 From: naveedpta at hotmail.com (Naveed haq) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 04:39:26 +0000 Subject: [governance] it's time for me In-Reply-To: References: ,<015201cdbf66$cf12af10$6d380d30$@uol.com.br>, Message-ID: Congratulations for great contributions Izumi. All the very best !Best Regards,Naveed Haq > Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 08:31:36 +0200 > From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; vanda at uol.com.br > CC: iza at anr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] it's time for me > > Dear Izumi, > > I am really happy to meet you in person in Baku. > > I do not understand yet how IGC works, but I highly appreciate all > your personal contributions. > > Thank you very much, > Oksana > > > > 2012/11/10 Vanda UOL : > > Congratulations for you huge and successful work Izumi, as we really > > expected you would do! Hope your substitute continue the great work. > > All the best, > > > > > > Vanda Scartezini > > Polo Consultores Associados > > IT Trend > > Avenida Paulista 1159 cj 1004 > > 01311-200 São Paulo,SP, Brasil > > Tel + 5511 3266.6253 > > Mob + 5511 98181.1464 > > 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: sexta-feira, 9 de novembro de 2012 05:30 > > Para: governance > > Assunto: [governance] it's time for me > > > > Dear list, > > > > It 's been a great 2 years for me as one of the co-cos of the CS IGC, to > > work with you guys all. > > > > Now, the Charter says the coordinator has two years term, and election > > should be done by mid summer, or if not, later but asap. > > > > So, I here put my intention to step down, and hope we will have many > > excellent candidates, nominated, or self-nominated. > > > > And I ask my colleague Sala to take the responsibility of the election, > > perhaps with the help, if so needed from past coordinators. > > > > Again, thank you all, from Baku. > > > > 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 tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Mon Nov 12 07:12:59 2012 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:12:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report In-Reply-To: <50A011BC.1060802@itforchange.net> References: <50A011BC.1060802@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <005c01cdc0cf$0f0017c0$2d004740$@benjemaa@planet.tn> Parminder and Marie Georges, The meeting was organized as a round table where everyone take the floor for a short time to express him/herself. All was about the internet governance but we didn’t take a specific item, and discussed it. As for the “Intermediate international standards”, they were presented as a third layer between the international general principles and the national laws. They described it to be more simplified and more acceptable for all the countries so that they may be applied by all at the national level. My reaction to this concept was that I find it is a good idea to elaborate more simple and more precise standards, but I don’t think it will be a third layer; the so-called “intermediate standards” can only be the same layer as the international general principles since they will be international agreements, and their use at the national level will still depend on the willing of the governments. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 Mobile: +216 41 649 605 Fax: +216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Envoyé : dimanche 11 novembre 2012 22:00 À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org; tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Objet : Re: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report On Saturday 10 November 2012 03:32 AM, tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn wrote: Dear all, Sorry for the late report: No Internet access in the meeting rooms. snip The European parliamentarians expressed their support to all those issues, and introduced a concept of intermediate international standards accepted by all and easily applicable, to be between the international general principals such as the human rights declaration and the national laws. Very interested to know what kind of international standards they were referring to that fall in between " general principals such as the human rights declaration and the national laws". Can someone throw some light on the nuances involved here. parminder Dioplo Foundation emphasized the importance of the Governments’ commitment to support the IGF and its multi-stakeholder model The meeting was held in a warm and friendly ambience. Y.J. PARK and Tijani BEN JEMAA -------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations Phone: +216 70 825 231 Mobile: +216 98 330 114 Fax: +216 70 825 231 -------------------------------------------------------------------- _____ Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2624/5889 - Date: 11/11/2012 Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2624/5889 - Date: 11/11/2012 -------------- 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Mon Nov 12 09:31:53 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:31:53 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report In-Reply-To: <005c01cdc0cf$0f0017c0$2d004740$@benjemaa@planet.tn> References: <50A011BC.1060802@itforchange.net> <005c01cdc0cf$0f0017c0$2d004740$@benjemaa@planet.tn> Message-ID: <1685272846.21905.1352730713654.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k09> Dear members of the list You'll find attached to this mail two documents thet may be useful for your information :- le first is a kind of "roadmap" given by the Commission for IG to be submitted to the IGF- the second is the joint statement of the EU delagation (with MEPs from diverse political groups). If there are particular questions, I can easely submit them/discuss them with Madame Trautmann who was the former rapporteure for ICTs and the WSIS. Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 12/11/12 13:13 > De : "Tijani BEN JEMAA" > A : "'parminder'" , governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Copie à : > Objet : RE: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report > > Parminder and Marie Georges, The meeting was organized as a round table where everyone take the floor for a short time to express him/herself. All was about the internet governance but we didn’t take a specific item, and discussed it. As for the “Intermediate international standards”, they were presented as a third layer between the international general principles and the national laws. They described it to be more simplified and more acceptable for all the countries so that they may be applied by all at the national level. My reaction to this concept was that I find it is a good idea to elaborate more simple and more precise standards, but I don’t think it will be a third layer; the so-called “intermediate standards” can only be the same layer as the international general principles since they will be international agreements, and their use at the national level will still depend on the willing of the governments. -------------------------------------------------------------------------Tijani BEN JEMAAExecutive DirectorMediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)Phone: +216 98 330 114Mobile: +216 41 649 605Fax: +216 70 825 231------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Envoyé : dimanche 11 novembre 2012 22:00 > À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org; tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn > Objet : Re: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report On Saturday 10 November 2012 03:32 AM, tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn wrote:Dear all, > > Sorry for the late report: No Internet access in the meeting rooms. > > snip > > The European parliamentarians expressed their support to all those issues, and introduced a concept of intermediate international standards accepted by all and easily applicable, to be between the international general principals such as the human rights declaration and the national laws. > Very interested to know what kind of international standards they were referring to that fall in between " general principals such as the human rights declaration and the national laws". Can someone throw some light on the nuances involved here. > > parminder > > > Dioplo Foundation emphasized the importance of the Governments’ commitment to support the IGF and its multi-stakeholder model > > The meeting was held in a warm and friendly ambience. > > Y.J. PARK and Tijani BEN JEMAA > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tijani BEN JEMAA > Executive Director > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations > Phone: +216 70 825 231 > Mobile: +216 98 330 114 > Fax: +216 70 825 231 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. > Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr > Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2624/5889 - Date: 11/11/2012Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. > Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr > Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2624/5889 - Date: 11/11/2012 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, 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: IGF_EU Commission for an open access _Baku.doc Type: application/msword Size: 346624 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGF_EU delegation Baku_Joint statement.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats Size: 29410 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Nov 12 09:53:03 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:23:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report In-Reply-To: <005c01cdc0cf$0f0017c0$2d004740$@benjemaa@planet.tn> References: <50A011BC.1060802@itforchange.net> <005c01cdc0cf$0f0017c0$2d004740$@benjemaa@planet.tn> Message-ID: <50A10D4F.9070008@itforchange.net> On Monday 12 November 2012 05:42 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: > > Parminder and Marie Georges, > > The meeting was organized as a round table where everyone take the > floor for a short time to express him/herself. All was about the > internet governance but we didn’t take a specific item, and discussed it. > > As for the “Intermediate international standards”, they were presented > as a third layer between the international general principles and the > national laws. They described it to be more simplified and more > acceptable for all the countries so that they may be applied by all at > the national level. My reaction to this concept was that I find it is > a good idea to elaborate more simple and more precise standards, but I > don’t think it will be a third layer; the so-called “intermediate > standards” can only be the same layer as the international general > principles since they will be international agreements, and their use > at the national level will still depend on the willing of the > governments. > Dear Tijani, Thanks for the clarification. I mostly agree with your views. However, there may be some use in developing some more practical and accessible principles for IG from larger accepted international principles like human rights. Such principles can directly inform public policies related to the Internet, which in turn can help shape the development of the Internet as per global public interest, and not the interests of the most powerful. However, the real issue is; how should these Internet principles , or principles for Internet related policies, (the so called third layer) be developed. Should plurilateral bodies of rich countires do it for the whole world, as OECD and CoE have done recently . Or should this be done through processes that equally involve all countries, with greatest possible participation of all stakeholders. I would expect civil society, and IGC, to take a clear view on this issue. parminder > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > *Tijani BEN JEMAA* > > Executive Director > > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) > > *Phone:* +216 98 330 114 > > *Mobile:*+216 41 649 605 > > *Fax:* +216 70 825 231 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > *De :*parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > *Envoyé :* dimanche 11 novembre 2012 22:00 > *À :* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn > *Objet :* Re: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report > > On Saturday 10 November 2012 03:32 AM, tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn > wrote: > > Dear all, > > Sorry for the late report: No Internet access in the meeting rooms. > > snip > > The European parliamentarians expressed their support to all those > issues, and introduced a concept of intermediate international > standards accepted by all and easily applicable, to be between the > international general principals such as the human rights > declaration and the national laws. > > > Very interested to know what kind of international standards they were > referring to that fall in between " general principals such as the > human rights declaration and the national laws". Can someone throw > some light on the nuances involved here. > > parminder > > > Dioplo Foundation emphasized the importance of the Governments’ > commitment to support the IGF and its multi-stakeholder model > > The meeting was held in a warm and friendly ambience. > > Y.J. PARK and Tijani BEN JEMAA > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tijani BEN JEMAA > Executive Director > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations > Phone: +216 70 825 231 > Mobile: +216 98 330 114 > Fax: +216 70 825 231 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. > Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr > Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2624/5889 - Date: > 11/11/2012 > > Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. > Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr > Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2624/5889 - Date: > 11/11/2012 > -------------- 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 bavouc at gmail.com Mon Nov 12 10:09:40 2012 From: bavouc at gmail.com (Martial Bavou[Private Business Account]) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:09:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report In-Reply-To: <1685272846.21905.1352730713654.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k09> References: <50A011BC.1060802@itforchange.net> <005c01cdc0cf$0f0017c0$2d004740$@benjemaa@planet.tn> <1685272846.21905.1352730713654.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k09> Message-ID: Thanks, I will read and come back to you later, thanks for sharing once more. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Louis FULLSACK Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 3:32 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Tijani BEN JEMAA; 'parminder' Subject: RE: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report Dear members of the list You'll find attached to this mail two documents thet may be useful for your information : - le first is a kind of "roadmap" given by the Commission for IG to be submitted to the IGF - the second is the joint statement of the EU delagation (with MEPs from diverse political groups). If there are particular questions, I can easely submit them/discuss them with Madame Trautmann who was the former rapporteure for ICTs and the WSIS. Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 12/11/12 13:13 > De : "Tijani BEN JEMAA" > A : "'parminder'" , governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Copie à : > Objet : RE: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report > > Parminder and Marie Georges, The meeting was organized as a round table where everyone take the floor for a short time to express him/herself. All was about the internet governance but we didn’t take a specific item, and discussed it. As for the “Intermediate international standards”, they were presented as a third layer between the international general principles and the national laws. They described it to be more simplified and more acceptable for all the countries so that they may be applied by all at the national level. My reaction to this concept was that I find it is a good idea to elaborate more simple and more precise standards, but I don’t think it will be a third layer; the so-called “intermediate standards” can only be the same layer as the international general principles since they will be international agreements, and their use at the national level will still depend on the willing of the governments. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 Mobile: +216 41 649 605 Fax: +216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : parminder [ mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Envoyé : dimanche 11 novembre 2012 22:00 > À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org; tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn > Objet : Re: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report On Saturday 10 November 2012 03:32 AM, tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn wrote: Dear all, > > Sorry for the late report: No Internet access in the meeting rooms. > > snip > > The European parliamentarians expressed their support to all those issues, and introduced a concept of intermediate international standards accepted by all and easily applicable, to be between the international general principals such as the human rights declaration and the national laws. > Very interested to know what kind of international standards they were referring to that fall in between " general principals such as the human rights declaration and the national laws". Can someone throw some light on the nuances involved here. > > parminder > > > Dioplo Foundation emphasized the importance of the Governments’ commitment to support the IGF and its multi-stakeholder model > > The meeting was held in a warm and friendly ambience. > > Y.J. PARK and Tijani BEN JEMAA > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tijani BEN JEMAA > Executive Director > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations > Phone: +216 70 825 231 > Mobile: +216 98 330 114 > Fax: +216 70 825 231 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- _____ Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. > Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr > Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2624/5889 - Date: 11/11/2012 Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. > Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr > Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2624/5889 - Date: 11/11/2012 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Nov 12 10:48:44 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:18:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report In-Reply-To: <50A10D4F.9070008@itforchange.net> References: <50A011BC.1060802@itforchange.net> <005c01cdc0cf$0f0017c0$2d004740$@benjemaa@planet.tn> <50A10D4F.9070008@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Amusing as usual 1. The Budapest convention is entirely voluntary for a country to adopt, and to choose what parts of it to adopt. For example a part of the convention adopted by various EU countries to act on racist and neo nazi content is explicitly not ratified by the USA as it conflicts with first amendment protections for personal speech. It explicitly features dual criminality before any international enforcement can use its mechanisms. So hardly "plurilateral rich countries forcing something on the whole world" 2. The OECD has produced a series of best practice documents and recommendations on cybercrime. With, believe it or not, substantial industry and civil society involvement Again, nothing that is being forced on the world by rich countries. If you can stop mixing politics and policy, you might even stop making such specious comparisons between these and the CRAP, oh sorry, CIRP and similar grasping and venal power plays aimed at control (which seems to pass for governance in some circles, too bad) Oh well, I can hope. --srs (iPad) On 12-Nov-2012, at 20:23, parminder wrote: > > On Monday 12 November 2012 05:42 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: >> Parminder and Marie Georges, >> >> The meeting was organized as a round table where everyone take the floor for a short time to express him/herself. All was about the internet governance but we didn’t take a specific item, and discussed it. >> >> As for the “Intermediate international standards”, they were presented as a third layer between the international general principles and the national laws. They described it to be more simplified and more acceptable for all the countries so that they may be applied by all at the national level. My reaction to this concept was that I find it is a good idea to elaborate more simple and more precise standards, but I don’t think it will be a third layer; the so-called “intermediate standards” can only be the same layer as the international general principles since they will be international agreements, and their use at the national level will still depend on the willing of the governments. > > Dear Tijani, > > Thanks for the clarification. I mostly agree with your views. However, there may be some use in developing some more practical and accessible principles for IG from larger accepted international principles like human rights. Such principles can directly inform public policies related to the Internet, which in turn can help shape the development of the Internet as per global public interest, and not the interests of the most powerful. > > However, the real issue is; how should these Internet principles , or principles for Internet related policies, (the so called third layer) be developed. Should plurilateral bodies of rich countires do it for the whole world, as OECD and CoE have done recently . Or should this be done through processes that equally involve all countries, with greatest possible participation of all stakeholders. I would expect civil society, and IGC, to take a clear view on this issue. > > parminder >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Tijani BEN JEMAA >> Executive Director >> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) >> Phone: +216 98 330 114 >> Mobile: +216 41 649 605 >> Fax: +216 70 825 231 >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> De : parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> Envoyé : dimanche 11 novembre 2012 22:00 >> À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org; tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn >> Objet : Re: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report >> >> >> On Saturday 10 November 2012 03:32 AM, tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Sorry for the late report: No Internet access in the meeting rooms. >> >> snip >> >> The European parliamentarians expressed their support to all those issues, and introduced a concept of intermediate international standards accepted by all and easily applicable, to be between the international general principals such as the human rights declaration and the national laws. >> >> Very interested to know what kind of international standards they were referring to that fall in between " general principals such as the human rights declaration and the national laws". Can someone throw some light on the nuances involved here. >> >> parminder >> >> >> Dioplo Foundation emphasized the importance of the Governments’ commitment to support the IGF and its multi-stakeholder model >> >> The meeting was held in a warm and friendly ambience. >> >> Y.J. PARK and Tijani BEN JEMAA >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Tijani BEN JEMAA >> Executive Director >> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations >> Phone: +216 70 825 231 >> Mobile: +216 98 330 114 >> Fax: +216 70 825 231 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. >> Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr >> Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2624/5889 - Date: 11/11/2012 >> Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. >> Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr >> Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2624/5889 - Date: 11/11/2012 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Nov 12 11:46:29 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 22:16:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] Greenpeace and ITUC letter to the UN SG Message-ID: <53F36EFD-D21E-4D4A-BF62-CADDB559B3BF@hserus.net> http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/11/12/greenpeace-and-international-t --srs (iPad) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Nov 12 12:01:43 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 22:31:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] Greenpeace and ITUC letter to the UN SG In-Reply-To: <53F36EFD-D21E-4D4A-BF62-CADDB559B3BF@hserus.net> References: <53F36EFD-D21E-4D4A-BF62-CADDB559B3BF@hserus.net> Message-ID: As Kieran points out, this is one of the few occurrences of public comment from civil society other than the same old voices in the igov space. And I don't include endorsing or providing perfunctory statements of support to the proposals of an igov regular as a public comment from outside the usual suspects --srs (iPad) On 12-Nov-2012, at 22:16, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/11/12/greenpeace-and-international-t > > --srs (iPad) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 13 05:18:23 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:18:23 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF Workshops Message-ID: A lot of people I spoke to in Baku last week were very positive about the workshops, pretty common message was that the content the best of any IGF. Not the main sessions, the workshops. I was working for the secretariat (contract ended with the conference), I didn't make it to any workshop, and not much outside the main hall. I'd love to hear of workshops and other meetings people found valuable. Is there something to build on for next year? Taking stock for the first consultation of next year will start soon (or soon'ish). 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 jovank at diplomacy.edu Tue Nov 13 05:55:21 2012 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:55:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report In-Reply-To: <50a0e7eb.e208b40a.62fe.76fcSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <50A011BC.1060802@itforchange.net> <50a0e7eb.e208b40a.62fe.76fcSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <50A22719.9040706@diplomacy.edu> Thank you, Tijani, for a very useful summary. I have just one clarification on my statement. While I agree that governments should /support/ the multistakeholder model, my main point is that we must ensure more /government participation /in the IGF. In Internet governance, governments are the 'new kids on the block', while in other international regimes, it was civil society and business that had to carve out a space in existing inter-governmental arrangements (e.g. climate change, human rights, food security). Therefore, business, civil society, and the technical community face the challenge and responsibility of ensuring substantive government participation in the IGF. My statement is supported by Diplo's pilot research project on the IGF Language Corpus , which shows that only 28% of governments (54 out of 193 UN member states) have spoken during the IGF process (preparatory and main meetings) in the six meetings from 2006 to 2011; and even this has declined over the last few years. Substantive government participation will be the make-or-break point for the IGF and other Internet governance multistakeholder bodies. How to achieve it? While it won't be easy, it's not an impossible task. Regards, Jovan *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:*today – this week – this month *l* Conference on Innovation in Diplomacy (Malta, 19-20 November 2012) *l *new online courses On 11/12/12 1:12 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: > > Parminder and Marie Georges, > > The meeting was organized as a round table where everyone take the > floor for a short time to express him/herself. All was about the > internet governance but we didn’t take a specific item, and discussed it. > > As for the “Intermediate international standards”, they were presented > as a third layer between the international general principles and the > national laws. They described it to be more simplified and more > acceptable for all the countries so that they may be applied by all at > the national level. My reaction to this concept was that I find it is > a good idea to elaborate more simple and more precise standards, but I > don’t think it will be a third layer; the so-called “intermediate > standards” can only be the same layer as the international general > principles since they will be international agreements, and their use > at the national level will still depend on the willing of the > governments. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > *Tijani BEN JEMAA* > > Executive Director > > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) > > *Phone:* +216 98 330 114 > > *Mobile:*+216 41 649 605 > > *Fax:* +216 70 825 231 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > *De :*parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > *Envoyé :* dimanche 11 novembre 2012 22:00 > *À :* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn > *Objet :* Re: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report > > On Saturday 10 November 2012 03:32 AM, tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn > wrote: > > Dear all, > > Sorry for the late report: No Internet access in the meeting rooms. > > snip > > The European parliamentarians expressed their support to all those > issues, and introduced a concept of intermediate international > standards accepted by all and easily applicable, to be between the > international general principals such as the human rights > declaration and the national laws. > > > Very interested to know what kind of international standards they were > referring to that fall in between " general principals such as the > human rights declaration and the national laws". Can someone throw > some light on the nuances involved here. > > parminder > > > Dioplo Foundation emphasized the importance of the Governments’ > commitment to support the IGF and its multi-stakeholder model > > The meeting was held in a warm and friendly ambience. > > Y.J. PARK and Tijani BEN JEMAA > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tijani BEN JEMAA > Executive Director > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations > Phone: +216 70 825 231 > Mobile: +216 98 330 114 > Fax: +216 70 825 231 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. > Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr > Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2624/5889 - Date: > 11/11/2012 > > Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. > Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr > Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2624/5889 - Date: > 11/11/2012 > -------------- 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Tue Nov 13 06:10:03 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 12:10:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] CS @ WCIT? Message-ID: Hi It would be helpful to know who from civil society will be attending the WCIT negotiations as members of national delegations. There's @ a half dozen of us on the US delegation, I know of a couple of IGCers on the UK and German delegations, and it was reported at the Best Bits meeting in Baku that there will also be people on the dels of Sweden, Bangladesh, Canada, and Australia, although not who specifically. It'd be useful for us to coordinate a bit in the remaining pre-meeting weeks and then in Dubai. If people could identify themselves offline that'd be great. A second option discussed in Baku was for people who are not in dels to come anyway to be around and visible, especially if the chair succeeds in opening some sessions to the general public. If anyone's thinking of doing this it'd be good to know who as well. Thanks, Bill *************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland william.drake at uzh.ch 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 anriette at apc.org Tue Nov 13 06:44:00 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:44:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report In-Reply-To: <50A22719.9040706@diplomacy.edu> References: <50A011BC.1060802@itforchange.net> <50a0e7eb.e208b40a.62fe.76fcSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <50A22719.9040706@diplomacy.edu> Message-ID: <50A23280.7060801@apc.org> Dear all I support Jovan's comments about government participation very strongly. It is not that we cannot have useful IGFs without government involvement... but for the whole process of dialogue/soft power/building of capacity and understanding and relationships to have positive policy outcomes (and to influence day to day behaviour) we do need them there. And we need more than North American and European governments andthe regular handful of developing country reps. In some ways this imbalance consolidates distrust of of multi-stakeholder inclusion in the places where we most need to build it. I think it can be addressed.. and one mechanisms is the MAG. For example, I think that the Special Advisor (should this person ever by appointed) should be from a developing country. Similarly if a chair (or co-chairs) is to be appointed from among MAG membershavinga developing country person as one of these co-chairs could also make a huge differencein building the MAG's legitimacyamong developing country governments. Anriette On 13/11/2012 12:55, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > Thank you, Tijani, for a very useful summary. I have just one > clarification on my statement. While I agree that governments should > /support/ the multistakeholder model, my main point is that we must > ensure more /government participation /in the IGF. > > In Internet governance, governments are the 'new kids on the block', > while in other international regimes, it was civil society and > business that had to carve out a space in existing inter-governmental > arrangements (e.g. climate change, human rights, food security). > Therefore, business, civil society, and the technical community face > the challenge and responsibility of ensuring substantive government > participation in the IGF. > > My statement is supported by Diplo's pilot research project on the IGF > Language Corpus , > which shows that only 28% of governments (54 out of 193 UN member > states) have spoken during the IGF process (preparatory and main > meetings) in the six meetings from 2006 to 2011; and even this has > declined over the last few years. > > Substantive government participation will be the make-or-break point > for the IGF and other Internet governance multistakeholder bodies. How > to achieve it? While it won't be easy, it's not an impossible task. > > Regards, Jovan > > *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:*today – this week – this month > *l* Conference on Innovation in > Diplomacy (Malta, 19-20 November 2012) > *l *new online > courses > > > > On 11/12/12 1:12 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: >> >> Parminder and Marie Georges, >> >> The meeting was organized as a round table where everyone take the >> floor for a short time to express him/herself. All was about the >> internet governance but we didn’t take a specific item, and discussed >> it. >> >> As for the “Intermediate international standards”, they were >> presented as a third layer between the international general >> principles and the national laws. They described it to be more >> simplified and more acceptable for all the countries so that they may >> be applied by all at the national level. My reaction to this concept >> was that I find it is a good idea to elaborate more simple and more >> precise standards, but I don’t think it will be a third layer; the >> so-called “intermediate standards” can only be the same layer as the >> international general principles since they will be international >> agreements, and their use at the national level will still depend on >> the willing of the governments. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> *Tijani BEN JEMAA* >> >> Executive Director >> >> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) >> >> *Phone:* +216 98 330 114 >> >> *Mobile:*+216 41 649 605 >> >> *Fax:* +216 70 825 231 >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> *De :*parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> *Envoyé :* dimanche 11 novembre 2012 22:00 >> *À :* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn >> *Objet :* Re: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report >> >> On Saturday 10 November 2012 03:32 AM, tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn >> wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> Sorry for the late report: No Internet access in the meeting rooms. >> >> snip >> >> The European parliamentarians expressed their support to all those >> issues, and introduced a concept of intermediate international >> standards accepted by all and easily applicable, to be between the >> international general principals such as the human rights >> declaration and the national laws. >> >> >> Very interested to know what kind of international standards they >> were referring to that fall in between " general principals such as >> the human rights declaration and the national laws". Can someone >> throw some light on the nuances involved here. >> >> parminder >> >> >> Dioplo Foundation emphasized the importance of the Governments’ >> commitment to support the IGF and its multi-stakeholder model >> >> The meeting was held in a warm and friendly ambience. >> >> Y.J. PARK and Tijani BEN JEMAA >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Tijani BEN JEMAA >> Executive Director >> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations >> Phone: +216 70 825 231 >> Mobile: +216 98 330 114 >> Fax: +216 70 825 231 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. >> Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr >> Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2624/5889 - Date: >> 11/11/2012 >> >> Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. >> Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr >> Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2624/5889 - Date: >> 11/11/2012 >> > -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 13 06:53:52 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 12:53:52 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report References: <50A011BC.1060802@itforchange.net> <50a0e7eb.e208b40a.62fe.76fcSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <50A22719.9040706@diplomacy.edu> <50A23280.7060801@apc.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD5E6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Couldn´t we work with ICANN´s Tarek Kamel when the MAG prepares the IGF Bali 2013? wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Anriette Esterhuysen Gesendet: Di 13.11.2012 12:44 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report Dear all I support Jovan's comments about government participation very strongly. It is not that we cannot have useful IGFs without government involvement... but for the whole process of dialogue/soft power/building of capacity and understanding and relationships to have positive policy outcomes (and to influence day to day behaviour) we do need them there. And we need more than North American and European governments and the regular handful of developing country reps. In some ways this imbalance consolidates distrust of of multi-stakeholder inclusion in the places where we most need to build it. I think it can be addressed.. and one mechanisms is the MAG. For example, I think that the Special Advisor (should this person ever by appointed) should be from a developing country. Similarly if a chair (or co-chairs) is to be appointed from among MAG members having a developing country person as one of these co-chairs could also make a huge difference in building the MAG's legitimacy among developing country governments. Anriette On 13/11/2012 12:55, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: Thank you, Tijani, for a very useful summary. I have just one clarification on my statement. While I agree that governments should /support/ the multistakeholder model, my main point is that we must ensure more /government participation /in the IGF. In Internet governance, governments are the 'new kids on the block', while in other international regimes, it was civil society and business that had to carve out a space in existing inter-governmental arrangements (e.g. climate change, human rights, food security). Therefore, business, civil society, and the technical community face the challenge and responsibility of ensuring substantive government participation in the IGF. My statement is supported by Diplo's pilot research project on the IGF Language Corpus , which shows that only 28% of governments (54 out of 193 UN member states) have spoken during the IGF process (preparatory and main meetings) in the six meetings from 2006 to 2011; and even this has declined over the last few years. Substantive government participation will be the make-or-break point for the IGF and other Internet governance multistakeholder bodies. How to achieve it? While it won't be easy, it's not an impossible task. Regards, Jovan *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:*today - this week - this month *l* Conference on Innovation in Diplomacy (Malta, 19-20 November 2012) *l *new online courses On 11/12/12 1:12 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: Parminder and Marie Georges, The meeting was organized as a round table where everyone take the floor for a short time to express him/herself. All was about the internet governance but we didn't take a specific item, and discussed it. As for the "Intermediate international standards", they were presented as a third layer between the international general principles and the national laws. They described it to be more simplified and more acceptable for all the countries so that they may be applied by all at the national level. My reaction to this concept was that I find it is a good idea to elaborate more simple and more precise standards, but I don't think it will be a third layer; the so-called "intermediate standards" can only be the same layer as the international general principles since they will be international agreements, and their use at the national level will still depend on the willing of the governments. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Tijani BEN JEMAA* Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) *Phone:* +216 98 330 114 *Mobile:*+216 41 649 605 *Fax:* +216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- *De :*parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] *Envoyé :* dimanche 11 novembre 2012 22:00 *À :* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn *Objet :* Re: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report On Saturday 10 November 2012 03:32 AM, tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn wrote: Dear all, Sorry for the late report: No Internet access in the meeting rooms. snip The European parliamentarians expressed their support to all those issues, and introduced a concept of intermediate international standards accepted by all and easily applicable, to be between the international general principals such as the human rights declaration and the national laws. Very interested to know what kind of international standards they were referring to that fall in between " general principals such as the human rights declaration and the national laws". Can someone throw some light on the nuances involved here. parminder Dioplo Foundation emphasized the importance of the Governments' commitment to support the IGF and its multi-stakeholder model The meeting was held in a warm and friendly ambience. Y.J. PARK and Tijani BEN JEMAA -------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations Phone: +216 70 825 231 Mobile: +216 98 330 114 Fax: +216 70 825 231 -------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2624/5889 - Date: 11/11/2012 Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2624/5889 - Date: 11/11/2012 -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 13 07:02:15 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:32:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report In-Reply-To: <50A23280.7060801@apc.org> References: <50A011BC.1060802@itforchange.net> <50a0e7eb.e208b40a.62fe.76fcSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <50A22719.9040706@diplomacy.edu> <50A23280.7060801@apc.org> Message-ID: <95C3C587-27D6-485E-BF12-F5E2460BEF60@hserus.net> That won't quite help. The igf and mag themselves have to become more regional and try to reach out directly to individual stakeholders from governments Especially from developing countries, international conference travel is often treated by extremely senior management (sometimes, equivalent to 'political appointee') at different agencies and ministries as a perk that gives them a free foreign tour and shopping trip at their governments expense. So while several more government officials than you think may have been present at Baku, the only time you might have seen them would be at champagne receptions --srs (iPad) On 13-Nov-2012, at 17:14, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > I support Jovan's comments about government participation very strongly. > > It is not that we cannot have useful IGFs without government involvement... but for the whole process of dialogue/soft power/building of capacity and understanding and relationships to have positive policy outcomes (and to influence day to day behaviour) we do need them there. And we need more than North American and European governments and the regular handful of developing country reps. In some ways this imbalance consolidates distrust of of multi-stakeholder inclusion in the places where we most need to build it. > > I think it can be addressed.. and one mechanisms is the MAG. For example, I think that the Special Advisor (should this person ever by appointed) should be from a developing country. Similarly if a chair (or co-chairs) is to be appointed from among MAG members having a developing country person as one of these co-chairs could also make a huge difference in building the MAG's legitimacy among developing country governments. > > Anriette > > > > On 13/11/2012 12:55, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: >> Thank you, Tijani, for a very useful summary. I have just one clarification on my statement. While I agree that governments should /support/ the multistakeholder model, my main point is that we must ensure more /government participation /in the IGF. >> >> In Internet governance, governments are the 'new kids on the block', while in other international regimes, it was civil society and business that had to carve out a space in existing inter-governmental arrangements (e.g. climate change, human rights, food security). Therefore, business, civil society, and the technical community face the challenge and responsibility of ensuring substantive government participation in the IGF. >> >> My statement is supported by Diplo's pilot research project on the IGF Language Corpus , which shows that only 28% of governments (54 out of 193 UN member states) have spoken during the IGF process (preparatory and main meetings) in the six meetings from 2006 to 2011; and even this has declined over the last few years. >> >> Substantive government participation will be the make-or-break point for the IGF and other Internet governance multistakeholder bodies. How to achieve it? While it won't be easy, it's not an impossible task. >> >> Regards, Jovan >> >> *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:*today – this week – this month *l* Conference on Innovation in Diplomacy (Malta, 19-20 November 2012) *l *new online courses >> >> >> >> On 11/12/12 1:12 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: >>> >>> Parminder and Marie Georges, >>> >>> The meeting was organized as a round table where everyone take the floor for a short time to express him/herself. All was about the internet governance but we didn’t take a specific item, and discussed it. >>> >>> As for the “Intermediate international standards”, they were presented as a third layer between the international general principles and the national laws. They described it to be more simplified and more acceptable for all the countries so that they may be applied by all at the national level. My reaction to this concept was that I find it is a good idea to elaborate more simple and more precise standards, but I don’t think it will be a third layer; the so-called “intermediate standards” can only be the same layer as the international general principles since they will be international agreements, and their use at the national level will still depend on the willing of the governments. >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> *Tijani BEN JEMAA* >>> >>> Executive Director >>> >>> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) >>> >>> *Phone:* +216 98 330 114 >>> >>> *Mobile:*+216 41 649 605 >>> >>> *Fax:* +216 70 825 231 >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> *De :*parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>> *Envoyé :* dimanche 11 novembre 2012 22:00 >>> *À :* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn >>> *Objet :* Re: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report >>> >>> On Saturday 10 November 2012 03:32 AM, tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Sorry for the late report: No Internet access in the meeting rooms. >>> >>> snip >>> >>> The European parliamentarians expressed their support to all those >>> issues, and introduced a concept of intermediate international >>> standards accepted by all and easily applicable, to be between the >>> international general principals such as the human rights >>> declaration and the national laws. >>> >>> >>> Very interested to know what kind of international standards they were referring to that fall in between " general principals such as the human rights declaration and the national laws". Can someone throw some light on the nuances involved here. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> Dioplo Foundation emphasized the importance of the Governments’ commitment to support the IGF and its multi-stakeholder model >>> >>> The meeting was held in a warm and friendly ambience. >>> >>> Y.J. PARK and Tijani BEN JEMAA >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Tijani BEN JEMAA >>> Executive Director >>> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations >>> Phone: +216 70 825 231 >>> Mobile: +216 98 330 114 >>> Fax: +216 70 825 231 >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. >>> Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr >>> Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2624/5889 - Date: 11/11/2012 >>> >>> Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. >>> Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr >>> Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2624/5889 - Date: 11/11/2012 > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Tue Nov 13 07:09:10 2012 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:09:10 +0400 Subject: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report In-Reply-To: <50A22719.9040706@diplomacy.edu> References: <50A011BC.1060802@itforchange.net> <50a0e7eb.e208b40a.62fe.76fcSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <50A22719.9040706@diplomacy.edu> Message-ID: <20121113120909.GC8189@tarvainen.info> On Nov 13 11:55, Jovan Kurbalija (jovank at diplomacy.edu) wrote: > While I agree that governments should > /support/ the multistakeholder model, my main point is that we must > ensure more /government participation/ in the IGF. Yes. Unfortunately, however, it seems Finnish government's participation is more likely to go down than up (probably no MPs in Bali). :-( -- Tapani Tarvainen (presently in a small but Internet-savvy restaurant in Sheki, a small town in northern Azerbaijan) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Tue Nov 13 07:14:18 2012 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:14:18 +0400 Subject: [governance] CS @ WCIT? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20121113121417.GD8189@tarvainen.info> On Nov 13 12:10, William Drake (william.drake at uzh.ch) wrote: > It would be helpful to know who from civil society will be > attending the WCIT negotiations as members of national delegations. There's a slim chance I'll be there - I was basically told I could join Finnish delegation if I wanted to and could fund it myself. I could probably arrange funding but tearing myself away from work for two weeks at this point would be rather difficult, especially since I'm not sure how useful it would be (Finland's official position on the key issues is more or less what CS wants anyway). -- Tapani Tarvainen -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Tue Nov 13 07:56:34 2012 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:56:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report In-Reply-To: <50A22719.9040706@diplomacy.edu> References: <50A011BC.1060802@itforchange.net> <50a0e7eb.e208b40a.62fe.76fcSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <50A22719.9040706@diplomacy.edu> Message-ID: <009501cdc19e$4febcf20$efc36d60$@benjemaa@planet.tn> Thank you Jovan for your precision. By “Dioplo Foundation emphasized the importance of the Governments’ commitment to support the IGF and its multi-stakeholder model” I meant supporting IGF and its multi-stakeholder model by all means including their active participation in the substance. If it wasn’t clear, I apologize. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 Mobile: +216 41 649 605 Fax: +216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] De la part de Jovan Kurbalija Envoyé : mardi 13 novembre 2012 11:55 À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org Objet : Re: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report Thank you, Tijani, for a very useful summary. I have just one clarification on my statement. While I agree that governments should support the multistakeholder model, my main point is that we must ensure more government participation in the IGF. In Internet governance, governments are the 'new kids on the block', while in other international regimes, it was civil society and business that had to carve out a space in existing inter-governmental arrangements (e.g. climate change, human rights, food security). Therefore, business, civil society, and the technical community face the challenge and responsibility of ensuring substantive government participation in the IGF. My statement is supported by Diplo's pilot research project on the IGF Language Corpus, which shows that only 28% of governments (54 out of 193 UN member states) have spoken during the IGF process (preparatory and main meetings) in the six meetings from 2006 to 2011; and even this has declined over the last few years. Substantive government participation will be the make-or-break point for the IGF and other Internet governance multistakeholder bodies. How to achieve it? While it won't be easy, it's not an impossible task. Regards, Jovan 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: today – this week – this month l Conference on Innovation in Diplomacy (Malta, 19-20 November 2012) l new online courses On 11/12/12 1:12 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: Parminder and Marie Georges, The meeting was organized as a round table where everyone take the floor for a short time to express him/herself. All was about the internet governance but we didn’t take a specific item, and discussed it. As for the “Intermediate international standards”, they were presented as a third layer between the international general principles and the national laws. They described it to be more simplified and more acceptable for all the countries so that they may be applied by all at the national level. My reaction to this concept was that I find it is a good idea to elaborate more simple and more precise standards, but I don’t think it will be a third layer; the so-called “intermediate standards” can only be the same layer as the international general principles since they will be international agreements, and their use at the national level will still depend on the willing of the governments. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 Mobile: +216 41 649 605 Fax: +216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Envoyé : dimanche 11 novembre 2012 22:00 À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org; tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Objet : Re: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report On Saturday 10 November 2012 03:32 AM, tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn wrote: Dear all, Sorry for the late report: No Internet access in the meeting rooms. snip The European parliamentarians expressed their support to all those issues, and introduced a concept of intermediate international standards accepted by all and easily applicable, to be between the international general principals such as the human rights declaration and the national laws. Very interested to know what kind of international standards they were referring to that fall in between " general principals such as the human rights declaration and the national laws". Can someone throw some light on the nuances involved here. parminder Dioplo Foundation emphasized the importance of the Governments’ commitment to support the IGF and its multi-stakeholder model The meeting was held in a warm and friendly ambience. Y.J. PARK and Tijani BEN JEMAA -------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations Phone: +216 70 825 231 Mobile: +216 98 330 114 Fax: +216 70 825 231 -------------------------------------------------------------------- _____ Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2624/5889 - Date: 11/11/2012 Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2624/5889 - Date: 11/11/2012 _____ Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2624/5890 - Date: 12/11/2012 -------------- 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 jovank at diplomacy.edu Tue Nov 13 08:03:34 2012 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:03:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report In-Reply-To: <50a243a7.461cd80a.1857.2c97SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <50A011BC.1060802@itforchange.net> <50a0e7eb.e208b40a.62fe.76fcSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <50A22719.9040706@diplomacy.edu> <50a243a7.461cd80a.1857.2c97SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <50A24526.1090005@diplomacy.edu> It is fine. This slight ambiguity is tolerable. Regards, Jovan On 11/13/12 1:56 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: > > Thank you Jovan for your precision. > > By “Dioplo Foundation emphasized the importance of the Governments’ > commitment to support the IGF and its multi-stakeholder model” I meant > supporting IGF and its multi-stakeholder model by all means including > their active participation in the substance. If it wasn’t clear, I > apologize. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > *Tijani BEN JEMAA* > > Executive Director > > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) > > *Phone:* +216 98 330 114 > > *Mobile:*+216 41 649 605 > > *Fax:* +216 70 825 231 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > *De :*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *De la part de* Jovan > Kurbalija > *Envoyé :* mardi 13 novembre 2012 11:55 > *À :* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Objet :* Re: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report > > Thank you, Tijani, for a very useful summary. I have just one > clarification on my statement. While I agree that governments should > /support/ the multistakeholder model, my main point is that we must > ensure more /government participation /in the IGF. > > In Internet governance, governments are the 'new kids on the block', > while in other international regimes, it was civil society and > business that had to carve out a space in existing inter-governmental > arrangements (e.g. climate change, human rights, food security). > Therefore, business, civil society, and the technical community face > the challenge and responsibility of ensuring substantive government > participation in the IGF. > > My statement is supported by Diplo's pilot research project on the IGF > Language Corpus , > which shows that only 28% of governments (54 out of 193 UN member > states) have spoken during the IGF process (preparatory and main > meetings) in the six meetings from 2006 to 2011; and even this has > declined over the last few years. > > Substantive government participation will be the make-or-break point > for the IGF and other Internet governance multistakeholder bodies. How > to achieve it? While it won't be easy, it's not an impossible task. > > Regards, Jovan > > *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:*today – this week – this month > *l*Conference on Innovation in > Diplomacy (Malta, 19-20 November 2012) > *l***new online > courses > > > On 11/12/12 1:12 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: > > Parminder and Marie Georges, > > The meeting was organized as a round table where everyone take the > floor for a short time to express him/herself. All was about the > internet governance but we didn’t take a specific item, and > discussed it. > > As for the “Intermediate international standards”, they were > presented as a third layer between the international general > principles and the national laws. They described it to be more > simplified and more acceptable for all the countries so that they > may be applied by all at the national level. My reaction to this > concept was that I find it is a good idea to elaborate more simple > and more precise standards, but I don’t think it will be a third > layer; the so-called “intermediate standards” can only be the same > layer as the international general principles since they will be > international agreements, and their use at the national level will > still depend on the willing of the governments. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > *Tijani BEN JEMAA* > > Executive Director > > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) > > *Phone:* +216 98 330 114 > > *Mobile:*+216 41 649 605 > > *Fax:* +216 70 825 231 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > *De :*parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > *Envoyé :* dimanche 11 novembre 2012 22:00 > *À :* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn > > *Objet :* Re: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report > > On Saturday 10 November 2012 03:32 AM, tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn > wrote: > > Dear all, > > Sorry for the late report: No Internet access in the meeting > rooms. > > snip > > The European parliamentarians expressed their support to all > those issues, and introduced a concept of intermediate > international standards accepted by all and easily applicable, > to be between the international general principals such as the > human rights declaration and the national laws. > > > Very interested to know what kind of international standards they > were referring to that fall in between " general principals such > as the human rights declaration and the national laws". Can > someone throw some light on the nuances involved here. > > parminder > > > > Dioplo Foundation emphasized the importance of the Governments’ > commitment to support the IGF and its multi-stakeholder model > > The meeting was held in a warm and friendly ambience. > > Y.J. PARK and Tijani BEN JEMAA > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tijani BEN JEMAA > Executive Director > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations > Phone: +216 70 825 231 > Mobile: +216 98 330 114 > Fax: +216 70 825 231 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. > Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr > Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2624/5889 - Date: > 11/11/2012 > > Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. > Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr > Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2624/5889 - Date: > 11/11/2012 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. > Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr > Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2624/5890 - Date: > 12/11/2012 > -- *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:*today – this week – this month *l* Conference on Innovation in Diplomacy (Malta, 19-20 November 2012) *l *new online 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 bavouc at gmail.com Tue Nov 13 12:00:14 2012 From: bavouc at gmail.com (Martial Bavou[Private Business Account]) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:00:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] Government regulation of Internet a bad idea, by Magid Message-ID: Magid: Government regulation of Internet a bad idea By Larry Magid for the Mercury News Columnist Posted: 11/12/2012 06:14:04 AM PST Updated: 11/12/2012 06:14:13 AM PST I'm writing from Baku, Azerbaijan, where I'm speaking at the Internet Governance Forum, a United Nations conference for representatives of governments, industry and nonprofit groups to discuss Internet policy issues. It's not a rule making body but a forum for conversation where every delegate -- including young people from several countries -- exchange views on how -- or whether -- to "govern" the Internet. Most speakers, including U.S. Department of Commerce Assistant Secretary Lawrence Strickling, who addressed the opening ceremony, argue that the Internet should remain "free from governmental control ... to preserve and advance the successful multi-stakeholder model that governs the Internet today." Strickling was reacting to a treaty proposal from the U.N's International Telecommunication Union (ITU) that could impose some unwelcome regulations if some countries get their way Even though the Internet evolved from work funded by the U.S. Department of Defense, it's been largely an unregulated space where companies, users, standards groups and governments have been making up the rules and establishing norms as we go along. It was around 1994, after the release of Mosaic -- the first easy to use Web browser -- that the commercial Internet began to take off. Since then there have been many attempts at regulation, including the U.S. Communications Decency Act of 1996, which was overwhelmingly passed by Congress but later mostly struck down by the Supreme Court after a legal challenge led by the American Civil Liberties Union, Ironically, just as the Internet Governance Forum was getting underway, Russia started enforcing a controversial new law that would allow the government to ban or block websites with objectionable material. The law, according to Russian officials, is designed to protect children from child pornography and sites that promote drug use, suicide and political extremism. But several Russians I spoke with when I was in Moscow in February told me that it will likely be used by the Putin administration to suppress political speech. I had traveled to Russia to give two speeches on how it's possible to protect children without violating Internet freedoms. I gave the first speech at a Safer Internet Day event sponsored by a nonprofit group, but just as I was about to step up to the podium the following day at a government sponsored event, the moderator called the session to an end. They claimed, of course, that they just ran out of time. But a Russian colleague confirmed that what they really ran out of was tolerance for what I had to say. Most delegates here in Baku are opposed to government regulation but agree there need to be standards, such as the website naming conventions that are coordinated by the nonprofit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Other international bodies handle Internet "plumbing," setting technical standards for the flow of information between service providers. But with the exception of issues such as child pornography, most people here agree that governmental bodies should stay clear of regulating content, even if that content may be offensive to many people. Of course, some governments do control content. There is the "great firewall of China," which bans Facebook and most U.S.-based blog networks. Iran may launch a national intranet that bans foreign sites. Iran, China and Russia are among the countries urging the United Nations to create a regulatory framework. My role at IGF is to speak on panels regarding Internet safety and child protection. While I'm in support of International efforts to ban child pornography, I remain opposed to laws restricting what children can see or do online, preferring to leave that in the hands of families. One of my panels focused on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child that, among other things, guarantees children "the right to freedom of expression," including "freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice." The convention acknowledges that the exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions. But it sets out a broad framework that not only protects children from government censorship but, arguably, from restrictions imposed by schools or even their own parents. That makes the provision somewhat controversial not only in totalitarian states but also in democracies, including the United States, where some worry that it limits parental rights. European laws protect children's privacy even from their own parents. U.S. parents have a great deal of legal authority over their children, but there is nothing in the First Amendment that says you have to be an adult to have free speech rights. That doesn't mean that kids get to surf the Internet at 3 a.m. or visit porn sites, but -- as I interpret it -- it does mean they have the freedom to express themselves and seek out information and opinions. Freedom can be messy, but it sure beats the alternatives. Contact Larry Magid at larry at larrymagid.com. Listen for his technology chats on KCBS-AM (740) weekdays at 3:50 p.m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 13 14:28:26 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 21:28:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report In-Reply-To: <20121113120909.GC8189@tarvainen.info> References: <50A011BC.1060802@itforchange.net> <50a0e7eb.e208b40a.62fe.76fcSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <50A22719.9040706@diplomacy.edu> <20121113120909.GC8189@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <50A29F5A.2050401@apc.org> That would be a pity Tapani. Some of the best and most interesting remarks I heard on human rights at the IGF came from the MP from the Green Party ofFinland. Anriette On 13/11/2012 14:09, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Nov 13 11:55, Jovan Kurbalija (jovank at diplomacy.edu) wrote: > >> While I agree that governments should >> /support/ the multistakeholder model, my main point is that we must >> ensure more /government participation/ in the IGF. > Yes. Unfortunately, however, it seems Finnish government's > participation is more likely to go down than up > (probably no MPs in Bali). :-( > -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 13 19:34:56 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 06:04:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] Greenpeace and ITUC letter to the UN SG In-Reply-To: References: <53F36EFD-D21E-4D4A-BF62-CADDB559B3BF@hserus.net> Message-ID: <6B438F91-C0D8-4F95-9268-6F9D2E826214@hserus.net> NRO letter of support for the ITUC 'stop the net grab' campaign https://www.nro.net/news/nro-shares-concerns-aboutwcit-process --srs (iPad) On 12-Nov-2012, at 22:31, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > As Kieran points out, this is one of the few occurrences of public comment from civil society other than the same old voices in the igov space. > > And I don't include endorsing or providing perfunctory statements of support to the proposals of an igov regular as a public comment from outside the usual suspects > > --srs (iPad) > > On 12-Nov-2012, at 22:16, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/11/12/greenpeace-and-international-t >> >> --srs (iPad) >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Nov 14 01:13:23 2012 From: jac at apcwomen.org (Jac sm Kee) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:13:23 +0800 Subject: [governance] Indonesia for IGF 2013 In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D59F39538@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <50A33683.9010402@apcwomen.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 here's a good write up about internet and human rights in indonesia as part of giswatch 2011: http://www.giswatch.org/en/country-report/civil-society-participation/indonesia btw, the IGF is also i think co-organised by ICT Watch (civ soc organisation) and APJII (internet ISP association) with the govt, so a multistakeholder initiative.. wld be interesting to see how this pans out jac On 10/11/2012 08:42, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: > Indonesian officials at the IGF 2012 Booth said it will be at Bali > Nusa Dua (http://www.baliconventioncenter.com) not Bali > International ( http://www.baliconvention.com) > > There are several hotels within walking distance and had a map > available for distribution to confirm. > > The Caribbean has some historical affinity to Indonesia ... many > descendants in Suriname are originally from Java. On Nov 9, 2012 > 3:18 PM, "Izumi AIZU" wrote: > >> Holding International Conferences in Bali is very often observed >> in Indonesia. >> >> They have good conference facility, International Convention >> Center, and I assume that will be the venue unless there will be >> a new one. http://www.baliconvention.com >> >> I think APRICOT was held there, as well as APNIC meetings. So the >> organizers of these events could tell more. >> >> Hotels are not too close, but I think most major international >> hotels are within 30 min bus ride. >> >> Unlike Jakarta, where there will be not much traffic jam, the >> traffic will be not that bad. It is not that close to the local >> places, but that is, for IGF, a secondary condition, I guess. >> >> izumi >> >> >> 2012/11/10 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch : >>> Colleagues, >>> >>> I don't know Indonesia, nor Bali in particular, so, question: >>> is holding >> the meeting in Bali the ultimate in sending the community to a >> venue isolated from society? this time with a smile? >>> >>> Alejandro Pisanty >>> >>> ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO >>> >>> >>> >>> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD >>> >>> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO >>> >>> SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad >>> 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >>> >>> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: >>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en >>> LinkedIn, >> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC >>> Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . >>> . . . . >>> >>> ________________________________________ Desde: >>> izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] en nombre de Izumi >> AIZU [iza at anr.org] >>> Enviado el: viernes, 09 de noviembre de 2012 07:12 Hasta: >>> governance Asunto: [governance] Indonesia for IGF 2013 >>> >>> Here's the note of speech by Indonesia Government's head of >>> delegation, Mr. Djoko Agung Harijadi. Secretary of Director >>> General of ICT Application, Ministry of Commtmication and >>> Information Technology, Indonesia (government) >>> >>> ---- >>> >>> Indonesia welcomes the outcome of the forum, which aims to >>> foster the sustainability ,,,,, of the Internet. >>> >>> Indonesia is a strong believer in the role of Internet ins >>> supporting the development. 240 million people, spanning three >>> time zones, >>> >>> Support by our economic growth, spread penetration of Internet >> subscribers. >>> >>> WE reiterate the commitment of ubiquitous Information Society. >>> >>> Reiterate Indonesia’s interest to host the 8th IGF in 2013. It >>> will be >> in Bali. >>> >>> With strong support and coordination with International MSHs >>> we will be able to make the 8th IGF productive and meaningful. >>> >>> followed by a video depicting Indonesia's wide spread use of >>> Internet, blog, and scenes from Bali, the site. >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, >>> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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 >> >> > - -- 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://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQozaDAAoJEKpQzmPAS5FmtKcH/0qK7WpRUI4RhMKmmpU4hnmv ZgXjUBdo1cKaCi3faBIYaOJ0btQKZH8SpkHwfocWbJI71V/uH1dgx6gZTbEdS8PP 60Y7xv6ym++RXcx5/kzJgCR/aMzcCx8y1VRLD0lhQ3cwHItbECP2Zwdci307xsnW Keo79nVampiVNu+YtJFMqlpFp5mwr88QkCFtwMWTVhOSBsnCKl0sFuPjqlJvR6O9 ZIeLGEX4q1qsYl3iT3oRVe8Tt1B38DTidXKoGQNTbBbD8VQgr2vWOqD7b4RNfl5X eSdnDgEspQxeu5jkSzYycU2LCrzEQw8KwHizcnEVExQvbrgXbrGIQ8Nqmq7yFGc= =aJHr -----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 gurstein at gmail.com Wed Nov 14 02:53:54 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 23:53:54 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [TriumphOfContent] Starbucks wakes up and smells the stench of tax avoidance controversy (are Google, Amazon and eBay next... Message-ID: <14a801cdc23d$4e3f7e70$eabe7b50$@gmail.com> From: TriumphOfContent at yahoogroups.com [mailto:TriumphOfContent at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Anjana Basu Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:36 PM Subject: [TriumphOfContent] Starbucks wakes up and smells the stench of tax avoidance controversy Starbucks wakes up and smells the stench of tax avoidance controversy Cafe chain executive to face questions from MPs, while protesters plan to turn branches into creches and refuges * Share43 * * * inShare0 * Email * Simon Neville and Shiv Malik * The Guardian, Monday 12 November 2012 Starbucks Police protect a Starbucks branch during an anti-cuts march last month after the company's low tax bill was revealed. Photograph: Suzanne Plunkett/Reuters On an average day its outlets are a hive of social activity, hosting everything from business meetings to reading groups looking for that all-important appointment with a morning caffeine rush, approvingly overlooked by a branded community bulletin board. But Starbucksshould be careful what it wishes for. The direct action group UK Uncut plans to turn dozens of the coffee empire's UK branches into creches, refuges and homeless shelters to highlight the chain's tax avoidance tactics. The announcement of the action comes on the day a Starbucks executive faces questions from the House of Commons public accounts committee over why the company paid no corporation tax in the UK during the past three years, despite senior US management trumpeting the company's profitable operations in Britain. MPs will also question management representatives from Google and Amazon, both of which have faced criticism for basing their European operations in countries that have lower tax rates such as Ireland and Luxembourg. In his appearance before the committee, Starbucks' chief financial officer, Troy Alstead, will attempt to repair the company's reputation, which, according to research by YouGov, continues to suffer because of the controversy. In a similar session last week, MPs accused HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) officials of having cosy relationships with big businesses. Speaking about the arrangements with Starbucks, the Conservative MP Richard Bacon said: "It smells – and it doesn't smell of coffee. It smells bad." UK Uncut has said it will start targeting Starbucks on the Saturday following the autumn statement by the chancellor, George Osborne, on 8 December. The campaign group is attempting to draw a link between government cuts, in particular those that affect women, and tax avoidance by multinational businesses. Sarah Greene, a UK Uncut activist, said funding for refuges and rape crisis centres faced cuts unless companies paid their fair share of tax. HMRC estimates around £32bn was lost to tax avoidance last year. Greene said the government could easily bring in billions that could fund vital services by clamping down on tax avoidance, but was instead "making cuts that are forcing women to choose between motherhood and work, and trapping them in abusive relationships". The group, which rose to prominence after staging a sit-in at Vodafone stores, Sir Philip Green's Topshop and Fortnum & Mason, turned its attentions to Starbucks last month after an investigation by Reuters discovered the company had paid only £8.6m in corporation tax since launching in the UK 14 years ago, despite cumulative sales of £3bn. Longstanding Uncut campaigner Anna Walker said the group wanted to "galvanise the anger" that women were feeling: "We've chosen to really highlight the impact of the cuts on women this time. So there is going to be a real focus on transforming Starbucks into those services that are being cut by the government [such as] refuges and creches," she said. Walker said the campaign group had been in touch with women's groups across the country in the lead-up to the direct action event and believed that, along with a pre-established network of activists, dozens of the company's coffee shops were likely to be targeted. "Starbucks is a really great target because it is on every high street across the country and that's what UK Uncut finds really important: people can take action in their local areas," she said. "We're really hoping that women who are impacted by the cuts, who are seeing their Sure Start centres where their kids go being reduced in services, and people who use refuges, [will] be involved." Several international organisations have faced criticism over their UK accounts, with Amazon, eBay, Facebook, Google and Ikea all paying little or no corporation tax despite large British operations. However, according to pollsters at YouGov's BrandIndex, Starbucks has suffered the deepest damage to its image. The organisation, which records the strength of companies' brand identities, revealed Starbucks' cachet plummeted following the tax revelations and continues to languish at near-record lows. Its "buzz" score, which measures the number of negative and positive comments customers have heard, hit -16.7. That is only slightly higher than the lowest levels it hit during the most heated point of the controversy last month, at -28.6. A year ago its rating was at +3.1. By comparison, Google and Amazon – both due at the select committee – have seen their ratings seemingly unaffected. UK BrandIndex director Sarah Murphy said: "A brand's buzz score typically recovers quite quickly following a spate of bad press, but we aren't seeing that with Starbucks, which is quite unusual. Its scores started to level out around the end of last month, but whatever modest recovery Starbucks has made could well be in jeopardy if this story flares up again in the media." The coffee store chain insists it pays the correct level of taxes. The group chief executive, Howard Schultz, has said in a statement: "Starbucks has always paid taxes in the UK despite recent suggestions to the contrary. "Over the last three years alone, our company has paid more than £160m in various taxes, including national insurance contributions, VAT and business rates." However, MPs will no doubt point out that VAT is paid by the customers at point of sale and collected by Starbucks. Margaret Hodge, who chairs the public accounts committee, told parliament last month that Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google and Starbucks had avoided nearly £900m of tax. The prime minister, David Cameron responded to the claim by saying: "I'm not happy with the current situation. I think [HMRC] needs to look at it very carefully. We do need to make sure we are encouraging these businesses to invest in our country as they are but they should be paying fair taxes as well." A spokeswoman for Starbucks said on Sunday: "While the subject of tax law can be extremely complex, Starbucks respects and complies with tax laws and accounting rules" in each of the 61 countries where we do business, including the UK – a market that we remain committed to for the long term. We've posted the facts about our tax practices in the UK on our website . "Starbucks' economic impact in the UK spans far beyond our stores and partners (employees). We spend hundreds of millions of pounds with local suppliers on milk, cakes and sandwiches, and on store design and renovations. When you take into account the indirect employment created by Starbucks' investments in the UK, the company's extended economic impact to the UK economy exceeds £80m annually. "We hope that UK Uncut will respect the wellbeing of our partners and customers, and recognise the value that we add to the economy, creating jobs and apprenticeships, as well as paying our fair share of taxes in the UK." http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/12/starbucks-tax-avoidance-contr oversy __._,_.___ Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1) Recent Activity: Visit Your Group Yahoo! Groups Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback . __,_._,___ !DSPAM:2676,50a33bbb25482034315653! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Nov 14 03:46:29 2012 From: Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org (Stuart Hamilton) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:46:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF Workshops In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54A34818249DE34CB1697E94F0553F3701E5A528@mfp01.IFLA.lan> Hi Adam From the perspective of the library groups at the IGF we also felt that the quality of the workshops was good. We tried to put reports about the ones we were involved in as up as we went along, so please feel free to take a look here: http://www.ifla.org/news/igf-baku-workshop-130-outcomes-digital-inclusio n-and-public-access-to-the-internet http://www.ifla.org/news/igf-baku-workshop-168-outcomes-capacity-buildin g-initiatives http://www.ifla.org/news/igf-baku-workshop-146-outcomes-intellectual-pro perty-rights-and-the-freedom-to-share A background brief on libraries and public access was produced by all the library groups present, and ISOC, and can be found here: http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/clm/WSIS/libraries_public_access.pdf Our first Dynamic Coalition workshop also went well, so there will be outcomes from that to share soon enough. For those of you interested in issues relating to public access to the Internet please consider joining the DC's mailing list: http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/pal-dc In general, I felt that that the sessions I got the most out of were those on intellectual property - there seemed to be more input from rightsholders this year (RIAA, Disney) and this made the discussions more interesting for me. It was good to get some input from the side of the media corps/reps as I feel previous IGF workshops on this topic have had quite a lot of groups from civil society in general agreement. Made for a better discussion. Cheers, Stuart -----Original Message----- From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: 13 November 2012 11:18 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] IGF Workshops A lot of people I spoke to in Baku last week were very positive about the workshops, pretty common message was that the content the best of any IGF. Not the main sessions, the workshops. I was working for the secretariat (contract ended with the conference), I didn't make it to any workshop, and not much outside the main hall. I'd love to hear of workshops and other meetings people found valuable. Is there something to build on for next year? Taking stock for the first consultation of next year will start soon (or soon'ish). 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 tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Wed Nov 14 04:07:39 2012 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 05:07:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF Workshops In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I would support the notion that the majority of the workshops at the IGF were of a high quality. There were still probably too many, to use ICANN jargon, "confusingly similar" topic overlaps (some more merging is required), and several feeder workshops into the Main Sessions occurred AFTER the Main Session (thereby generally defeating their purpose). The Main Sessions, were, all in all, in a word, weak and a few descended into what effectively was a large, unstructured workshop, with several panelists talking to themselves, answering their own questions, hogging the floor etc. Highly unacceptable behaviour. The Main Sessions are theoretically supposed to be the Reporting ground for the Feeder Workshops, with facilitated discussion and input by Main Session panelists, not a stump for panelists' views to overtake the opportunity. One must recall that this is a Forum, not a Conference or Seminar. Rgds, Tracy On Nov 13, 2012 6:18 AM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > A lot of people I spoke to in Baku last week were very positive about > the workshops, pretty common message was that the content the best of > any IGF. Not the main sessions, the workshops. I was working for the > secretariat (contract ended with the conference), I didn't make it to > any workshop, and not much outside the main hall. > > I'd love to hear of workshops and other meetings people found > valuable. Is there something to build on for next year? Taking stock > for the first consultation of next year will start soon (or soon'ish). > > 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 lucabelli at hotmail.it Wed Nov 14 06:00:40 2012 From: lucabelli at hotmail.it (Luca Belli) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:00:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF Workshops In-Reply-To: <54A34818249DE34CB1697E94F0553F3701E5A528@mfp01.IFLA.lan> References: ,<54A34818249DE34CB1697E94F0553F3701E5A528@mfp01.IFLA.lan> Message-ID: Dear all, My impression is that the workshop quality has increased, compared to IGF 6. I think some efforts may be done in order to merge overlapping workshops but it is important to stress the distinction between “duplicate workshops” and workshops that analyse similar issues from a different angle. Indeed, many of the workshops have similar titles but completely different contents, format, etc. For the sake of competition, I would say that it is better to have a wider choice of similar workshops and let the IGF participants “vote with their feet” by participating to the most valuable ones, rather than oblige workshop organisers to merge. Furthermore, I would like to join Stuart’s nice comment on Workshop 146 (Intellectual Property Rights and the freedom to share: are the two compatible?). Although my opinion is not really impartial, because I was directly involved in the organization of the workshop, I have to say that I received a lot of positive feedbacks and the participants where extremely pleased by three main features of the session: 1) the workshop was an interactive roundtable: panellists engaged in a question-and-answer debate since the very beginning and they were not allowed to deliver lectures (they had a maximum of 3-4 minutes to reply my questions); 2) a large portion of the workshop was dedicated to interventions from the audience. Indeed, we all know that some of the most interesting inputs to the workshops discussions frequently come from the audience; 3) we have decided to promote an intergenerational dialogue: the panel make-up included 11 panellists that were born between the 1950s and 1990s, and that was a real surplus value. I know that is not realistic to involve youngsters in every workshop, but I believe that the promotion of an intergenerational dialogue is the best way to seize the dynamics of an intergenerational Internet. Moreover, having some new faces around can just help strengthen the “legitimacy” of the IGF discussions. Best regards. Luca PS: the workshop report will be available by the end of the week Luca Belli Doctorant en Droit PublicCERSA,Université Panthéon-AssasSorbonne University > Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:46:29 +0100 > From: Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; ajp at glocom.ac.jp > Subject: RE: [governance] IGF Workshops > > Hi Adam > > From the perspective of the library groups at the IGF we also felt that > the quality of the workshops was good. We tried to put reports about the > ones we were involved in as up as we went along, so please feel free to > take a look here: > > http://www.ifla.org/news/igf-baku-workshop-130-outcomes-digital-inclusio > n-and-public-access-to-the-internet > http://www.ifla.org/news/igf-baku-workshop-168-outcomes-capacity-buildin > g-initiatives > http://www.ifla.org/news/igf-baku-workshop-146-outcomes-intellectual-pro > perty-rights-and-the-freedom-to-share > > A background brief on libraries and public access was produced by all > the library groups present, and ISOC, and can be found here: > http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/clm/WSIS/libraries_public_access.pdf > > Our first Dynamic Coalition workshop also went well, so there will be > outcomes from that to share soon enough. For those of you interested in > issues relating to public access to the Internet please consider joining > the DC's mailing list: http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/pal-dc > > In general, I felt that that the sessions I got the most out of were > those on intellectual property - there seemed to be more input from > rightsholders this year (RIAA, Disney) and this made the discussions > more interesting for me. It was good to get some input from the side of > the media corps/reps as I feel previous IGF workshops on this topic have > had quite a lot of groups from civil society in general agreement. Made > for a better discussion. > > Cheers, > > Stuart > > -----Original Message----- > From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake > Sent: 13 November 2012 11:18 > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] IGF Workshops > > A lot of people I spoke to in Baku last week were very positive about > the workshops, pretty common message was that the content the best of > any IGF. Not the main sessions, the workshops. I was working for the > secretariat (contract ended with the conference), I didn't make it to > any workshop, and not much outside the main hall. > > I'd love to hear of workshops and other meetings people found valuable. > Is there something to build on for next year? Taking stock for the > first consultation of next year will start soon (or soon'ish). > > Thanks, > > Adam > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 14 07:39:34 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 01:39:34 +1300 Subject: [governance] Thank You Izumi Message-ID: Dear All, It is that time of the year when we must bid a Coordinator goodbye. Izumi Aizu is no stranger to the IGC. Thank you Izumi for your services to the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus as a coordinator. On behalf of the community, I would like to say thank you for your dedication, diligence, wisdom, insight and passion with which you carried out your Tasks. Kindly consider this as our personal and corporate gratitude as has been articulated ever so eloquently by others. We wish you well in your services to the MAG and will continue to seek yours and those that have held former coordinator positions within the IGC. Warm Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji 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 Nov 14 07:42:11 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 01:42:11 +1300 Subject: [governance] Notice of Intention to Facilitate the Election Process for Coordinator [IGC] Message-ID: Dear All, Kindly consider this formal notice that in the not too distant future, we will be initiating the electoral process in relation to the appointment of a Coordinator. In the meantime, please make every effort to start looking for possible nominees or candidates for the role of coordinator within the IGC. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Wed Nov 14 07:54:55 2012 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:54:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Thank You Izumi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <009e01cdc267$3f2f0ac0$bd8d2040$@benjemaa@planet.tn> Dear Izumi, Thank you for serving as IGC coordinator. You did it fairly and properly. Thank you for your time and your dedication. We will still work together here and elsewhere. So it is not a “goodbye”, it is “see you” --------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Vice Chair of the CIC World Federation of Engineering Organizations (WFEO) Phone: +216 98 330 114 Mobile: +216 41 649 605 Fax: +216 70 825 231 --------------------------------------------------------------------- De : governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] De la part de Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Envoyé : mercredi 14 novembre 2012 13:40 À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org Objet : [governance] Thank You Izumi Dear All, It is that time of the year when we must bid a Coordinator goodbye. Izumi Aizu is no stranger to the IGC. Thank you Izumi for your services to the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus as a coordinator. On behalf of the community, I would like to say thank you for your dedication, diligence, wisdom, insight and passion with which you carried out your Tasks. Kindly consider this as our personal and corporate gratitude as has been articulated ever so eloquently by others. We wish you well in your services to the MAG and will continue to seek yours and those that have held former coordinator positions within the IGC. Warm Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 _____ Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2629/5892 - Date: 13/11/2012 -------------- 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 gideonrop at gmail.com Wed Nov 14 08:01:23 2012 From: gideonrop at gmail.com (Gideon) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:01:23 +0300 Subject: [governance] Thank You Izumi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Izumi Aizu, Allow me to appreciate you for your active participation and coordinating the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus . Your service and dedication will be remembed by all of us. Wishing you well in all your present and future endevours. Gideon Rop. On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > It is that time of the year when we must bid a Coordinator goodbye. Izumi > Aizu is no stranger to the IGC. Thank you Izumi for your services to the > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus as a coordinator. On behalf of the > community, I would like to say thank you for your dedication, diligence, > wisdom, insight and passion with which you carried out your Tasks. > > Kindly consider this as our personal and corporate gratitude as has been > articulated ever so eloquently by others. We wish you well in your services > to the MAG and will continue to seek yours and those that have held former > coordinator positions within the IGC. > > Warm Regards, > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji 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 gurstein at gmail.com Wed Nov 14 12:49:59 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:49:59 -0800 Subject: [governance] Brazilian newspapers leave Google News en masse Message-ID: <16ec01cdc290$8deed090$a9cc71b0$@gmail.com> (I don't believe that this below has been circulated to the governance list... Is this part of an emerging trend of resistance to current Internet business models and how much of this underlies the push forward and push back by various of the forces contending around the WCIT/ITU discussions? viz. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet -regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ and particulalry the comments... http://knightcenter.utexas.edu/blog/00-11803-brazilian-newspapers-leave-goog le-news-en-masse Brazil's main newspapers abandoned Google News after the world's top search engine refused to compensate them for the rights to their headlines. The mass rush started last year when the National Association of Newspapers in Brazil, or ANJ, began recommending its members to opt out of the service. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 14 12:59:46 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:59:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] Brazilian newspapers leave Google News en masse In-Reply-To: <16ec01cdc290$8deed090$a9cc71b0$@gmail.com> References: <16ec01cdc290$8deed090$a9cc71b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DAE05F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Michael, I would see less politics and more business in this piece of news. The Brazilian newspapers have complained that people read only the headlines in Google News and then don't go to the assumedly profit-making content on their sites. So there may be many ways to read this but one is that their content is not interesting enough- even that which is free and is monetized through advertising. Further they seem to have decided in favor of their business and against their readers. The readers will still be able to find a lot of the news in other ways, of course, since so much of news today has become a commodity. But, it is easy to blame others, right? Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 14 de noviembre de 2012 11:49 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: [governance] Brazilian newspapers leave Google News en masse (I don't believe that this below has been circulated to the governance list... Is this part of an emerging trend of resistance to current Internet business models and how much of this underlies the push forward and push back by various of the forces contending around the WCIT/ITU discussions? viz. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet -regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ and particulalry the comments... http://knightcenter.utexas.edu/blog/00-11803-brazilian-newspapers-leave-goog le-news-en-masse Brazil's main newspapers abandoned Google News after the world's top search engine refused to compensate them for the rights to their headlines. The mass rush started last year when the National Association of Newspapers in Brazil, or ANJ, began recommending its members to opt out of the service. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 14 13:31:53 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 07:31:53 +1300 Subject: [governance] Thank You Izumi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, The phrase, " ....will continue to seek yours and those that have held former coordinator positions within the IGC. " should read "we will continue to seek your wise counsel alongwith those who have held former coordinator positions within IGC." I regret the inconvenience caused. On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Gideon wrote: > Izumi Aizu, > > Allow me to appreciate you for your active participation and coordinating > the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus . Your service and dedication > will be remembed by all of us. > > Wishing you well in all your present and future endevours. > > Gideon Rop. > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> It is that time of the year when we must bid a Coordinator goodbye. Izumi >> Aizu is no stranger to the IGC. Thank you Izumi for your services to the >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus as a coordinator. On behalf of the >> community, I would like to say thank you for your dedication, diligence, >> wisdom, insight and passion with which you carried out your Tasks. >> >> Kindly consider this as our personal and corporate gratitude as has been >> articulated ever so eloquently by others. We wish you well in your services >> to the MAG and will continue to seek yours and those that have held former >> coordinator positions within the IGC. >> >> Warm Regards, >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Tel: +679 3544828 >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Nov 14 13:44:47 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:44:47 -0800 Subject: [governance] Brazilian newspapers leave Google News en masse In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DAE05F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <16ec01cdc290$8deed090$a9cc71b0$@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DAE05F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <174101cdc298$20a871a0$61f954e0$@gmail.com> Hi Alejandro, But if you combine this with the earlier but parallel note re: German and French publications (and the possibiity of the government of France intervening directly) then what may have been "business" very quickly becomes "politics" and begins, perhaps to reveal the underlying issue. This issue being that the current Internet "business model(s)" are resulting in structured inequalities as some businesses (and countries) are benefiting inordinately (now and likely even more in the future) while others are benefiting less and still others (such as most LDC's) aren't economically benefiting at all now (or even likely in the future) except in the vague and rhetorical sense of "opening themselves to innovation/competition etc.etc.... This isn't to argue for a specific intervention or set of interventions (at this stage it isn't clear what could or should be done) or even less to argue against the acceptance of Internet penetration. Rather it is to note that there is a (very rapidly emerging) problem of emerging inequities here and one that will need to be addressed and probably sooner rather than later--unless of course, the world can be persuaded that these processes are somehow inevitable (and thus necessary) or in everyone's interests (some -- the current beneficiaries -- getting their benefits immediately or in the short term, while for others the possible benefits are in the rather vague and somewhat mystical future... M -----Original Message----- From: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch [mailto:apisan at unam.mx] Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 10:00 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: RE: [governance] Brazilian newspapers leave Google News en masse Michael, I would see less politics and more business in this piece of news. The Brazilian newspapers have complained that people read only the headlines in Google News and then don't go to the assumedly profit-making content on their sites. So there may be many ways to read this but one is that their content is not interesting enough- even that which is free and is monetized through advertising. Further they seem to have decided in favor of their business and against their readers. The readers will still be able to find a lot of the news in other ways, of course, since so much of news today has become a commodity. But, it is easy to blame others, right? Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 14 de noviembre de 2012 11:49 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: [governance] Brazilian newspapers leave Google News en masse (I don't believe that this below has been circulated to the governance list... Is this part of an emerging trend of resistance to current Internet business models and how much of this underlies the push forward and push back by various of the forces contending around the WCIT/ITU discussions? viz. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet -regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ and particulalry the comments... http://knightcenter.utexas.edu/blog/00-11803-brazilian-newspapers-leave-goog le-news-en-masse Brazil's main newspapers abandoned Google News after the world's top search engine refused to compensate them for the rights to their headlines. The mass rush started last year when the National Association of Newspapers in Brazil, or ANJ, began recommending its members to opt out of the service. = -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 14 14:09:54 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:09:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] Brazilian newspapers leave Google News en masse In-Reply-To: <174101cdc298$20a871a0$61f954e0$@gmail.com> References: <16ec01cdc290$8deed090$a9cc71b0$@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DAE05F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>,<174101cdc298$20a871a0$61f954e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DAE0685@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Michael, the perfect ideological cover. Next step the "made in France" Google which for all I know has failed to materialize. Just to get a fact in the way of theory. There is a brilliant Brazilian mathematician and computer scientist who built a great search-engine company in Belo Horizonte. It got to be so good that Google bought it from him to create their first innovation lab in Latin America. So the talent was there, he had a great business as well as community service vision, yet the capital was not there to take that business to the next step - benefits in a vague future? This goes well with Peter Cowhey's brilliant analysis. One instance of this is that the innovation we are speaking about here is fuelled by the money these companies get in advertising. He then provides a quick comparison of what that money is in the US and in developing countries... and you could sink into a deep depression when you see the figures. No other source - certainly not governments - is making that kind of money and it could be cause of (mostly justified) fiery public political protests if they did. If you'd rather postpone innovation for the sake of waiting for the "right" socially-conscious business model you may have lost me but for the most extreme rapacity cases and those which egregiously ignore the Precautionary Principle. I don't have a solution for this very complex set of problems but am certain that none will be found until we begin to pose the right questions. (and in this list we must return to Internet Governance.) Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 14 de noviembre de 2012 12:44 Hasta: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: RE: [governance] Brazilian newspapers leave Google News en masse Hi Alejandro, But if you combine this with the earlier but parallel note re: German and French publications (and the possibiity of the government of France intervening directly) then what may have been "business" very quickly becomes "politics" and begins, perhaps to reveal the underlying issue. This issue being that the current Internet "business model(s)" are resulting in structured inequalities as some businesses (and countries) are benefiting inordinately (now and likely even more in the future) while others are benefiting less and still others (such as most LDC's) aren't economically benefiting at all now (or even likely in the future) except in the vague and rhetorical sense of "opening themselves to innovation/competition etc.etc.... This isn't to argue for a specific intervention or set of interventions (at this stage it isn't clear what could or should be done) or even less to argue against the acceptance of Internet penetration. Rather it is to note that there is a (very rapidly emerging) problem of emerging inequities here and one that will need to be addressed and probably sooner rather than later--unless of course, the world can be persuaded that these processes are somehow inevitable (and thus necessary) or in everyone's interests (some -- the current beneficiaries -- getting their benefits immediately or in the short term, while for others the possible benefits are in the rather vague and somewhat mystical future... M -----Original Message----- From: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch [mailto:apisan at unam.mx] Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 10:00 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: RE: [governance] Brazilian newspapers leave Google News en masse Michael, I would see less politics and more business in this piece of news. The Brazilian newspapers have complained that people read only the headlines in Google News and then don't go to the assumedly profit-making content on their sites. So there may be many ways to read this but one is that their content is not interesting enough- even that which is free and is monetized through advertising. Further they seem to have decided in favor of their business and against their readers. The readers will still be able to find a lot of the news in other ways, of course, since so much of news today has become a commodity. But, it is easy to blame others, right? Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 14 de noviembre de 2012 11:49 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: [governance] Brazilian newspapers leave Google News en masse (I don't believe that this below has been circulated to the governance list... Is this part of an emerging trend of resistance to current Internet business models and how much of this underlies the push forward and push back by various of the forces contending around the WCIT/ITU discussions? viz. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet -regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ and particulalry the comments... http://knightcenter.utexas.edu/blog/00-11803-brazilian-newspapers-leave-goog le-news-en-masse Brazil's main newspapers abandoned Google News after the world's top search engine refused to compensate them for the rights to their headlines. The mass rush started last year when the National Association of Newspapers in Brazil, or ANJ, began recommending its members to opt out of the service. = -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ivarhartmann at gmail.com Wed Nov 14 15:39:49 2012 From: ivarhartmann at gmail.com (Ivar A. M. Hartmann) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:39:49 -0200 Subject: [governance] Vacancy: DP Advisor-Perm-Anywhere in Europe Message-ID: FYI *De: *Privacy Laws & Business *Fecha: *14 de noviembre de 2012 10:06:27 GMT-05:00 *Asunto: **Vacancy: DP Advisor-Perm-Anywhere in Europe* This e-mail was sent to you being a member of our e-mail list. Click here to unsubscribe . Click here to view the email in your browser [image: Header] *Group Data Protection Advisor-Perm-Anywhere in Europe* November 14, 2012 Dear Mr Iriarte Ahon Group Data Protection Advisor-Perm-Anywhere in Europe This organisation provides integrated IT and telecoms services to its international clients. The Group Data Protection Advisor will: - Lead data protection policy and product strategy - Create and communicate a data protection strategy in all the organisation's aspects, including compliance with relevant rules and how it can best market existing and develop new products that allow its customers to demonstrate compliance with data protection rules (including sectorial facets of these rules) - Initiate, develop and lead external policy influencing strategies on data protection and lead their execution in the countries that the organisation operates - Keep the existing data protection framework and its implementation under review, streamlining and simplifying processes where necessary - Provide data protection training to the business as appropriate - Contribute to general activities of the Compliance and Licensing team including amongst other things streamlining compliance processes, helping implementation across the organisation, or responding to ad hoc queries The ideal candidate will have: - Extensive experience as a European data protection expert (preferably within the communications, IT or managed services sector) - Extensive experience in communicating complex matters concisely to non-specialist audiences both in verbal and written form - Pan-European experience with data protection rules, especially in Germany, France and Spain (German speaker prefered) - International mind-set, understanding of differences in regulatory culture across the EU - Experience in risk evaluation and pragmatic and commercially-minded approach to compliance If you are interested in this vacancy please send your CV to Glenn Daif-Burns (*glenn at privacylaws.com *) Regards Glenn Glenn Daif-Burns Business Development & Recruitment Service Manager Privacy Laws & Business 2nd Floor Monument House 215 Marsh Road Pinner Middx HA5 5NE United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)20 8868 9200 Fax: +44 (0)20 8868 5215 E-mail: glenn.daif-burns at privacylaws.com Web: www.privacylaws.com ****************************************** This document should be read only by those persons to whom it is addressed. Its contents are private and confidential. If you receive this email message in error, notify the sender immediately and do not disclose, copy or distribute this message, or open any attachments. PL&B monitors e-mails to ensure its systems operate effectively and to minimise the risk of viruses. Whilst it has taken reasonable steps to scan this email, it does not accept liability for any virus that may be contained in it. ****************************************** Copyright 2012 Privacy Laws & Business [image: Footer bottom] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 15 04:04:27 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:04:27 +0900 Subject: [governance] UN General Assembly draft resolution on WSIS+10 Message-ID: UN General Assembly is discussing a resolution about the WSIS+10 review, see attached. (Link to the second committee "Information and communications technologies for development".) Proposing a review conference on the outcomes of WSIS. This review conference will be arranged through an intergovernmental preparatory committee which will define the conference agenda, decide how other stakeholders will participate, and will finalize an outcome document. (see paras 12-14). Not good: in terms of participation and agenda setting, we're back to pre-WSIS 2003. Paras 23-24 talk about Enhanced Cooperation and uses CSTD to look again at 68-71 of the Tunis Agenda. Another working group, but this one more controlled by UN rather than rules that might be established by the chair of the CSTD (as I understand the last WG's procedures were.) Talking to one government about this process, they said best if we lobby our respective governments about any changes, and that there's not much time, the resolution should be finalized by early December. Adam -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UN GA document N1258164.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 56917 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 Thu Nov 15 09:06:00 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:06:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] REMINDER / No Disconnect Strategy / Workshop on a "European Capability for Situational Awareness" / 23 November 2012, Brussels, Belgium Message-ID: [ Apologies if you receive this e-mail more than once. Please share among all your relevant contacts ] *Short version* You are all kindly invited to a workshop which will be held on 23 November 2012 in Brussels, Belgium, to discuss a key component of the "No Disconnect Strategy" of the European Commission, i.e. the development of a "European Capability for Situational Awareness". The purpose of ECSA is to augment EU decision-making capabilities with reliable and real-time (or almost real-time) information concerning human rights violations in connection with the digital environment. For further information see the full invitation below and the webpage at http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/no-disconnect-strategy-workshop-european-capability-situational-awareness-23-november-2012, where you can also find the updated agenda (also attached to this email). For further information on the content of the workshop, please write to me ( Andrea.Glorioso at ec.europa.eu). To participate in the workshop (no fee, but no reimbursement of expenses, either) please write to Ms Katrin Alfano (Katrin.Alfano at ec.europa.eu) with your name/surname, nationality and ID / passport number. *Please note that registration is compulsory to be able to access the buildings of the European Commission*. *Long version* In December 2011 Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the European Commission and Commissioner for the Digital Agenda, launched the "No Disconnect Strategy" (NDS), to support and assist human rights defenders, civil society organizations and individual citizens against arbitrary disruptions to the Internet and other electronic communication technologies and indiscriminate surveillance in authoritarian regimes. [1] One of the components of the NDS is the development of a "European Capability for Situational Awareness" (ECSA) platform. The purpose of the ECSA platform is to augment EU decision-making capabilities with reliable and real-time or almost real-time information concerning human rights violations and/or restrictions of fundamental freedoms in connection with the digital environment. ECSA would seamlessly aggregate public data from different sources and with innovative visualisation techniques, to provide information on: a) What is happening in the Net, in terms of network connectivity and traffic alterations or restrictions. The platform should integrate and visualize different data sets analysing the "state of the Internet" (nation-, region- or local disconnection, filtering, blocking and other forms of disruptions) in order to allow decision-makers to act upon reliable data concerning the "cyber-geography" of Internet connectivity. b) What is happening on the ground, in terms of human rights, media, legal and policy developments concerning the Internet. The platform should integrate and visualise data sets analysing legal and political developments "on the ground" (e.g. arrests of journalists, crack-downs on local NGOs, etc). We are well aware that there are a number of projects which are working on very similar challenges – and some of these projects might have already developed parts of what the ECSA platform wishes to achieve. Accordingly, the European Commission / DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology would like to invite you to a workshop which will take place in Brussels (Avenue de Beaulieu 25 – Building BU25 – Meeting room 0/S1) on 23 November 2012, from 09:30 to 17:00, in order to: • present and discuss the scope, objectives and "success criteria" of the ECSA platform; • present and discuss some of the projects that are working in this field; • provide the opportunity for (social) networking and; • identify the best way in which the EU can provide added value to strengthen on-going activities and achieve the objectives of the ECSA platform, including (where appropriate) via financial support; The workshop is meant to be as informal and operational as possible. If you think you are working on a project that should be presented / discussed during the workshop, please let us know by writing to Mr Andrea Glorioso ( Andrea.Glorioso at ec.europa.eu). Further details, including the draft agenda of the workshop, are available at http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/no-disconnect-strategy-workshop-european-capability-situational-awareness-23-november-2012. If you wish to participate, please send your name / family name, nationality and ID / passport number to Ms Katrin Alfano ( Katrin.Alfano at ec.europa.eu). Please note that registration is compulsory to be able to access the buildings of the European Commission. Please also note that at this point in time the European Commission will not be in a position to reimburse travelling / living expenses for participants or speakers. Should the situation change we will inform you accordingly. [1] You can find further information on the NDS at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-11-866_en.htm?locale=en (speech of Vice-President Kroes at the Ministerial Conference on Internet Freedom, 9 December 2012, The Hague) as well as http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/neelie-kroes/ict-human-rights-guidance/ and http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/neelie-kroes/eu-fighting-cybercensorship/(updates / further info on the work conducted so far). -- 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: agenda-20121115-ag1.doc.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 79353 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 Thu Nov 15 10:13:58 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:13:58 +0900 Subject: [governance] Thank You Izumi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sala and all, Thank you so much for the warm words, as well as warm hearts behind, for my service. As Tijani said, I am not leaving IGC at all thus See you soon, perhaps, would fit. In any case, I thank all of your support, and let's work together more to promote our civil society agenda in the Internet and related policy and governance arena. I also like to encourage those who have the energy and skills to consider the co-coordinator's position. It is a service for all. best, izumi 2012/11/15 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro : > Dear All, > > The phrase, " ....will continue to seek yours and those that have held > former coordinator positions within the IGC. " should read "we will > continue to seek your wise counsel alongwith those who have held former > coordinator positions within IGC." > > I regret the inconvenience caused. > > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Gideon wrote: >> >> Izumi Aizu, >> >> Allow me to appreciate you for your active participation and coordinating >> the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus . Your service and dedication >> will be remembed by all of us. >> >> Wishing you well in all your present and future endevours. >> >> Gideon Rop. >> >> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> It is that time of the year when we must bid a Coordinator goodbye. Izumi >>> Aizu is no stranger to the IGC. Thank you Izumi for your services to the >>> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus as a coordinator. On behalf of the >>> community, I would like to say thank you for your dedication, diligence, >>> wisdom, insight and passion with which you carried out your Tasks. >>> >>> Kindly consider this as our personal and corporate gratitude as has been >>> articulated ever so eloquently by others. We wish you well in your services >>> to the MAG and will continue to seek yours and those that have held former >>> coordinator positions within the IGC. >>> >>> Warm Regards, >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> P.O. Box 17862 >>> Suva >>> Fiji >>> >>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan 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 gpaque at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 11:42:07 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:42:07 -0600 Subject: [governance] Introduction to Internet Governance: Call for applications Message-ID: Diplo's Introduction to IG will be offered online in February 2013. Please help us reach those who might be interested. See complete details at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/IGCBP-foundation *You are involved in human rights online, but wickitee (WCIT) sounds like something used to play cricket, ETNO sounds like the name of a robot, and Baku like an exotic vacation spot. Or you know what SOPA/PIPA refers to (right: alphabet soup in Spanish), but FoE caught you off guard. Maybe you work on child safety issues every day, but need to understand the legal implications and complexities of jurisdiction in the borderless online world. One way to link the different issues (tech/social/development/economic/legal/security), and to fill in any gaps across professional and issue areas is to step back and take a look at the big picture of the overall issues. You can analyse how they affect each other, discuss the topics with colleagues who work in one area, and share your expertise in another. You can see how experts from different regions are addressing the same issues or different priorities. You can do this online, in just 8-10 hours a week, by participating in DiploFoundation’s Introduction to Internet Governance course, starting 18 February 2013. Call for applications DiploFoundation is currently accepting applications for its online course, Introduction to Internet Governance (IG). This course is designed to improve Internet policy and IG-related knowledge and skills for participants from both developed and developing countries. It empowers them to participate in global policy-making on IG, and stimulates critical and dynamic debate among individuals with different national, cultural, and stakeholder backgrounds. Participants focus on controversial IG topics from different perspectives: security/privacy, protection/human rights, economy/access, and other apparent dichotomies. About the course The Introduction to Internet Governance is spread over 10 weeks, starting with an online classroom orientation week, followed by 8 weeks of coursework, and a final exam week. The course introduces IG policy and covers five thematic areas - Infrastructure and Standardisation, Legal, Economic, Sociocultural, and Development aspects - and also has a section on IG processes and actors. Discussions will cover issues such as broadband policy; management of domain names and IP addresses, including the transition from IPv4 to IPv6; network neutrality; jurisdiction, intellectual property rights, open source and piracy; privacy protection; data security and cybersecurity; child protection; human rights; content management; digital signatures; emerging issues such as policies related to social networks and cloud computing, and more, with space for regional and other issues raised by participants. Learning activities take place in an online classroom and include the analysis of course materials; interactive group discussions using a variety of communication tools, assignments, and exams; and other dynamic methodologies. This course can be taken as follows: - As a DiploFoundation Certificate course Introduction to Internet Governance - As a University of Malta Accredited Course Introduction to Internet Governance (Request more information about the application process from admissions at diplomacy.edu) - As part of DiploFoundation’s and the University of Malta’s Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy, with a specialisation area in Internet governance DiploFoundation’s Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme The course Introduction to Internet Governance is part of Diplo’s Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (IGCBP). The 2013 programme consists of five phases: - The Foundation Phase introduces the main IG issues through the course Introduction to Internet Governance. This course is recommended if you are new to IG, or perhaps an expert in one specific area and would like to obtain an overview of IG issues and observe how they interrelate. - The Thematic Phase offers in-depth courses that provide deeper understanding of a particular issue: either a specific professional area, or an area outside of your expertise that you need to learn more about. The topics include Cybersecurity , E-participation , History of Internet Governance , ICT Policy and Strategic Planning , Infrastructure and Critical Internet Resources , Intellectual Property Rights, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection . - The Research Phase offers valuable techniques if you are planning to undertake academic or policy research and writing. The Policy Research Methodology course addresses IG issues of relevance to participants’ respective countries and regions, and introduces action policy research with the aim of helping you develop solutions which you can apply in practice. - The Policy Immersion Phase is aimed at successful participants of the Foundation and Thematic Phases, and invites them to apply their knowledge and skills in the real-life policy space. - The Community of Practice Phase is an ongoing networking phase in which participants gather, work and network together around concrete projects in order to link the global policy process with local policy needs. Diplo offers many networking resources: an online community, a blog dedicated to IG, month webinars, and other activities and events . More information about the programme is available here . Languages The course materials, our e-learning platform, and the working language of the course is English. Applicants should consider whether their reading and writing skills in English are sufficient to follow university-level materials and discussion. Spanish, Portuguese, and French options may be offered. More information will be available later on possible second language options. In addition to English-speaking groups, a bilingual group may be formed for the course, having English as the primary language, and either Arabic, French, Spanish, or Portuguese as the secondary language for communication and interaction. This option will be offered depending on the needs of the applicants. Applicants to the bilingual groups (if offered) are asked to note that both languages are considered working languages within these groups. Reading and writing skills in English must be sufficient to understand learning materials and instructions, and for basic communication and interaction. Reading and writing skills in the second language must be sufficient for discussion and research purposes. Please request more information if you are interested in a second language option. Target audience Diplo seeks applications from the following categories of individuals from both developed and developing countries: - Officials in government ministries, departments, or institutions dealing with Information Society, Internet and ICT-related policy issues (e.g. telecommunications, education, foreign affairs, justice). - Postgraduate students, academics and researchers in the IG field (e.g. in telecommunications, electrical engineering, law, economics, development studies). - Civil society activists in the IG and Information Society fields. - Journalists covering IG issues. - Individuals in Internet-business fields (e.g. ISPs, software developers). This course may also be of interest to: - Practising diplomats, civil servants, and others working in international relations who want to refresh or expand their knowledge under the guidance of experienced practitioners and academics. - Postgraduate students of diplomacy or international relations wishing to study topics not offered through their university programmes or diplomatic academies and to gain deeper insight through interaction with practising diplomats. - Postgraduate students or practitioners in other fields seeking an entry point into the world of diplomacy. - Journalists, staff of international and non-governmental organisations, translators, business people and others who interact with diplomats and wish to improve their understanding of diplomacy-related topics. Timeline - 10 October: Call for applications for Introduction to Internet Governance begins - 17 December: Call for applications for Introduction to Internet Governance accredited course ends - 31 December: Call for applications for Introduction to Internet Governance certificate course ends - 18 January: Final selection results announced - 11 February: Classroom orientation week - 18 February: Introduction to Internet Governance course begins - To be announced: Call for applications for ICT Strategy and IG thematic courses begins Scholarships and fees Course fees depend on whether you wish to obtain university credit for the course: - €790 (University of Malta Accredited Course) - €600 (Diplo Certificate Course) A limited number of partial scholarships may be offered to participants from developing and emerging countries. As Diplo's ability to offer scholarship support is limited, you are strongly encouraged to seek scholarship funding directly from local or international institutions. Our guide to Finding Scholarships for Online Study may provide you with some useful starting points. Requirements Applicants for the certificate course must have: - IG knowledge and/or experience of the multistakeholder approach in international affairs. - Sufficient ability in the English language to undertake postgraduate level studies (including reading academic texts, discussing complex concepts with other course participants, and submitting written essay assignments). - Fluency in the second language for the applicants to any of the bilingual groups (if offered). - Regular access to the Internet (dial-up connection is sufficient, although broadband is preferable). - A minimum of 8-10 hours commitment per week, and the readiness to participate in class online sessions (once a week at specified times). - An undergraduate university degree OR three years of related work experience. In addition to the above, applicants for the accredited course must also meet University of Malta prerequisites: - Bachelor's degree in a relevant subject with at least Second Class Honours. - Proof of English language proficiency obtained within the last two years (minimum requirements TOEFL: paper-based – 650; Internet-based – 95. IELTS: 6.5. Cambridge: Proficiency Certificate with Grade C or better). If, when applying, you are still waiting for your English language proficiency results, the University may issue a conditional letter of acceptance. Deadlines The deadline for applications for the accredited course is 17 December, 2012 The deadline for applications for the certificate course is 31 December, 2012 How to apply Choose your preferred option: - Apply for this course as a Diplo Certificate Course. More Informationor Online Application Form - Apply for this course as a University of Malta Accredited Course University of Malta application formor write to Admissions at diplomacy.edu for more information - Take this course as part of the Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy For more information, please visit http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/IGCBP-foundation Contact us at ig at diplomacy.edu (certificate course) or admissions at diplomacy.edu (University of Malta accredited course).* Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig ** ** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 15 12:46:29 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:46:29 -0800 Subject: [governance] [Dewayne-Net] Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Regulatory Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network Message-ID: <000c01cdc359$32f16940$98d43bc0$@gmail.com> I'm sure this is naïve of me, but I'm wondering what the difference (at the level of principle) might be between arguing as below, for regulation (in support of the public interest) for an IP based network through the FCC and arguing for regulation of "the Internet" (in support of the public interest) at the WCIT/the ITU (as per for example http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet -regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ (and please could we discuss this at the level of theory/principle while avoiding US "exceptionalism"... M -----Original Message----- From: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com] On Behalf Of Dewayne Hendricks Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 2:46 PM To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network. By Harold Feld November 13, 2012 I believe AT&T’s announcement last week about its plans to upgrade its network and replace its rural copper lines with wireless is the single most important development in telecom since passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It impacts just about every aspect of wireline and wireless policy. For those who missed it in the morning-after blur of the election results, AT&T announced that it will invest an additional $14 billion to upgrade its wireline and wireless networks, so that it projects investing $22 billion a year for the next several years in capital expenditures (“CAPEX” as they say on “The Street”). At the end of the three year time frame, AT&T expects to have converted its existing “time division multiplexing” (TDM) phone network entirely to an IP-based network which will seamlessly mix its wireless, remaining souped-up copper, and fiber (but not fiber-to-the-home). Since all existing phone regulation governing universal service, consumer protection, and competition rest entirely on the existing TDM/copper network, AT&T simultaneously filed a petition with the FCC to “begin a dialog” on how to address the regulatory issues raised by this shift and proposing some entirely deregulated “pilot programs” to determine what regulations are “really” necessary. Setting aside my skepticism that these pilot programs offer anything of value, I thank AT&T for beginning with an offer to talk. At the same time, I’m mindful we need to get the key elements of the new framework down over the next year or two – which is practically nothing given the complexity of the issues and the number of stakeholders involved. It puts a premium on communities working quickly to come to internal consensus and on trying to bring as many allies to the table as possible. Ideally, we would set universal rules for all IP networks, but this would meet fierce resistance from existing IP-providers. Nevertheless, AT&T raises a valid point of concern if the rules for the TDM to IP apply only to it and other Local Exchange Carriers (LECs) upgrading their networks. The FCC must balance these concerns about competition and fairness with the broader questions of what happens when our 100-year-old copper safety net gets replaced by an essentially unregulated IP-based networks. What’s At Stake? Everything In Telecom Policy. To list just the headline questions: • What happens to the concept of universal service, particularly in rural areas? AT&T itself says in its announcement that its new combined 4G LTE and wireline IP footprint will cover "Ninety-nine percent of existing customer locations." That loss of 1%, while small in absolute terms, potentially means many thousands of people losing access to basic phone service. • Even if AT&T’s wireless footprint precisely overlapped its rural copper footprint, there would still be significant questions about reliability and price. Traditional phone service has minimum standards of quality enforceable at the local level, and in most states a requirement to offer basic voice service at a regulated price. This combination of a requirement to serve everyone in the service territory, at a minimum standard and to offer a basic, affordable voice option is generally thought of as “Carrier of Last Resort” (CoLR) regulations. If AT&T transition to IP-based networks and eliminates its CoLR obligations associated with its traditional telephone service, what happens? In rural areas, wireless signal might not have the same quality as existing copper, or it might become unaffordable for poor subscribers in rural and urban neighborhoods where low-income families rely on a low-cost basic voice service. [MG>] (Snipped... Lot's of important stuff on regulatory/deregulatory telecom/IP issues in the US .... Conclusion: Every stakeholder community needs to carefully consider its position and come ready for some hard bargaining. The traditional battle lines and positions need to be carefully reexamined. The world is changing, and it will make a radical change like this only once. This is not the time to repeat the rote responses of the past. This is not going to be some Libertarian nirvana where the regulatory state withers away and we shall move from each according to his need to each according to his ability to pay. Neither is traditional regulation going to remain unchanged. Anyone taking either position is effectively removing him or herself from the real conversation that must take place. What we need to do, individually and collectively, is figure out how to take the values of the 100-year old social contract in telecom that has served us so well as a nation and decide how to express those values in concrete terms for the next generation of networks. That won’t be easy. But stuff that matters never is. Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 15 14:44:46 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:44:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] [Dewayne-Net] Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Regulatory Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network In-Reply-To: <000c01cdc359$32f16940$98d43bc0$@gmail.com> References: <000c01cdc359$32f16940$98d43bc0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20121115204446.3ae6c214@quill.bollow.ch> Michael Gurstein wrote: > I'm sure this is naïve of me, but I'm wondering what the difference > (at the level of principle) might be between arguing as below, for > regulation (in support of the public interest) for an IP based > network through the FCC and arguing for regulation of "the > Internet" (in support of the public interest) at the WCIT/the ITU (as > per for example > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet > -regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ > > (and please could we discuss this at the level of theory/principle > while avoiding US "exceptionalism"... I would suggest that the main difference is that the classical telephony network has a single, well-understood main purpose which is not changing over time. This makes it possible to have meaningful regulation that ties directly into this purpose. By contrast, the Internet is designed to be useful quite generally without tying it to any particular intended main purpose. As a consequence, the Internet enables rapid innovation of new ways in which it can be used. This fast evolution is a significant difference in regard to practical feasibility of regulation. As a matter of principle, it is not possible to effectively address by means of regulation aspects can that change more quickly than the time that it takes to change the regulations, except of course if people are willing to accept regulation that significantly slows down the pace of innovation. There are still issues that are sufficiently fundamental and therefore slow-changing that effective regulation is possible and in fact highly desirable. For example, I'm all in favor of a strong network neutrality principle which says that a company in the business of transmitting Internet protocol datagrams may define its price structure only in terms of properties of the service of transmitting these datagrams. (This allows to distinguish between a basic "best effort" service and a more expensive service with stronger QoS guarantees, but disallows the various "profit maximization at the expense of the integrity of the Internet" schemes.) 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 Nov 15 15:20:46 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:20:46 -0800 Subject: [governance] [Dewayne-Net] Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Regulatory Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network In-Reply-To: <20121115204446.3ae6c214@quill.bollow.ch> References: <000c01cdc359$32f16940$98d43bc0$@gmail.com> <20121115204446.3ae6c214@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <010d01cdc36e$b4e9ea20$1ebdbe60$@gmail.com> Excellent point Norbert, thanks. I'm wondering whether some sort of universal service obligation (and universal service funds/funding) might also fall within your category of "slow change"? Perhaps as well it might be useful to quote directly the other items that Feld pointed to as being ones where some sort of regulatory response (or at least where some decision concerning an apapropriate response) might still be required… Copper is built to 99.999% reliability, the “five 9s” of a public utility. Wireless and IP-based networks do not come anywhere close to that. In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, New Yorkers without power for IP-based services or cell service went combing their neighborhoods for payphones – which continued to operate because they connect through independently powered copper networks. What happens in 22 states when that older, more expensive but more reliable technology is replaced with better, faster but more fragile technology? What happens to the Universal Service Fund? The current AT&T telephone network provides a significant portion of the existing contribution to the fund because only traditional telephone networks are (at the moment) required to pay into the fund. DSL and other IP-based networks do not pay into the fund. For years, contribution to the Fund has been eroding. AT&T’s proposed rapid transition of its entire network will dramatically accelerate this trend. Many states have separate state-based USF funds. AT&T territories, this will be even more impacted. A host of policies remain confined to the telephone world and not the IP-space. These include pro-consumer policies on privacy and billing, and pro-competitive policies such as special access and unbundled network elements (UNEs). To the extent these policies apply at all to IP-based networks, they do so as “ancillary” to existing telephone networks. Even access to phone numbers is technically limited by statute to “telecommunications providers,” and is assigned to IP-based networks by regulatory fiat. What happens to these policies when the telephone network that supports these policies disappears? What protections will consumers or competitors continue to enjoy with regard to things like privacy, truth-in-billing, and signal quality? Most importantly, the FCC must decide the question of whether IP networks must interconnect with one another. Right now, they do not. And every now and then we have a “peering dispute” where networks refuse to exchange traffic because they cannot agree on terms. What happens if AT&T and Comcast cannot agree on terms, and several million AT&T Wireless subscribers can no longer call home? If this seems unlikely to happen, I remind folks that no one ever imagined that cable systems or DBS providers might go for weeks or even months without local broadcast channels because of “retrans fights.” However, when DISH subscribers must make do without AMC or when Cablevision subscribers can’t watch Food Network, it’s merely annoying. When people with Comcast phone service can’t call AT&T or AT&T wireless subscribers, the impact – for the economy, for public safety, and for the individuals involved – is a hell of a lot more significant than missing “Mad Men” or “Chopped.” How will AT&T’s investment impact the digital divide and problems of digital adoption, particularly in minority communities? There is no question that, handled correctly, this massive investment in infrastructure could prove a tremendous boon to communities that have until now been in danger of marginalization. At the same time, we must also recognize the danger that a poorly handled transition to all-IP networks could cement the status quo, or even worsen existing digital inequities. M -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 11:45 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] [Dewayne-Net] Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Regulatory Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network Michael Gurstein < gurstein at gmail.com> wrote: > I'm sure this is naïve of me, but I'm wondering what the difference > (at the level of principle) might be between arguing as below, for > regulation (in support of the public interest) for an IP based network > through the FCC and arguing for regulation of "the Internet" (in > support of the public interest) at the WCIT/the ITU (as per for > example > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-in > ternet -regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ > > (and please could we discuss this at the level of theory/principle > while avoiding US "exceptionalism"... I would suggest that the main difference is that the classical telephony network has a single, well-understood main purpose which is not changing over time. This makes it possible to have meaningful regulation that ties directly into this purpose. By contrast, the Internet is designed to be useful quite generally without tying it to any particular intended main purpose. As a consequence, the Internet enables rapid innovation of new ways in which it can be used. This fast evolution is a significant difference in regard to practical feasibility of regulation. As a matter of principle, it is not possible to effectively address by means of regulation aspects can that change more quickly than the time that it takes to change the regulations, except of course if people are willing to accept regulation that significantly slows down the pace of innovation. There are still issues that are sufficiently fundamental and therefore slow-changing that effective regulation is possible and in fact highly desirable. For example, I'm all in favor of a strong network neutrality principle which says that a company in the business of transmitting Internet protocol datagrams may define its price structure only in terms of properties of the service of transmitting these datagrams. (This allows to distinguish between a basic "best effort" service and a more expensive service with stronger QoS guarantees, but disallows the various "profit maximization at the expense of the integrity of the Internet" schemes.) 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 rrangnath at publicknowledge.org Thu Nov 15 16:44:10 2012 From: rrangnath at publicknowledge.org (Rashmi Rangnath) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:44:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] [Dewayne-Net] Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Regulatory Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network In-Reply-To: <000c01cdc359$32f16940$98d43bc0$@gmail.com> References: <000c01cdc359$32f16940$98d43bc0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Michael: I think there is a significant difference between national regulations and regulation by a body such as the ITU. National regulations anticipate national needs, and in the case of the US (and I suspect many other countries) happens within processes that hold the regulator accountable to the public. While the regulator may not always act in the public interest, there are mechanisms in place that would hold the regulator to account. In contrast, international regulations need to be much more high level because they cannot anticipate particular local needs. I think a high level statement of principle at the ITU that calls for universal access to broadband is good. Another cause for discomfort with detailed ITU regulations stems from its closed processes. Best, Rashmi On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:46 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > I'm sure this is naïve of me, but I'm wondering what the difference (at the > level of principle) might be between arguing as below, for regulation (in > support of the public interest) for an IP based network through the FCC and > arguing for regulation of "the Internet" (in support of the public > interest) > at the WCIT/the ITU (as per for example > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet > -regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ > > (and please could we discuss this at the level of theory/principle while > avoiding US "exceptionalism"... > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com] On > Behalf > Of Dewayne Hendricks > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 2:46 PM > To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net > Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The > Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network > > Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Implications of AT&T > Upgrading > To An All IP Network. > By Harold Feld > November 13, 2012 > < > http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/shutting-down-phone-system-gets-real-im > plicat> > > I believe AT&T’s announcement last week about its plans to upgrade its > network and replace its rural copper lines with wireless is the single most > important development in telecom since passage of the Telecommunications > Act > of 1996. It impacts just about every aspect of wireline and wireless > policy. > > For those who missed it in the morning-after blur of the election results, > AT&T announced that it will invest an additional $14 billion to upgrade its > wireline and wireless networks, so that it projects investing $22 billion a > year for the next several years in capital expenditures (“CAPEX” as they > say > on “The Street”). At the end of the three year time frame, AT&T expects to > have converted its existing “time division multiplexing” (TDM) phone > network > entirely to an IP-based network which will seamlessly mix its wireless, > remaining souped-up copper, and fiber (but not fiber-to-the-home). Since > all > existing phone regulation governing universal service, consumer protection, > and competition rest entirely on the existing TDM/copper network, AT&T > simultaneously filed a petition with the FCC to “begin a dialog” on how to > address the regulatory issues raised by this shift and proposing some > entirely deregulated “pilot programs” to determine what regulations are > “really” necessary. > > Setting aside my skepticism that these pilot programs offer anything of > value, I thank AT&T for beginning with an offer to talk. At the same time, > I’m mindful we need to get the key elements of the new framework down over > the next year or two – which is practically nothing given the complexity of > the issues and the number of stakeholders involved. It puts a premium on > communities working quickly to come to internal consensus and on trying to > bring as many allies to the table as possible. Ideally, we would set > universal rules for all IP networks, but this would meet fierce resistance > from existing IP-providers. Nevertheless, AT&T raises a valid point of > concern if the rules for the TDM to IP apply only to it and other Local > Exchange Carriers (LECs) upgrading their networks. The FCC must balance > these concerns about competition and fairness with the broader questions of > what happens when our 100-year-old copper safety net gets replaced by an > essentially unregulated IP-based networks. > > What’s At Stake? Everything In Telecom Policy. > > To list just the headline questions: > > • What happens to the concept of universal service, particularly in > rural areas? AT&T itself says in its announcement that its new combined 4G > LTE and wireline IP footprint will cover "Ninety-nine percent of existing > customer locations." That loss of 1%, while small in absolute terms, > potentially means many thousands of people losing access to basic phone > service. > > • Even if AT&T’s wireless footprint precisely overlapped its rural > copper footprint, there would still be significant questions about > reliability and price. Traditional phone service has minimum standards of > quality enforceable at the local level, and in most states a requirement to > offer basic voice service at a regulated price. This combination of a > requirement to serve everyone in the service territory, at a minimum > standard and to offer a basic, affordable voice option is generally thought > of as “Carrier of Last Resort” (CoLR) regulations. If AT&T transition to > IP-based networks and eliminates its CoLR obligations associated with its > traditional telephone service, what happens? In rural areas, wireless > signal > might not have the same quality as existing copper, or it might become > unaffordable for poor subscribers in rural and urban neighborhoods where > low-income families rely on a low-cost basic voice service. > > [MG>] (Snipped... Lot's of important stuff on regulatory/deregulatory > telecom/IP issues in the US > .... > > Conclusion: > > Every stakeholder community needs to carefully consider its position and > come ready for some hard bargaining. The traditional battle lines and > positions need to be carefully reexamined. The world is changing, and it > will make a radical change like this only once. This is not the time to > repeat the rote responses of the past. This is not going to be some > Libertarian nirvana where the regulatory state withers away and we shall > move from each according to his need to each according to his ability to > pay. Neither is traditional regulation going to remain unchanged. Anyone > taking either position is effectively removing him or herself from the real > conversation that must take place. > > What we need to do, individually and collectively, is figure out how to > take > the values of the 100-year old social contract in telecom that has served > us > so well as a nation and decide how to express those values in concrete > terms > for the next generation of networks. That won’t be easy. But stuff that > matters never is. > > Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Rashmi Rangnath Director, Global Knowledge Initiative and Staff Attorney Public Knowledge 1818 N Street NW Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20036 202 861 0020 rrangnath at publicknowledge.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From valeriab at apc.org Thu Nov 15 16:53:47 2012 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:53:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] Introduction to Internet Governance: Call for applications In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: For me too El 15/11/2012 11:44, "Ginger Paque" escribió: > > Diplo's Introduction to IG will be offered online in February 2013. Please > help us reach those who might be interested. > > See complete details at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/IGCBP-foundation > > *You are involved in human rights online, but wickitee (WCIT) sounds like > something used to play cricket, ETNO sounds like the name of a robot, and > Baku like an exotic vacation spot. Or you know what SOPA/PIPA refers to > (right: alphabet soup in Spanish), but FoE caught you off guard. Maybe you > work on child safety issues every day, but need to understand the legal > implications and complexities of jurisdiction in the borderless online > world. > > One way to link the different issues > (tech/social/development/economic/legal/security), and to fill in any gaps > across professional and issue areas is to step back and take a look at the > big picture of the overall issues. You can analyse how they affect each > other, discuss the topics with colleagues who work in one area, and share > your expertise in another. You can see how experts from different regions > are addressing the same issues or different priorities. You can do this > online, in just 8-10 hours a week, by participating in DiploFoundation’s Introduction > to Internet Governance course, starting 18 February 2013. > > > > Call for applications > > DiploFoundation is currently accepting applications for its online course, Introduction > to Internet Governance (IG). This course is designed to improve Internet policy and IG-related > knowledge and skills for participants from both developed and developing > countries. It empowers them to participate in global policy-making on IG, > and stimulates critical and dynamic debate among individuals with different > national, cultural, and stakeholder backgrounds. Participants focus on > controversial IG topics from different perspectives: security/privacy, > protection/human rights, economy/access, and other apparent dichotomies. > > About the course > > The Introduction to Internet Governance is spread over 10 weeks, starting > with an online classroom orientation week, followed by 8 weeks of > coursework, and a final exam week. > > The course introduces IG policy and covers five thematic areas > - Infrastructure and Standardisation, Legal, Economic, Sociocultural, and > Development aspects - and also has a section on IG processes and actors. > Discussions will cover issues such as broadband policy; management of > domain names and IP addresses, including the transition from IPv4 to IPv6; > network neutrality; jurisdiction, intellectual property rights, open source > and piracy; privacy protection; data security and cybersecurity; child > protection; human rights; content management; digital signatures; emerging > issues such as policies related to social networks and cloud computing, and > more, with space for regional and other issues raised by participants. > > Learning activities take place in an online classroom and include the > analysis of course materials; interactive group discussions using a variety > of communication tools, assignments, and exams; and other dynamic > methodologies. > > This course can be taken as follows: > > - As a DiploFoundation Certificate course Introduction to Internet > Governance > - As a University of Malta Accredited Course Introduction to Internet > Governance (Request more information about the application process from > admissions at diplomacy.edu) > - As part of DiploFoundation’s and the University of Malta’s Master/PGD > in Contemporary Diplomacy, with a specialisation area in Internet governance > > > DiploFoundation’s Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > The course Introduction to Internet Governance is part of Diplo’s Internet > Governance Capacity Building Programme (IGCBP). > The 2013 programme consists of five phases: > > > - The Foundation Phase introduces the main IG issues through the > course Introduction to Internet Governance. > This course is recommended if you are new to IG, or perhaps an expert in > one specific area and would like to obtain an overview of IG issues and > observe how they interrelate. > - The Thematic Phase offers in-depth courses that provide deeper > understanding of a particular issue: either a specific professional area, > or an area outside of your expertise that you need to learn more about. The > topics include Cybersecurity > , E-participation > , History of Internet Governance > , ICT Policy and Strategic Planning > , Infrastructure and Critical Internet Resources > , Intellectual Property Rights, > and Privacy and Personal Data Protection > . > - The Research Phase offers valuable techniques if you are planning to > undertake academic or policy research and writing. The Policy Research > Methodology course addresses IG issues of relevance to participants’ respective countries and > regions, and introduces action policy research with the aim of helping you > develop solutions which you can apply in practice. > - The Policy Immersion Phase is aimed at successful participants of > the Foundation and Thematic Phases, and invites them to apply their > knowledge and skills in the real-life policy space. > - The Community of Practice Phase is an ongoing networking phase in > which participants gather, work and network together around concrete > projects in order to link the global policy process with local policy > needs. Diplo offers many networking resources: an online community, > a blog dedicated to IG, > month webinars, > and other activities and events . > > > More information about the programme is available here > . > > > > Languages > > The course materials, our e-learning platform, and the working language of > the course is English. Applicants should consider whether their reading and > writing skills in English are sufficient to follow university-level > materials and discussion. Spanish, Portuguese, and French options may be > offered. More information will be available later on possible second > language options. > > In addition to English-speaking groups, a bilingual group may be formed > for the course, having English as the primary language, and either Arabic, > French, Spanish, or Portuguese as the secondary language for communication > and interaction. This option will be offered depending on the needs of the > applicants. Applicants to the bilingual groups (if offered) are asked to > note that both languages are considered working languages within these > groups. Reading and writing skills in English must be sufficient to > understand learning materials and instructions, and for basic communication > and interaction. Reading and writing skills in the second language must be > sufficient for discussion and research purposes. Please request more > information if you are interested in a second language option. > > Target audience > > Diplo seeks applications from the following categories of individuals from > both developed and developing countries: > > - Officials in government ministries, departments, or institutions > dealing with Information Society, Internet and ICT-related policy issues > (e.g. telecommunications, education, foreign affairs, justice). > - Postgraduate students, academics and researchers in the IG field > (e.g. in telecommunications, electrical engineering, law, economics, > development studies). > - Civil society activists in the IG and Information Society fields. > - Journalists covering IG issues. > - Individuals in Internet-business fields (e.g. ISPs, software > developers). > > > This course may also be of interest to: > > - Practising diplomats, civil servants, and others working in > international relations who want to refresh or expand their knowledge under > the guidance of experienced practitioners and academics. > - Postgraduate students of diplomacy or international relations > wishing to study topics not offered through their university programmes or > diplomatic academies and to gain deeper insight through interaction with > practising diplomats. > - Postgraduate students or practitioners in other fields seeking an > entry point into the world of diplomacy. > - Journalists, staff of international and non-governmental > organisations, translators, business people and others who interact with > diplomats and wish to improve their understanding of diplomacy-related > topics. > > > Timeline > > > - 10 October: Call for applications for Introduction to Internet > Governance begins > - 17 December: Call for applications for Introduction to Internet > Governance accredited course ends > - 31 December: Call for applications for Introduction to Internet > Governance certificate course ends > - 18 January: Final selection results announced > - 11 February: Classroom orientation week > - 18 February: Introduction to Internet Governance course begins > - To be announced: Call for applications for ICT Strategy and IG > thematic courses begins > > > Scholarships and fees > > Course fees depend on whether you wish to obtain university credit for the > course: > > - €790 (University of Malta Accredited Course) > - €600 (Diplo Certificate Course) > > > A limited number of partial scholarships may be offered to participants > from developing and emerging countries. > > As Diplo's ability to offer scholarship support is limited, you are > strongly encouraged to seek scholarship funding directly from local or > international institutions. Our guide to Finding Scholarships for Online > Study may provide you > with some useful starting points. > > Requirements > > Applicants for the certificate course must have: > > - IG knowledge and/or experience of the multistakeholder approach in > international affairs. > - Sufficient ability in the English language to undertake postgraduate > level studies (including reading academic texts, discussing complex > concepts with other course participants, and submitting written essay > assignments). > - Fluency in the second language for the applicants to any of the > bilingual groups (if offered). > - Regular access to the Internet (dial-up connection is sufficient, > although broadband is preferable). > - A minimum of 8-10 hours commitment per week, and the readiness to > participate in class online sessions (once a week at specified times). > - An undergraduate university degree OR three years of related work > experience. > > > In addition to the above, applicants for the accredited course must also > meet University of Malta prerequisites: > > - Bachelor's degree in a relevant subject with at least Second Class > Honours. > - Proof of English language proficiency obtained within the last two > years (minimum requirements TOEFL: paper-based – 650; Internet-based – 95. > IELTS: 6.5. Cambridge: Proficiency Certificate with Grade C or better). If, > when applying, you are still waiting for your English language proficiency > results, the University may issue a conditional letter of acceptance. > > > Deadlines > > The deadline for applications for the accredited course is 17 December, > 2012 > The deadline for applications for the certificate course is 31 December, > 2012 > > How to apply > > Choose your preferred option: > > - Apply for this course as a Diplo Certificate Course. More Informationor Online > Application Form > - Apply for this course as a University of Malta Accredited Course University > of Malta application formor write to > Admissions at diplomacy.edu for more information > - Take this course as part of the Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy > > > For more information, please visit > http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/IGCBP-foundation > Contact us at ig at diplomacy.edu (certificate course) or admissions at diplomacy.edu > (University of Malta accredited course).* > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > Diplo Foundation > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > ** > ** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 15 18:22:40 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:22:40 -0800 Subject: [governance] [Dewayne-Net] Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Regulatory Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network In-Reply-To: References: <000c01cdc359$32f16940$98d43bc0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <008101cdc388$1c6bfc60$5543f520$@gmail.com> Hi Rashmi, I can see where, for US based companies (and to a lesser degree CS and individuals) it would be important to hold the regulator to account -- to ensure for example that the regulator doesn't mess with de facto standards, content policy that sort of thing established by primarily US based Internet companies (Google, eBay, PayPal, Facebook and so on) It is less clear to me why this should matter to folks in countries which don't have companies in a position to dominate elements of the Internet in such a way as to establish these de facto standards. In fact, I would guess (as I was arguing in my original blogpost) that for those countries and the citizens of those countries having some involvement in establishing/enforcing those standards etc. would be of direct interest and for them the only means that that is likely to available is through some sort of international body such as the ITU. I agree with you about the problem with closed processes and I think that that should be an issue for everyone since being "closed" in this instance means that there is a lack of accountability overal. However, I think the issue of "openness" and accountability should extend as well to those entities (such as the private, mostly US based companies e.g. Google, Facebook, PayPal) which dominate certain elements of the Internet and in this way are setting de facto global standards/policies etc. cf. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/gmail-hell-day-4-dealing-with-the-b org-or-being-evil-without-really-thinking-about-it/ and http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/gmail-hell2-an-epilogue-they-are-th e-borg-and-they-are-too-big-to-be-allowed-to-fail/ Best, M From: Rashmi Rangnath [mailto:rrangnath at publicknowledge.org] Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 1:44 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] [Dewayne-Net] Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Regulatory Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network Michael: I think there is a significant difference between national regulations and regulation by a body such as the ITU. National regulations anticipate national needs, and in the case of the US (and I suspect many other countries) happens within processes that hold the regulator accountable to the public. While the regulator may not always act in the public interest, there are mechanisms in place that would hold the regulator to account. In contrast, international regulations need to be much more high level because they cannot anticipate particular local needs. I think a high level statement of principle at the ITU that calls for universal access to broadband is good. Another cause for discomfort with detailed ITU regulations stems from its closed processes. Best, Rashmi On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:46 PM, michael gurstein wrote: I'm sure this is naïve of me, but I'm wondering what the difference (at the level of principle) might be between arguing as below, for regulation (in support of the public interest) for an IP based network through the FCC and arguing for regulation of "the Internet" (in support of the public interest) at the WCIT/the ITU (as per for example http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet -regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ (and please could we discuss this at the level of theory/principle while avoiding US "exceptionalism"... M -----Original Message----- From: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com] On Behalf Of Dewayne Hendricks Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 2:46 PM To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network. By Harold Feld November 13, 2012 I believe AT&T’s announcement last week about its plans to upgrade its network and replace its rural copper lines with wireless is the single most important development in telecom since passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It impacts just about every aspect of wireline and wireless policy. For those who missed it in the morning-after blur of the election results, AT&T announced that it will invest an additional $14 billion to upgrade its wireline and wireless networks, so that it projects investing $22 billion a year for the next several years in capital expenditures (“CAPEX” as they say on “The Street”). At the end of the three year time frame, AT&T expects to have converted its existing “time division multiplexing” (TDM) phone network entirely to an IP-based network which will seamlessly mix its wireless, remaining souped-up copper, and fiber (but not fiber-to-the-home). Since all existing phone regulation governing universal service, consumer protection, and competition rest entirely on the existing TDM/copper network, AT&T simultaneously filed a petition with the FCC to “begin a dialog” on how to address the regulatory issues raised by this shift and proposing some entirely deregulated “pilot programs” to determine what regulations are “really” necessary. Setting aside my skepticism that these pilot programs offer anything of value, I thank AT&T for beginning with an offer to talk. At the same time, I’m mindful we need to get the key elements of the new framework down over the next year or two – which is practically nothing given the complexity of the issues and the number of stakeholders involved. It puts a premium on communities working quickly to come to internal consensus and on trying to bring as many allies to the table as possible. Ideally, we would set universal rules for all IP networks, but this would meet fierce resistance from existing IP-providers. Nevertheless, AT&T raises a valid point of concern if the rules for the TDM to IP apply only to it and other Local Exchange Carriers (LECs) upgrading their networks. The FCC must balance these concerns about competition and fairness with the broader questions of what happens when our 100-year-old copper safety net gets replaced by an essentially unregulated IP-based networks. What’s At Stake? Everything In Telecom Policy. To list just the headline questions: • What happens to the concept of universal service, particularly in rural areas? AT&T itself says in its announcement that its new combined 4G LTE and wireline IP footprint will cover "Ninety-nine percent of existing customer locations." That loss of 1%, while small in absolute terms, potentially means many thousands of people losing access to basic phone service. • Even if AT&T’s wireless footprint precisely overlapped its rural copper footprint, there would still be significant questions about reliability and price. Traditional phone service has minimum standards of quality enforceable at the local level, and in most states a requirement to offer basic voice service at a regulated price. This combination of a requirement to serve everyone in the service territory, at a minimum standard and to offer a basic, affordable voice option is generally thought of as “Carrier of Last Resort” (CoLR) regulations. If AT&T transition to IP-based networks and eliminates its CoLR obligations associated with its traditional telephone service, what happens? In rural areas, wireless signal might not have the same quality as existing copper, or it might become unaffordable for poor subscribers in rural and urban neighborhoods where low-income families rely on a low-cost basic voice service. [MG>] (Snipped... Lot's of important stuff on regulatory/deregulatory telecom/IP issues in the US .... Conclusion: Every stakeholder community needs to carefully consider its position and come ready for some hard bargaining. The traditional battle lines and positions need to be carefully reexamined. The world is changing, and it will make a radical change like this only once. This is not the time to repeat the rote responses of the past. This is not going to be some Libertarian nirvana where the regulatory state withers away and we shall move from each according to his need to each according to his ability to pay. Neither is traditional regulation going to remain unchanged. Anyone taking either position is effectively removing him or herself from the real conversation that must take place. What we need to do, individually and collectively, is figure out how to take the values of the 100-year old social contract in telecom that has served us so well as a nation and decide how to express those values in concrete terms for the next generation of networks. That won’t be easy. But stuff that matters never is. Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Rashmi Rangnath Director, Global Knowledge Initiative and Staff Attorney Public Knowledge 1818 N Street NW Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20036 202 861 0020 rrangnath at publicknowledge.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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 15 18:32:36 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 05:02:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] [Dewayne-Net] Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Regulatory Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network Message-ID: A common carrier regulated by the FCC ends up having to carry everything unfiltered, and in theory this also means spam, malware and its related traffic, which too you can't discriminate against once you attain that status. So beware of what you wish for. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Norbert Bollow" To: , "michael gurstein" Subject: [governance] [Dewayne-Net] Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Regulatory Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network Date: Fri, Nov 16, 2012 1:14 AM Michael Gurstein wrote: > I'm sure this is naïve of me, but I'm wondering what the difference > (at the level of principle) might be between arguing as below, for > regulation (in support of the public interest) for an IP based > network through the FCC and arguing for regulation of "the > Internet" (in support of the public interest) at the WCIT/the ITU (as > per for example > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet > -regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ > > (and please could we discuss this at the level of theory/principle > while avoiding US "exceptionalism"... I would suggest that the main difference is that the classical telephony network has a single, well-understood main purpose which is not changing over time. This makes it possible to have meaningful regulation that ties directly into this purpose. By contrast, the Internet is designed to be useful quite generally without tying it to any particular intended main purpose. As a consequence, the Internet enables rapid innovation of new ways in which it can be used. This fast evolution is a significant difference in regard to practical feasibility of regulation. As a matter of principle, it is not possible to effectively address by means of regulation aspects can that change more quickly than the time that it takes to change the regulations, except of course if people are willing to accept regulation that significantly slows down the pace of innovation. There are still issues that are sufficiently fundamental and therefore slow-changing that effective regulation is possible and in fact highly desirable. For example, I'm all in favor of a strong network neutrality principle which says that a company in the business of transmitting Internet protocol datagrams may define its price structure only in terms of properties of the service of transmitting these datagrams. (This allows to distinguish between a basic "best effort" service and a more expensive service with stronger QoS guarantees, but disallows the various "profit maximization at the expense of the integrity of the Internet" schemes.) 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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 15 18:38:32 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 05:08:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] [Dewayne-Net] Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Regulatory Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network Message-ID: The ITRs are a set of principles that all nations have to opt in to sign on to. That means for any particular part of the ITRs, they can either adopt it, refuse to ratify it, ratify it with caveats ... So even were Russia. India etc able to ram something like this through, you would get say the USA, Europe, Australia etc refusing to ratify these. The concern here is that this would effectively lead to a split in internet governance policy, regulation and processes whose results may not always be technically feasible and certainly lose out on the global technical coordination that does take place in IP, tld and domain related matters --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Rashmi Rangnath" To: , "michael gurstein" Subject: [governance] [Dewayne-Net] Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Regulatory Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network Date: Fri, Nov 16, 2012 3:14 AM Michael: I think there is a significant difference between national regulations and regulation by a body such as the ITU. National regulations anticipate national needs, and in the case of the US (and I suspect many other countries) happens within processes that hold the regulator accountable to the public. While the regulator may not always act in the public interest, there are mechanisms in place that would hold the regulator to account. In contrast, international regulations need to be much more high level because they cannot anticipate particular local needs. I think a high level statement of principle at the ITU that calls for universal access to broadband is good. Another cause for discomfort with detailed ITU regulations stems from its closed processes. Best, Rashmi On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:46 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > I'm sure this is naïve of me, but I'm wondering what the difference (at the > level of principle) might be between arguing as below, for regulation (in > support of the public interest) for an IP based network through the FCC and > arguing for regulation of "the Internet" (in support of the public > interest) > at the WCIT/the ITU (as per for example > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet > -regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ > > (and please could we discuss this at the level of theory/principle while > avoiding US "exceptionalism"... > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com] On > Behalf > Of Dewayne Hendricks > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 2:46 PM > To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net > Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The > Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network > > Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Implications of AT&T > Upgrading > To An All IP Network. > By Harold Feld > November 13, 2012 > < > http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/shutting-down-phone-system-gets-real-im > plicat> > > I believe AT&T’s announcement last week about its plans to upgrade its > network and replace its rural copper lines with wireless is the single most > important development in telecom since passage of the Telecommunications > Act > of 1996. It impacts just about every aspect of wireline and wireless > policy. > > For those who missed it in the morning-after blur of the election results, > AT&T announced that it will invest an additional $14 billion to upgrade its > wireline and wireless networks, so that it projects investing $22 billion a > year for the next several years in capital expenditures (“CAPEX” as they > say > on “The Street”). At the end of the three year time frame, AT&T expects to > have converted its existing “time division multiplexing” (TDM) phone > network > entirely to an IP-based network which will seamlessly mix its wireless, > remaining souped-up copper, and fiber (but not fiber-to-the-home). Since > all > existing phone regulation governing universal service, consumer protection, > and competition rest entirely on the existing TDM/copper network, AT&T > simultaneously filed a petition with the FCC to “begin a dialog” on how to > address the regulatory issues raised by this shift and proposing some > entirely deregulated “pilot programs” to determine what regulations are > “really” necessary. > > Setting aside my skepticism that these pilot programs offer anything of > value, I thank AT&T for beginning with an offer to talk. At the same time, > I’m mindful we need to get the key elements of the new framework down over > the next year or two – which is practically nothing given the complexity of > the issues and the number of stakeholders involved. It puts a premium on > communities working quickly to come to internal consensus and on trying to > bring as many allies to the table as possible. Ideally, we would set > universal rules for all IP networks, but this would meet fierce resistance > from existing IP-providers. Nevertheless, AT&T raises a valid point of > concern if the rules for the TDM to IP apply only to it and other Local > Exchange Carriers (LECs) upgrading their networks. The FCC must balance > these concerns about competition and fairness with the broader questions of > what happens when our 100-year-old copper safety net gets replaced by an > essentially unregulated IP-based networks. > > What’s At Stake? Everything In Telecom Policy. > > To list just the headline questions: > > • What happens to the concept of universal service, particularly in > rural areas? AT&T itself says in its announcement that its new combined 4G > LTE and wireline IP footprint will cover "Ninety-nine percent of existing > customer locations." That loss of 1%, while small in absolute terms, > potentially means many thousands of people losing access to basic phone > service. > > • Even if AT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 15 18:43:27 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 05:13:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] [Dewayne-Net] Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Regulatory Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network Message-ID: I am sorry but do you mean technical standards, which these and other companies routinely set and define (of course in a consensus driven environment at the ietf), or policy standards, where while they .. like any large company with a global presence, do lobby governments worldwide? Of course when lobbying at the national level, they would have to compete for influence with other entities that may well be purely local players. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "michael gurstein" To: "'Rashmi Rangnath'" , Subject: [governance] [Dewayne-Net] Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Regulatory Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network Date: Fri, Nov 16, 2012 4:52 AM Hi Rashmi, I can see where, for US based companies (and to a lesser degree CS and individuals) it would be important to hold the regulator to account -- to ensure for example that the regulator doesn't mess with de facto standards, content policy that sort of thing established by primarily US based Internet companies (Google, eBay, PayPal, Facebook and so on)… It is less clear to me why this should matter to folks in countries which don't have companies in a position to dominate elements of the Internet in such a way as to establish these de facto standards. In fact, I would guess (as I was arguing in my original blogpost) that for those countries and the citizens of those countries having some involvement in establishing/enforcing those standards etc. would be of direct interest and for them the only means that that is likely to available is through some sort of international body such as the ITU. I agree with you about the problem with closed processes and I think that that should be an issue for everyone since being "closed" in this instance means that there is a lack of accountability overal. However, I think the issue of "openness" and accountability should extend as well to those entities (such as the private, mostly US based companies e.g. Google, Facebook, PayPal) which dominate certain elements of the Internet and in this way are setting de facto global standards/policies etc. cf. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/gmail-hell-day-4-dealing-with-the-b org-or-being-evil-without-really-thinking-about-it/ and http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/gmail-hell2-an-epilogue-they-are-th e-borg-and-they-are-too-big-to-be-allowed-to-fail/ Best, M From: Rashmi Rangnath [mailto:rrangnath at publicknowledge.org] Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 1:44 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] [Dewayne-Net] Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Regulatory Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network Michael: I think there is a significant difference between national regulations and regulation by a body such as the ITU. National regulations anticipate national needs, and in the case of the US (and I suspect many other countries) happens within processes that hold the regulator accountable to the public. While the regulator may not always act in the public interest, there are mechanisms in place that would hold the regulator to account. In contrast, international regulations need to be much more high level because they cannot anticipate particular local needs. I think a high level statement of principle at the ITU that calls for universal access to broadband is good. Another cause for discomfort with detailed ITU regulations stems from its closed processes. Best, Rashmi On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:46 PM, michael gurstein wrote: I'm sure this is naïve of me, but I'm wondering what the difference (at the level of principle) might be between arguing as below, for regulation (in support of the public interest) for an IP based network through the FCC and arguing for regulation of "the Internet" (in support of the public interest) at the WCIT/the ITU (as per for example http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet -regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ (and please could we discuss this at the level of theory/principle while avoiding US "exceptionalism"... M -----Original Message----- From: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com] On Behalf Of Dewayne Hendricks Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 2:46 PM To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network. By Harold Feld November 13, 2012 I believe AT&T’s announcement last week about its plans to upgrade its network and replace its rural copper lines with wireless is the single most important development in telecom since passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It impacts just about every aspect of wireline and wireless policy. For those who missed it in the morning-after blur of the election results, AT&T announced that it will invest an additional $14 billion to upgrade its wireline and wireless networks, so that it projects investing $22 billion a year for the next several years in capital expenditures (“CAPEX” as they say on “The Street”). At the end of the three year time frame, AT&T expects to have converted its existing “time division multiplexing” (TDM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 15 20:14:31 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:14:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] WCIT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think it 's important for us to join. Izumi ----------転送メッセージ---------- From: *Chris Disspain* 日付: 2012年11月12日月曜日 件名: [igf_members] WCIT To: Internet Governance Forum All, I write to share some important WCIT news and suggest your assistance in promoting a new global online petition among the Internet community: http://www.change.org/netgrab Today Greenpeace International Executive Director, Kumi Naidoo, and International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) General Secretary Sharan Burrow wrote to UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon. They expressed their deep concern that potentially damaging proposals at WCIT will undermine the free, open and inherently democratic governance of the Internet. Building on their own relationships within the UN, the leaders of Greenpeace and the ITUC reminded the UN Secretary General of his promise to promote open and multi-stakeholder approaches, and asked why one of the UN family is running a process that is closed and not multi-stakeholder? Please find attached a copy of the letter which went to Ban Ki Moon. As to the longer-term implications of this letter, it strikes me that the entry of the ITUC and Greenpeace is a significant event in the politics and reach of the Internet governance debate. ITUC and Greenpeace have experienced lobbyists, a global footprint of active national campaigners in over 150 countries, and their own sets of relationships and influencers in the UN system and national governments. Greenpeace and the ITUC are concerned the proposals to be discussed by WCIT will damage the Internet on which they rely to serve the interests of their combined total of 178 million members. The ITUC is also keen to ensure that nothing emerges out of the WCIT and other Internet Governance discussions which can upset the present rules for international trade, nor dampen the role of the Internet economy as being one of the sparse sparks of growth in the global economy. Both organisations see their engagement as being a long-term commitment to the issue -- I think this could be something of step function shift in the engagement of new constituencies with the Internet Governance debate. Below is an update on the campaign being launched: - launching publicly on Monday in London at the Foreign Press Association - targeting reporters from a range of international mastheads in the one place. Sharan Burrow, the General Secretary of the ITUC, Vint Cerf and Paul Twomey will be speaking. - a global online petition will be launched throughchange.org on Monday - this is the main 'ask' for union members and civil society -http://www.change.org/netgrab It would be very useful if the broader Internet civil society community could be engaged and encouraged to participate in the change.org campaign - the attached info graphic has been translated into eight languages and will be the anchor of social media strategies. Please feel free to distribute both the letter and the graphic with members of the Internet civil society. - regular news stories and features will begin to be posted on www.equaltimes.org - these will be able to be shared via Facebook. Following the launch the focus will shift to assisting specific affiliates in various target countries to drive the message in their local media and push out the petition. If you want to speak further concerning the media conference -- or want to direct a journalist to any of the panelists, please contact Maria Farrell.Please circulate this to your relevant media contacts.If they wish to dial-in to the briefing, they should emailmaria.farrell at gmail.com >, Maria can also arrange one-on-one interviews with the panelists. -- >> 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: spyinternet_1_v4.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 63587 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Letter to SG UN Ban Ki Moon.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 206982 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 Thu Nov 15 20:16:34 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:16:34 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] WCIT In-Reply-To: References: <1DC87663-CE1D-4CEE-AA81-2656EC70E3E8@frobbit.se> Message-ID: And this one, too, to take note. Should IGC consider a Statement soon? Any volunteer ? Izumi ----------転送メッセージ---------- From: *Chris Disspain* 日付: 2012年11月16日金曜日 件名: [igf_members] WCIT To: Internet Governance Forum All, FYI, below is text of media release from ITUC following a meeting Thursday with ITU. Cheers, Chris INTERNATIONAL TRADE UNION CONFEDERATION ITU Refuses Proposals for Open Discussion of Plans to Regulate Internet Geneva, 15 November 2012(ITUC Media Release): The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) today met with Dr Hamadoun Toure, Head of the UN’s International Telecommunication Union, to take internet regulation proposals off the agenda of the World Conference on International Telecommunication (WCIT-12) due to take place in Dubai in December. ITUC General Secretary Sharan Burrow said that the internet had always been managed by a multi-stakeholder approach, but that the proposed changes would radically undermine this model and seriously alter internet governance. “This is not a process that the UN should stamp as having legitimacy when governments and in particular telecoms ministries are simply negotiating on their own interests, in a forum without proper civil society engagement. We strongly oppose plans which would increase costs, reduce the spread of the internet and increase net censorship at the expense of human rights. “We put a proposal to the ITU today to take the damaging proposals off the table at Dubai, and join a broad, open and multi-stakeholder process that would bring together all the government, civil society and business interests to look at the future of the internet. Regrettably, the ITU rejected this.” “The danger for the upcoming World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) is that certain governments will attempt to undermine the multi-stakeholder approach behind closed doors and without full transparency. “Certain proposed changes cause a great deal of alarm to the global labour movement - in particular, introduction of a pricing regime; requirements that the internet only be used in a ‘rational’ way - these are changes that ought to be openly debated; not behind closed doors as the ITU plans. “We can’t afford to have vested interests of some governments and telecommunications companies take over the internet as we know it. “An internet totally controlled by government and big business contradicts the very essence of what the internet represents - open and free access for all. “These are hugely important issues, which should be dealt with in an open, transparent and inclusive way,” said Ms Burrow. Phillip Jennings, the General Secretary of UNI Global Union which represents workers in the telecoms and internet sectors, called on the ITU to accept trade unions as full discussion partners, which it had never done despite repeated requests from UNI. The meeting with Dr Toure came a week after Equal Times launched ‘Stop the net grab’, a global online campaign to press for an open consultation on internet regulation http://www.equaltimes.org/news/stop-the-net-grab-ituc-launches-global-campaign-against-internet-crackdown. The ITUC and Greenpeace signaled their concerns in a joint letter to UN Secretary General Ban K-moon last Friday. ENDS What’s at stake? If accepted, the changes would allow: * Increased government restriction or blocking of information disseminated via the internet * Creation of a global regime of monitoring internet communications, including the demand that those who send and receive information identify themselves * Requirement that the internet only be used in a ‘rational’ way * Governments to shut down internet access if they decide that it may interfere in the internal affairs of countries or that information of a ‘sensitive nature’ might be shared * Introduction of a new pricing regime which would increase costs and slow down internet growth, especially in the poorer countries. The ITUC represents 175 million workers in 308 affiliated national organisations from 153 countries and territories. Follow us on the web: http://www.ituc-csi.org and http://www.youtube.com/ITUCCSI -- >> 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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 15 20:31:48 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 07:01:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] WCIT Message-ID: Most definitely yes, we need to come out strongly in favour of this. And may I again say how refreshing it is to hear civil society voices in igov aside from the usual suspects, and see that they're leveraging their capabilities to the maximum in this arena. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Izumi AIZU" To: "governance" Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] WCIT Date: Fri, Nov 16, 2012 6:46 AM And this one, too, to take note. Should IGC consider a Statement soon? Any volunteer ? Izumi ----------転送メッセージ---------- From: *Chris Disspain* 日付: 2012年11月16日金曜日 件名: [igf_members] WCIT To: Internet Governance Forum All, FYI, below is text of media release from ITUC following a meeting Thursday with ITU. Cheers, Chris INTERNATIONAL TRADE UNION CONFEDERATION ITU Refuses Proposals for Open Discussion of Plans to Regulate Internet Geneva, 15 November 2012(ITUC Media Release): The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) today met with Dr Hamadoun Toure, Head of the UN’s International Telecommunication Union, to take internet regulation proposals off the agenda of the World Conference on International Telecommunication (WCIT-12) due to take place in Dubai in December. ITUC General Secretary Sharan Burrow said that the internet had always been managed by a multi-stakeholder approach, but that the proposed changes would radically undermine this model and seriously alter internet governance. “This is not a process that the UN should stamp as having legitimacy when governments and in particular telecoms ministries are simply negotiating on their own interests, in a forum without proper civil society engagement. We strongly oppose plans which would increase costs, reduce the spread of the internet and increase net censorship at the expense of human rights. “We put a proposal to the ITU today to take the damaging proposals off the table at Dubai, and join a broad, open and multi-stakeholder process that would bring together all the government, civil society and business interests to look at the future of the internet. Regrettably, the ITU rejected this.” “The danger for the upcoming World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) is that certain governments will attempt to undermine the multi-stakeholder approach behind closed doors and without full transparency. “Certain proposed changes cause a great deal of alarm to the global labour movement - in particular, introduction of a pricing regime; requirements that the internet only be used in a ‘rational’ way - these are changes that ought to be openly debated; not behind closed doors as the ITU plans. “We can’t afford to have vested interests of some governments and telecommunications companies take over the internet as we know it. “An internet totally controlled by government and big business contradicts the very essence of what the internet represents - open and free access for all. “These are hugely important issues, which should be dealt with in an open, transparent and inclusive way,” said Ms Burrow. Phillip Jennings, the General Secretary of UNI Global Union which represents workers in the telecoms and internet sectors, called on the ITU to accept trade unions as full discussion partners, which it had never done despite repeated requests from UNI. The meeting with Dr Toure came a week after Equal Times launched ‘Stop the net grab’, a global online campaign to press for an open consultation on internet regulation http://www.equaltimes.org/news/stop-the-net-grab-ituc-launches-global-campaign-against-internet-crackdown. The ITUC and Greenpeace signaled their concerns in a joint letter to UN Secretary General Ban K-moon last Friday. ENDS What’s at stake? If accepted, the changes would allow: * Increased government restriction or blocking of information disseminated via the internet * Creation of a global regime of monitoring internet communications, including the demand that those who send and receive information identify themselves * Requirement that the internet only be used in a ‘rational’ way * Governments to shut down internet access if they decide that it may interfere in the internal affairs of countries or that information of a ‘sensitive nature’ might be shared * Introduction of a new pricing regime which would increase costs and slow down internet growth, especially in the poorer countries. The ITUC represents 175 million workers in 308 affiliated national organisations from 153 countries and territories. Follow us on the web: http://www.ituc-csi.org and http://www.youtube.com/ITUCCSI -- >> 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 gurstein at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 21:30:45 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:30:45 -0800 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] WCIT In-Reply-To: References: <1DC87663-CE1D-4CEE-AA81-2656EC70E3E8@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <011d01cdc3a2$6eb47190$4c1d54b0$@gmail.com> I do not think that we should sign on to this for reasons that should be obvious from my earlier two notes today. If we do look to sign on then it should be a somewhat nuanced response (which I hope and even expect that the ITUG and Greenpeace might shift to once they have had a chance to reflect a bit further on these issues). Our approach should of course, include a call for additional transparency and inclusivity in decision making but also a recognition of the need for collective intervention in support of the public interest in areas such as universal access and net neutrality and the extension of any concerns with respect to transparency and accountability to those private companies whose quasi-monoply positions in various Internet areas give them the means to introduce and enforce de facto operating policies and standards. Mike From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 5:17 PM To: governance Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] WCIT And this one, too, to take note. Should IGC consider a Statement soon? Any volunteer ? Izumi ----------転送メッセージ---------- From: Chris Disspain 日付: 2012年11月16日金曜日 件名: [igf_members] WCIT To: Internet Governance Forum All, FYI, below is text of media release from ITUC following a meeting Thursday with ITU. Cheers, Chris INTERNATIONAL TRADE UNION CONFEDERATION ITU Refuses Proposals for Open Discussion of Plans to Regulate Internet Geneva, 15 November 2012(ITUC Media Release): The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) today met with Dr Hamadoun Toure, Head of the UN’s International Telecommunication Union, to take internet regulation proposals off the agenda of the World Conference on International Telecommunication (WCIT-12) due to take place in Dubai in December. ITUC General Secretary Sharan Burrow said that the internet had always been managed by a multi-stakeholder approach, but that the proposed changes would radically undermine this model and seriously alter internet governance. “This is not a process that the UN should stamp as having legitimacy when governments and in particular telecoms ministries are simply negotiating on their own interests, in a forum without proper civil society engagement. We strongly oppose plans which would increase costs, reduce the spread of the internet and increase net censorship at the expense of human rights. “We put a proposal to the ITU today to take the damaging proposals off the table at Dubai, and join a broad, open and multi-stakeholder process that would bring together all the government, civil society and business interests to look at the future of the internet. Regrettably, the ITU rejected this.” “The danger for the upcoming World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) is that certain governments will attempt to undermine the multi-stakeholder approach behind closed doors and without full transparency. “Certain proposed changes cause a great deal of alarm to the global labour movement - in particular, introduction of a pricing regime; requirements that the internet only be used in a ‘rational’ way - these are changes that ought to be openly debated; not behind closed doors as the ITU plans. “We can’t afford to have vested interests of some governments and telecommunications companies take over the internet as we know it. “An internet totally controlled by government and big business contradicts the very essence of what the internet represents - open and free access for all. “These are hugely important issues, which should be dealt with in an open, transparent and inclusive way,” said Ms Burrow. Phillip Jennings, the General Secretary of UNI Global Union which represents workers in the telecoms and internet sectors, called on the ITU to accept trade unions as full discussion partners, which it had never done despite repeated requests from UNI. The meeting with Dr Toure came a week after Equal Times launched ‘Stop the net grab’, a global online campaign to press for an open consultation on internet regulation http://www.equaltimes.org/news/stop-the-net-grab-ituc-launches-global-campai gn-against-internet-crackdown . The ITUC and Greenpeace signaled their concerns in a joint letter to UN Secretary General Ban K-moon last Friday. ENDS What’s at stake? If accepted, the changes would allow: * Increased government restriction or blocking of information disseminated via the internet * Creation of a global regime of monitoring internet communications, including the demand that those who send and receive information identify themselves * Requirement that the internet only be used in a ‘rational’ way * Governments to shut down internet access if they decide that it may interfere in the internal affairs of countries or that information of a ‘sensitive nature’ might be shared * Introduction of a new pricing regime which would increase costs and slow down internet growth, especially in the poorer countries. The ITUC represents 175 million workers in 308 affiliated national organisations from 153 countries and territories. Follow us on the web: http://www.ituc-csi.org and http://www.youtube.com/ITUCCSI -- >> 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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 15 22:29:47 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:29:47 -0800 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] WCIT In-Reply-To: <011d01cdc3a2$6eb47190$4c1d54b0$@gmail.com> References: <1DC87663-CE1D-4CEE-AA81-2656EC70E3E8@frobbit.se> <011d01cdc3a2$6eb47190$4c1d54b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20121116032947.GA24768@hserus.net> This turns back to being a stakeholder because you put sweat and effort in it, versus being a stakeholder "just because". If this means we need to empower more people to contribute, very well then I am also in favor of a greater civil society voice (an informed voice, mind you) in the existing processes that we do have, that are multistakeholder in nature. Right now, there seems to be a general cleanup underway in ICANN - Kurt Pritz, who recently got shunted into a chief strategy officer role, is now removed (and may be retained as a SME from time to time) due to an undisclosed conflict of interest. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121115_icann_senior_executive_resigns_over_undisclosed_conflict/ So, if they are working to improve governance, this looks like civil society will have to participate in these processes rather than carping from the outside, hoping that an alternate venue for such processes will emerge .. michael gurstein [15/11/12 18:30 -0800]: >I do not think that we should sign on to this for reasons that should be >obvious from my earlier two notes today. > >If we do look to sign on then it should be a somewhat nuanced response >(which I hope and even expect that the ITUG and Greenpeace might shift to >once they have had a chance to reflect a bit further on these issues). > >Our approach should of course, include a call for additional transparency >and inclusivity in decision making but also a recognition of the need for >collective intervention in support of the public interest in areas such as >universal access and net neutrality and the extension of any concerns with >respect to transparency and accountability to those private companies whose >quasi-monoply positions in various Internet areas give them the means to >introduce and enforce de facto operating policies and standards. > >Mike > >From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi >AIZU >Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 5:17 PM >To: governance >Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] WCIT > > > >And this one, too, to take note. > >Should IGC consider a Statement soon? > >Any volunteer ? > > > >Izumi > >----------転送メッセージ---------- >From: Chris Disspain >日付: 2012年11月16日金曜日 >件名: [igf_members] WCIT >To: Internet Governance Forum > >All, > >FYI, below is text of media release from ITUC following a meeting Thursday >with ITU. > >Cheers, > >Chris > > >INTERNATIONAL TRADE UNION CONFEDERATION > >ITU Refuses Proposals for Open Discussion of Plans to Regulate Internet > >Geneva, 15 November 2012(ITUC Media Release): The International Trade Union >Confederation (ITUC) today met with Dr Hamadoun Toure, Head of the UN’s >International Telecommunication Union, to take internet regulation proposals >off the agenda of the World Conference on International Telecommunication >(WCIT-12) due to take place in Dubai in December. ITUC General Secretary >Sharan Burrow said that the internet had always been managed by a >multi-stakeholder approach, but that the proposed changes would radically >undermine this model and seriously alter internet governance. > >“This is not a process that the UN should stamp as having legitimacy when >governments and in particular telecoms ministries are simply negotiating on >their own interests, in a forum without proper civil society engagement. We >strongly oppose plans which would increase costs, reduce the spread of the >internet and increase net censorship at the expense of human rights. > >“We put a proposal to the ITU today to take the damaging proposals off the >table at Dubai, and join a broad, open and multi-stakeholder process that >would bring together all the government, civil society and business >interests to look at the future of the internet. Regrettably, the ITU >rejected this.” > >“The danger for the upcoming World Conference on International >Telecommunications (WCIT-12) is that certain governments will attempt to >undermine the multi-stakeholder approach behind closed doors and without >full transparency. > >“Certain proposed changes cause a great deal of alarm to the global labour >movement - in particular, introduction of a pricing regime; requirements >that the internet only be used in a ‘rational’ way - these are changes >that ought to be openly debated; not behind closed doors as the ITU plans. > >“We can’t afford to have vested interests of some governments and >telecommunications companies take over the internet as we know it. > >“An internet totally controlled by government and big business contradicts >the very essence of what the internet represents - open and free access for >all. > >“These are hugely important issues, which should be dealt with in an open, >transparent and inclusive way,” said Ms Burrow. > >Phillip Jennings, the General Secretary of UNI Global Union which represents >workers in the telecoms and internet sectors, called on the ITU to accept >trade unions as full discussion partners, which it had never done despite >repeated requests from UNI. >The meeting with Dr Toure came a week after Equal Times launched ‘Stop the >net grab’, a global online campaign to press for an open consultation on >internet regulation >http://www.equaltimes.org/news/stop-the-net-grab-ituc-launches-global-campai >gn-against-internet-crackdown . The ITUC and Greenpeace signaled their >concerns in a joint letter to UN Secretary General Ban K-moon last Friday. > >ENDS > >What’s at stake? > >If accepted, the changes would allow: > >* Increased government restriction or blocking of information >disseminated via the internet > >* Creation of a global regime of monitoring internet communications, >including the demand that those who send and receive information identify >themselves > >* Requirement that the internet only be used in a ‘rational’ way > >* Governments to shut down internet access if they decide that it >may interfere in the internal affairs of countries or that information of a >‘sensitive nature’ might be shared > >* Introduction of a new pricing regime which would increase costs >and slow down internet growth, especially in the poorer countries. > >The ITUC represents 175 million workers in 308 affiliated national >organisations from 153 countries and territories. > >Follow us on the web: http://www.ituc-csi.org and >http://www.youtube.com/ITUCCSI > > > >-- > >> 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Nov 15 23:02:31 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 04:02:31 +0000 Subject: Suggestions for services for people with disabilities and remote participation aRe: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16B782@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, While this is all fresh in folks minds, I thought I would share some recommendations from students in my undergrad 'Information Policy and Decisionmaking' class - cc'd - Cineve, Shannon, and Nicholas, who chose to focus on IGF and accessibility issues for their class project this semester. Their suggestions are generally in line with other suggestions made on the list, but include a few specific ideas which might help. Following their participation in and review of IGF workshops and remote participation procedures, they suggest: Recommendations for Next IGF Conference: * All future IGF conferences should have all available services for people with disabilities including: · Assign a DCAD representative on the IGF Secretariat Staff/ Planning o Who can serve as a consultant to IGF · Have user generated information accessible o ie Live Captioning Youtube Videos , blogs · Create an online training module/webinar to inform presenters on how to make accessible presentations · Add more accessibility o Ie Sign Language professionals, hearing aid professionals ________________________________ From: tim.g.davies at gmail.com [tim.g.davies at gmail.com] on behalf of Tim Davies [tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk] Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 5:02 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ray Pelletier Cc: Ginger Paque; Marilia Maciel Subject: Re: Suggestions for remote participation Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection Hello Ray, Many thanks for sharing this. Having looked through the IETF draft, it appears to address very clearly many of the issues that were discussed in the RP workshop at this years IGF. I would very much encourage any Remote Participation report to IGF Secretariat / MAG etc. to use this as a basis for setting out clear technical and process principles for future RP. All best wishes Tim On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Ray Pelletier > wrote: All; I just want to invite your attention to some work in the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) to establish requirements for want we are calling Remote Participation Services. The IETF is quite keen to provide for non-attendees to our three meetings per year and multiple interim meetings to participate in our Internet Standards Development efforts. That draft can be found here: We have used WebEx and lately have been experimenting with Meetecho, which has endeavored to incorporate the IETF requrements. We are now concluding IETF 85 in Atlanta. At this site you can find recordings of some of the sessions: . Also: I hope this is useful. Ray On Nov 9, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: Yes, Marilia, this is very important. We will be working on this document before posting to the IGC list and Secretariat. If you--or anyone else-- would like to join us, please let me know offlist. We will be actively working to join forces with the DCAD, Tim Davies, and others to work towards a compilation of guidelines, principles and standards for remote participation, in particular to avoid (as noted by Norbert in the session) repeating the same mistakes. We expect to be actively involved in the next open consultation to provide this support to the RP efforts of the IGF Secretariat (Chengetai and Bernard). This is an evolving, maturing process, which cannot be sustained by tech preparation alone. My first impression is that we now have a lot of information that we need, to put together the bigger picture, involving the strategies and awareness-raising of panel design, workshop structure and event planning. We need an organizational structure that counts remote participants as 'real' participants from the beginning. We need not only trained remote moderators, but aware and inclusive panels and panel moderators who consider remote participation to be part of the meeting. Thanks to everyone for their efforts and energy to include the rest of the world, isolated and/or excluded by distance and different access from the meetings in Baku. Best regards, Ginger On 9 November 2012 05:15, Marilia Maciel > wrote: Thanks for the feedback Ginger. The times zones were difficult to reconcile, but I will look for the transcripts online. Maybe we could send the result of the discussions of the workshop today and the suggestions for improvement that will be made on the list as a contribution to the next Open Consultation. Marília On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Ginger Paque > wrote: These are excellent points, Marilia. We have been discussing similar ideas, including Pranesh's suggestion that as remote participants we must 'make ourselves be noticed'. I think we do need to raise our concerns in a dynamic, strong, constructive way to make this possible. I ask that you join us tomorrow at WS 52 Remote Participation: Reality and Principles, at 11:00 a.m. Baku time, conference room 9, where we will discuss these issues and the way forward. We will continue collaborative work on the Remote Participation principles, started last year in Nairobi, on an open etherpad document. The url and password will be published tomorrow morning. If you cannot join us, we will add your points to the document. We invite others to make their voices heard, so we can include your points in our final document. We hope to see you there, or to include you with our work. This is an important issue of access, and must be addressed. Obrigada, saludos, Ginger On 8 November 2012 10:28, Marilia Maciel > wrote: Hi all, I would like to start a thread of concrete suggestions for improving RP. I know all of us who participated remotely have our impressions of what could be better, so why not share them? My personal views about being a remote participant today - for the first time in the IGF - is that the webcast of all sessions and the captioning are tremendous tools, the existence of hubs multiplies IGF discussions, and the fact that RP is available to any individual in the world is a remarkable sign of openness. But, in spite of all the undeniable achievements, progress needs to be made to ensure inclusion of views of remote participants into the IGF debate. That difficulty, in my opinion, has to do with one main reason: In spite of the huge number of remote participants (47 hubs, more than 800 people last year), the methodology of most workshop sessions remains unchanged. We have not adjust to the new reality and the sessions are planned exclusively for those who are physically in the IGF. One possible reason for that could be that we have too many sessions on the schedule and too many issues to discuss. My feeling was that session moderators were so under pressure that, on the heat of the debate, they tended to see remote participants as an obstacle to "moving the discussion forward", not as IGF participants. Maybe less and longer sessions on IGF schedule would reduce pressure. Time pressure makes people impatient with the difficulties that non-native English speakers may have, or with occasional technical glitches, which we need to cope with, if we really want to include remote participants. It is up to us to decide what we value the most as a community: Speed of discussions? Inclusion? Sometimes they are in a trade-off. It would be important to reduce the distance between remote participants and the session moderator. Most session moderators don't remember to look at the screen and check if questions are popping up in Webex. So remote participants lose the "timing" of making interventions. Maybe we could establish a procedure so remote participants could send questions to the session moderator before the IGF, so he could incorporate some of them into his own set of questions to the panelists. For the "live" questions, the remote participation moderator should have a clear visual way to sign to the session moderator that a remote question has been asked, like raising a red flag. Of course, audio interventions need to be more encouraged, even if their moment needs to be carefully planned and agreed upon between the session moderators and the technical team. There should not be a session without a remote moderator. Imagine someone who blocked her agenda to participate in a workshop and then, surprise: you stay in a room talking to the walls. If remote participation is an integral part of the IGF, this is unacceptable. Workshops without remote moderators should not be approved (for real), and those physically present in the room should confirm if the moderator is indeed there. As a last resort, anyone could take the role of being a moderator in case the person is missing. My main point is that, in spite of the technical improvements that should always be made, making remote participation inclusive is up to the community, especially of those who plan the sessions. Some organizers did a great job in linking up with remote hubs, planing for the participation of remote speakers and participants. But I seems they were still a minority. To mention the technical aspects, to me the greater problem was lack of integration between webex, webcast and captioning. Going back and forth in different windows was not practical. On a positive side, the quality of the image of the webcast seemed to be better, and the cameras were placed in a better position inside the room. It helped to read facial and body expressions. One last point: some time ago, it was proposed that a task force would be created to exchange knowledge and best practices regarding RP with other organizations that have also been struggling and making progress at it, such as ITU (and many others as a matter of fact) in the UN. I don't know why it did not fly. I hope that political sensitivities do not hamper what could be a fruitful dialogue about a topic that is a common challenge. Best wishes and a safe journey to all returning from Baku! Marília On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah > wrote: Hi all, I was logged into Room #10 remotely, webex but there was no other attendee. The webex Schedule (as on 6th and 7th) has single first day pre-meeting of 5th Nov but after refreshing promt appear for login and after login it connected me Room # 7th Nov meeting. I keep trying to obtain response from Moderator (Ms Nina), but could not established interactive response, and I do not know that have she read my text input or not. I think Moderator was too busy in the meeting physically and given zero importance to single Remote Participant. So, RP was useless. Regards Imran (for IGFPAK) ________________________________ From: Jean-Yves GATETE > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >; Rudi Vansnick > Sent: Thursday, 8 November 2012, 3:18 Subject: Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection Hi all, as Mr Rudi, I ve been following via that webcast tool too. I have the same problem too and the Room10 is not working either. Wishing you all the best, Jean-Yves GATETE De : Rudi Vansnick > À : Crepin-Leblond Olivier > Cc : governance at lists.igcaucus.org Envoyé le : Jeudi 8 novembre 2012 10h54 Objet : Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection I've used the remote participation tools daily (till today). The webex allows to participate through the chat and the Q&A windows, but the webcast is always giving me the same error. If I want to see the room I have to use the webcast tool (http://webcast.igf2012.com/) , which is of course not fully synchronised with the webex session. From room 6 till room 9 the audio in the webcast is very low. With the volume on the max here I can hardly understand the speakers. The descriptions of the rooms workshops in the webcast window is not updated and gives sometimes wrong session information. Rudi Vansnick ------------------ Internet Society Belgium --------------------- President - CEO Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16 rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 Dendermondesteenweg 143 B-9070 Destelbergen www.internetsociety.be "The Internet is for everyone" Op 8-nov-2012, om 04:29 heeft Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond het volgende geschreven: > I suppose rp has probably been flooded with enquiries. > Since the beginning of the week, I saw Bernard run around trying to fix > things. > The remote participation computers running Webex are all wired in and > appear to work well but the network sometimes goes through some periods > of being very slow. This is when the WIFI works and guess what, the WIFI > does not work well at all. In fact, I have spent complete afternoons > without WIFI. (not enough IPv4 addresses to allocate -- and no IPv6 > connectivity at all in case you ask) > > Whilst so far, I have been super impressed with the host country, this > is, in my opinion, the poorest Internet connectivity we've had at the > venue in recent IGFs. > > Kind regards, > > Olivier > > On 07/11/2012 00:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:16 PM, shaila mistry > wrote: >>> Hi everyone >>> I too have tried several times to participate. Each time I am sent a >>> different route of downloads and logins , finally leading to a dead end. >>> Please advise what can be done ? >>> Shaila Rao Mistry >> Have you tried contacting >> >> "Remote Participation general help" > >> >> ? >> >> Do they respond? >> >> If yes, what are they saying? >> >> If no, let us know, so that we can push locally for those help email >> addresses to be handled in a meaningful way. >> >> In the long run, what we need is funding to put a competent person in >> charge of ensuring in an ongoing manner (year after year) that IGF >> remote participation is made available in a way that can be expected >> to work (which presupposes learning from what went wrong in earlier >> years, and it presupposes serious testing well before the first day of >> the IGF). It is simply unacceptable for an entirely new technical team >> to put in charge of remote participation every year, and the remote >> participation infrastructure again and again being so absurdly >> unreliable.) >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> > > -- > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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 -- 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 -- http://www.timdavies.org.uk 07834 856 303. @timdavies Co-director of Practical Participation: http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk -------------------------- Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - #5381958. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 23:07:58 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:07:58 +1300 Subject: Suggestions for services for people with disabilities and remote participation aRe: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16B782@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16B782@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: This is excellent, Lee, please thank your students and I agree with their suggestions. On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Hi, > > While this is all fresh in folks minds, I thought I would share some > recommendations from students in my undergrad 'Information Policy and > Decisionmaking' class - cc'd - Cineve, Shannon, and Nicholas, who chose to > focus on IGF and accessibility issues for their class project this > semester. Their suggestions are generally in line with other suggestions > made on the list, but include a few specific ideas which might help. > Following their participation in and review of IGF workshops and remote > participation procedures, they suggest: > > > *Recommendations for Next IGF Conference:* > > * > * > > - All future IGF conferences should have all available services for > people with disabilities including: > > · Assign a DCAD representative on the IGF Secretariat Staff/ > Planning > > o Who can serve as a consultant to IGF > > > > · Have user generated information accessible > > o ie Live Captioning Youtube Videos , blogs > > > > · Create an online training module/webinar to inform presenters > on how to make accessible presentations > > > > · Add more accessibility > > o Ie Sign Language professionals, hearing aid professionals > > ------------------------------ > *From:* tim.g.davies at gmail.com [tim.g.davies at gmail.com] on behalf of Tim > Davies [tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk] > *Sent:* Saturday, November 10, 2012 5:02 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ray Pelletier > *Cc:* Ginger Paque; Marilia Maciel > *Subject:* Re: Suggestions for remote participation Re: [governance] > IGF2012, Remote Connection > > Hello Ray, > > Many thanks for sharing this. > > Having looked through the IETF draft, it appears to address very clearly > many of the issues that were discussed in the RP workshop at this years IGF. > > I would very much encourage any Remote Participation report to IGF > Secretariat / MAG etc. to use this as a basis for setting out clear > technical and process principles for future RP. > > All best wishes > > Tim > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Ray Pelletier wrote: > >> All; >> >> I just want to invite your attention to some work in the Internet >> Engineering Task Force (IETF) to establish requirements for want we are >> calling Remote Participation Services. The IETF is quite keen to provide >> for non-attendees to our three meetings per year and multiple interim >> meetings to participate in our Internet Standards Development efforts. >> >> That draft can be found here: < >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-genarea-rps-reqs/?include_text=1 >> > >> >> We have used WebEx and lately have been experimenting with Meetecho, >> which has endeavored to incorporate the IETF requrements. >> >> We are now concluding IETF 85 in Atlanta. At this site you can find >> recordings of some of the sessions: >> . >> >> Also: >> >> I hope this is useful. >> >> Ray >> >> >> On Nov 9, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> Yes, Marilia, this is very important. We will be working on this document >> before posting to the IGC list and Secretariat. If you--or anyone else-- >> would like to join us, please let me know offlist. >> >> We will be actively working to join forces with the DCAD, Tim Davies, and >> others to work towards a compilation of guidelines, principles and >> standards for remote participation, in particular to avoid (as noted by >> Norbert in the session) repeating the same mistakes. We expect to be >> actively involved in the next open consultation to provide this support to >> the RP efforts of the IGF Secretariat (Chengetai and Bernard). >> >> This is an evolving, maturing process, which cannot be sustained by tech >> preparation alone. My first impression is that we now have a lot of >> information that we need, to put together the bigger picture, involving the >> strategies and awareness-raising of panel design, workshop structure and >> event planning. We need an organizational structure that counts remote >> participants as 'real' participants from the beginning. We need not only >> trained remote moderators, but aware and inclusive panels and panel >> moderators who consider remote participation to be part of the meeting. >> >> Thanks to everyone for their efforts and energy to include the rest of >> the world, isolated and/or excluded by distance and different access from >> the meetings in Baku. >> >> Best regards, >> Ginger >> >> >> On 9 November 2012 05:15, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >>> Thanks for the feedback Ginger. The times zones were difficult to >>> reconcile, but I will look for the transcripts online. >>> Maybe we could send the result of the discussions of the workshop today >>> and the suggestions for improvement that will be made on the list as a >>> contribution to the next Open Consultation. >>> >>> Marília >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >>> >>>> These are excellent points, Marilia. We have been discussing similar >>>> ideas, including Pranesh's suggestion that as remote participants we must >>>> 'make ourselves be noticed'. I think we do need to raise our concerns in a >>>> dynamic, strong, constructive way to make this possible. I ask that you >>>> join us tomorrow at WS 52 Remote Participation: Reality and Principles, at >>>> 11:00 a.m. Baku time, conference room 9, where we will discuss these issues >>>> and the way forward. We will continue collaborative work on the Remote >>>> Participation principles, started last year in Nairobi, on an open etherpad >>>> document. The url and password will be published tomorrow morning. If you >>>> cannot join us, we will add your points to the document. We invite others >>>> to make their voices heard, so we can include your points in our final >>>> document. We hope to see you there, or to include you with our work. This >>>> is an important issue of access, and must be addressed. >>>> Obrigada, saludos, >>>> Ginger >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 November 2012 10:28, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I would like to start a thread of concrete suggestions for improving >>>>> RP. I know all of us who participated remotely have our impressions of what >>>>> could be better, so why not share them? >>>>> >>>>> My personal views about being a remote participant today - for the >>>>> first time in the IGF - is that the webcast of all sessions and the >>>>> captioning are tremendous tools, the existence of hubs multiplies IGF >>>>> discussions, and the fact that RP is available to any individual in the >>>>> world is a remarkable sign of openness. But, in spite of all the undeniable >>>>> achievements, progress needs to be made to ensure inclusion of views of >>>>> remote participants into the IGF debate. >>>>> >>>>> That difficulty, in my opinion, has to do with one main reason: In >>>>> spite of the huge number of remote participants (47 hubs, more than 800 >>>>> people last year), the *methodology of most workshop sessions* *remains >>>>> unchanged*. We have not adjust to the new reality and the sessions >>>>> are planned exclusively for those who are physically in the IGF. One >>>>> possible reason for that could be that we have too many sessions on the >>>>> schedule and too many issues to discuss. My feeling was that session >>>>> moderators were so under pressure that, on the heat of the debate, they >>>>> tended to see remote participants as an obstacle to "moving the discussion >>>>> forward", not as IGF participants. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe* less and longer sessions* on IGF schedule would reduce >>>>> pressure. Time pressure makes people impatient with the difficulties that >>>>> non-native English speakers may have, or with occasional technical >>>>> glitches, which we need to cope with, if we really want to include remote >>>>> participants. It is up to us to decide what we value the most as a >>>>> community: Speed of discussions? Inclusion? Sometimes they are in a >>>>> trade-off. >>>>> >>>>> It would be important to r*educe the distance between remote >>>>> participants and the session moderator*. Most session moderators >>>>> don't remember to look at the screen and check if questions are popping up >>>>> in Webex. So remote participants lose the "timing" of making interventions. >>>>> Maybe we could establish a procedure so remote participants could *send >>>>> questions to the session moderator before the IGF*, so he could >>>>> incorporate some of them into his own set of questions to the panelists. >>>>> For the "live" questions, the remote participation moderator should have a >>>>> *clear visual way* to sign to the session moderator that a remote >>>>> question has been asked, like raising a red flag. Of course, audio >>>>> interventions need to be more encouraged, even if their moment needs to be >>>>> carefully planned and agreed upon between the session moderators and the >>>>> technical team. >>>>> >>>>> *There should not be a session without a remote moderator*. Imagine >>>>> someone who blocked her agenda to participate in a workshop and then, >>>>> surprise: you stay in a room talking to the walls. If remote participation >>>>> is an integral part of the IGF, this is unacceptable. Workshops without >>>>> remote moderators should not be approved (for real), and those physically >>>>> present in the room should confirm if the moderator is indeed there. As a >>>>> last resort, anyone could take the role of being a moderator in case the >>>>> person is missing. >>>>> >>>>> My main point is that, in spite of the technical improvements that >>>>> should always be made, *making remote participation inclusive is up >>>>> to the community, especially of those who plan the sessions*. Some >>>>> organizers did a great job in linking up with remote hubs, planing for the >>>>> participation of remote speakers and participants. But I seems they were >>>>> still a minority. >>>>> >>>>> To mention the *technical aspects*, to me the greater problem was >>>>> lack of integration between webex, webcast and captioning. Going back and >>>>> forth in different windows was not practical. On a positive side, the >>>>> quality of the image of the webcast seemed to be better, and the cameras >>>>> were placed in a better position inside the room. It helped to read facial >>>>> and body expressions. >>>>> >>>>> One last point: some time ago, it was proposed that a task force >>>>> would be created to *exchange knowledge and best practices regarding >>>>> RP* with other organizations that have also been struggling and >>>>> making progress at it, such as ITU (and many others as a matter of fact) in >>>>> the UN. I don't know why it did not fly. I hope that political >>>>> sensitivities do not hamper what could be a fruitful dialogue about a topic >>>>> that is a common challenge. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes and a safe journey to all returning from Baku! >>>>> >>>>> Marília >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> I was logged into Room #10 remotely, webex but there was no other >>>>>> attendee. >>>>>> The webex Schedule (as on 6th and 7th) has single first day >>>>>> pre-meeting of 5th Nov but after refreshing promt appear for login and >>>>>> after login it connected me Room # 7th Nov meeting. >>>>>> >>>>>> I keep trying to obtain response from Moderator (Ms Nina), but >>>>>> could not established interactive response, and I do not know that have she >>>>>> read my text input or not. I think Moderator was too busy in the >>>>>> meeting physically and given zero importance to single Remote Participant. >>>>>> So, RP was useless. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Imran >>>>>> (for IGFPAK) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> *From:* Jean-Yves GATETE >>>>>> *To:* "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; >>>>>> Rudi Vansnick >>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, 8 November 2012, 3:18 >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> as Mr Rudi, I ve been following via that webcast tool too. I have >>>>>> the same problem too and the Room10 is not working either. >>>>>> >>>>>> Wishing you all the best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Jean-Yves GATETE >>>>>> >>>>>> *De :* Rudi Vansnick >>>>>> *À :* Crepin-Leblond Olivier >>>>>> *Cc :* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> *Envoyé le :* Jeudi 8 novembre 2012 10h54 >>>>>> *Objet :* Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection >>>>>> >>>>>> I've used the remote participation tools daily (till today). The >>>>>> webex allows to participate through the chat and the Q&A windows, but the >>>>>> webcast is always giving me the same error. >>>>>> If I want to see the room I have to use the webcast tool ( >>>>>> http://webcast.igf2012.com/) , which is of course not fully >>>>>> synchronised with the webex session. From room 6 till room 9 the audio in >>>>>> the webcast is very low. With the volume on the max here I can hardly >>>>>> understand the speakers. >>>>>> >>>>>> The descriptions of the rooms workshops in the webcast window is not >>>>>> updated and gives sometimes wrong session information. >>>>>> >>>>>> Rudi Vansnick >>>>>> ------------------ Internet Society Belgium --------------------- >>>>>> President - CEO Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16 >>>>>> rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 >>>>>> Dendermondesteenweg 143 B-9070 Destelbergen >>>>>> www.internetsociety.be "The Internet is for everyone" >>>>>> >>>>>> Op 8-nov-2012, om 04:29 heeft Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond het volgende >>>>>> geschreven: >>>>>> >>>>>> > I suppose rp has probably been flooded with enquiries. >>>>>> > Since the beginning of the week, I saw Bernard run around trying to >>>>>> fix >>>>>> > things. >>>>>> > The remote participation computers running Webex are all wired in >>>>>> and >>>>>> > appear to work well but the network sometimes goes through some >>>>>> periods >>>>>> > of being very slow. This is when the WIFI works and guess what, the >>>>>> WIFI >>>>>> > does not work well at all. In fact, I have spent complete afternoons >>>>>> > without WIFI. (not enough IPv4 addresses to allocate -- and no IPv6 >>>>>> > connectivity at all in case you ask) >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Whilst so far, I have been super impressed with the host country, >>>>>> this >>>>>> > is, in my opinion, the poorest Internet connectivity we've had at >>>>>> the >>>>>> > venue in recent IGFs. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Kind regards, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Olivier >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On 07/11/2012 00:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>>> >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:16 PM, shaila mistry >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>> Hi everyone >>>>>> >>> I too have tried several times to participate. Each time I am >>>>>> sent a >>>>>> >>> different route of downloads and logins , finally leading to a >>>>>> dead end. >>>>>> >>> Please advise what can be done ? >>>>>> >>> Shaila Rao Mistry >>>>>> >> Have you tried contacting >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> "Remote Participation general help" >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> ? >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Do they respond? >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> If yes, what are they saying? >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> If no, let us know, so that we can push locally for those help >>>>>> email >>>>>> >> addresses to be handled in a meaningful way. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> In the long run, what we need is funding to put a competent person >>>>>> in >>>>>> >> charge of ensuring in an ongoing manner (year after year) that IGF >>>>>> >> remote participation is made available in a way that can be >>>>>> expected >>>>>> >> to work (which presupposes learning from what went wrong in earlier >>>>>> >> years, and it presupposes serious testing well before the first >>>>>> day of >>>>>> >> the IGF). It is simply unacceptable for an entirely new technical >>>>>> team >>>>>> >> to put in charge of remote participation every year, and the remote >>>>>> >> participation infrastructure again and again being so absurdly >>>>>> >> unreliable.) >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Greetings, >>>>>> >> Norbert >>>>>> >> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > -- >>>>>> > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD >>>>>> > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> > >>>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> >> > > > -- > > > http://www.timdavies.org.uk > 07834 856 303. > @timdavies > > Co-director of Practical Participation: > http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk > -------------------------- > Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - > #5381958. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji 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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 15 23:08:26 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:38:26 +0530 Subject: Suggestions for services for people with disabilities and remote participation aRe: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16B782@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16B782@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <002701cdc3b0$094e4fc0$1beaef40$@hserus.net> And together with that, do we have any statistics on the number of people with disabilities participating in the event? Maybe a breakup on which sort of services they require [closed captioning, ASL interpretation, wheelchair attendants / service animals, medication ..] From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: 16 November 2012 09:33 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Tim Davies; Ray Pelletier Cc: Shannon Michelle Tremblay; Cineve Arial Gibbons; Nicholas Donato Dalbis Subject: RE: Suggestions for services for people with disabilities and remote participation aRe: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection Hi, While this is all fresh in folks minds, I thought I would share some recommendations from students in my undergrad 'Information Policy and Decisionmaking' class - cc'd - Cineve, Shannon, and Nicholas, who chose to focus on IGF and accessibility issues for their class project this semester. Their suggestions are generally in line with other suggestions made on the list, but include a few specific ideas which might help. Following their participation in and review of IGF workshops and remote participation procedures, they suggest: Recommendations for Next IGF Conference: * All future IGF conferences should have all available services for people with disabilities including: · Assign a DCAD representative on the IGF Secretariat Staff/ Planning o Who can serve as a consultant to IGF · Have user generated information accessible o ie Live Captioning Youtube Videos , blogs · Create an online training module/webinar to inform presenters on how to make accessible presentations · Add more accessibility o Ie Sign Language professionals, hearing aid professionals _____ From: tim.g.davies at gmail.com [tim.g.davies at gmail.com] on behalf of Tim Davies [tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk] Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 5:02 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ray Pelletier Cc: Ginger Paque; Marilia Maciel Subject: Re: Suggestions for remote participation Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection Hello Ray, Many thanks for sharing this. Having looked through the IETF draft, it appears to address very clearly many of the issues that were discussed in the RP workshop at this years IGF. I would very much encourage any Remote Participation report to IGF Secretariat / MAG etc. to use this as a basis for setting out clear technical and process principles for future RP. All best wishes Tim On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Ray Pelletier wrote: All; I just want to invite your attention to some work in the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) to establish requirements for want we are calling Remote Participation Services. The IETF is quite keen to provide for non-attendees to our three meetings per year and multiple interim meetings to participate in our Internet Standards Development efforts. That draft can be found here: We have used WebEx and lately have been experimenting with Meetecho, which has endeavored to incorporate the IETF requrements. We are now concluding IETF 85 in Atlanta. At this site you can find recordings of some of the sessions: . Also: I hope this is useful. Ray On Nov 9, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: Yes, Marilia, this is very important. We will be working on this document before posting to the IGC list and Secretariat. If you--or anyone else-- would like to join us, please let me know offlist. We will be actively working to join forces with the DCAD, Tim Davies, and others to work towards a compilation of guidelines, principles and standards for remote participation, in particular to avoid (as noted by Norbert in the session) repeating the same mistakes. We expect to be actively involved in the next open consultation to provide this support to the RP efforts of the IGF Secretariat (Chengetai and Bernard). This is an evolving, maturing process, which cannot be sustained by tech preparation alone. My first impression is that we now have a lot of information that we need, to put together the bigger picture, involving the strategies and awareness-raising of panel design, workshop structure and event planning. We need an organizational structure that counts remote participants as 'real' participants from the beginning. We need not only trained remote moderators, but aware and inclusive panels and panel moderators who consider remote participation to be part of the meeting. Thanks to everyone for their efforts and energy to include the rest of the world, isolated and/or excluded by distance and different access from the meetings in Baku. Best regards, Ginger On 9 November 2012 05:15, Marilia Maciel wrote: Thanks for the feedback Ginger. The times zones were difficult to reconcile, but I will look for the transcripts online. Maybe we could send the result of the discussions of the workshop today and the suggestions for improvement that will be made on the list as a contribution to the next Open Consultation. Marília On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: These are excellent points, Marilia. We have been discussing similar ideas, including Pranesh's suggestion that as remote participants we must 'make ourselves be noticed'. I think we do need to raise our concerns in a dynamic, strong, constructive way to make this possible. I ask that you join us tomorrow at WS 52 Remote Participation: Reality and Principles, at 11:00 a.m. Baku time, conference room 9, where we will discuss these issues and the way forward. We will continue collaborative work on the Remote Participation principles, started last year in Nairobi, on an open etherpad document. The url and password will be published tomorrow morning. If you cannot join us, we will add your points to the document. We invite others to make their voices heard, so we can include your points in our final document. We hope to see you there, or to include you with our work. This is an important issue of access, and must be addressed. Obrigada, saludos, Ginger On 8 November 2012 10:28, Marilia Maciel wrote: Hi all, I would like to start a thread of concrete suggestions for improving RP. I know all of us who participated remotely have our impressions of what could be better, so why not share them? My personal views about being a remote participant today - for the first time in the IGF - is that the webcast of all sessions and the captioning are tremendous tools, the existence of hubs multiplies IGF discussions, and the fact that RP is available to any individual in the world is a remarkable sign of openness. But, in spite of all the undeniable achievements, progress needs to be made to ensure inclusion of views of remote participants into the IGF debate. That difficulty, in my opinion, has to do with one main reason: In spite of the huge number of remote participants (47 hubs, more than 800 people last year), the methodology of most workshop sessions remains unchanged. We have not adjust to the new reality and the sessions are planned exclusively for those who are physically in the IGF. One possible reason for that could be that we have too many sessions on the schedule and too many issues to discuss. My feeling was that session moderators were so under pressure that, on the heat of the debate, they tended to see remote participants as an obstacle to "moving the discussion forward", not as IGF participants. Maybe less and longer sessions on IGF schedule would reduce pressure. Time pressure makes people impatient with the difficulties that non-native English speakers may have, or with occasional technical glitches, which we need to cope with, if we really want to include remote participants. It is up to us to decide what we value the most as a community: Speed of discussions? Inclusion? Sometimes they are in a trade-off. It would be important to reduce the distance between remote participants and the session moderator. Most session moderators don't remember to look at the screen and check if questions are popping up in Webex. So remote participants lose the "timing" of making interventions. Maybe we could establish a procedure so remote participants could send questions to the session moderator before the IGF, so he could incorporate some of them into his own set of questions to the panelists. For the "live" questions, the remote participation moderator should have a clear visual way to sign to the session moderator that a remote question has been asked, like raising a red flag. Of course, audio interventions need to be more encouraged, even if their moment needs to be carefully planned and agreed upon between the session moderators and the technical team. There should not be a session without a remote moderator. Imagine someone who blocked her agenda to participate in a workshop and then, surprise: you stay in a room talking to the walls. If remote participation is an integral part of the IGF, this is unacceptable. Workshops without remote moderators should not be approved (for real), and those physically present in the room should confirm if the moderator is indeed there. As a last resort, anyone could take the role of being a moderator in case the person is missing. My main point is that, in spite of the technical improvements that should always be made, making remote participation inclusive is up to the community, especially of those who plan the sessions. Some organizers did a great job in linking up with remote hubs, planing for the participation of remote speakers and participants. But I seems they were still a minority. To mention the technical aspects, to me the greater problem was lack of integration between webex, webcast and captioning. Going back and forth in different windows was not practical. On a positive side, the quality of the image of the webcast seemed to be better, and the cameras were placed in a better position inside the room. It helped to read facial and body expressions. One last point: some time ago, it was proposed that a task force would be created to exchange knowledge and best practices regarding RP with other organizations that have also been struggling and making progress at it, such as ITU (and many others as a matter of fact) in the UN. I don't know why it did not fly. I hope that political sensitivities do not hamper what could be a fruitful dialogue about a topic that is a common challenge. Best wishes and a safe journey to all returning from Baku! Marília On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: Hi all, I was logged into Room #10 remotely, webex but there was no other attendee. The webex Schedule (as on 6th and 7th) has single first day pre-meeting of 5th Nov but after refreshing promt appear for login and after login it connected me Room # 7th Nov meeting. I keep trying to obtain response from Moderator (Ms Nina), but could not established interactive response, and I do not know that have she read my text input or not. I think Moderator was too busy in the meeting physically and given zero importance to single Remote Participant. So, RP was useless. Regards Imran (for IGFPAK) _____ From: Jean-Yves GATETE To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Rudi Vansnick Sent: Thursday, 8 November 2012, 3:18 Subject: Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection Hi all, as Mr Rudi, I ve been following via that webcast tool too. I have the same problem too and the Room10 is not working either. Wishing you all the best, Jean-Yves GATETE De : Rudi Vansnick À : Crepin-Leblond Olivier Cc : governance at lists.igcaucus.org Envoyé le : Jeudi 8 novembre 2012 10h54 Objet : Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection I've used the remote participation tools daily (till today). The webex allows to participate through the chat and the Q&A windows, but the webcast is always giving me the same error. If I want to see the room I have to use the webcast tool (http://webcast.igf2012.com/) , which is of course not fully synchronised with the webex session. From room 6 till room 9 the audio in the webcast is very low. With the volume on the max here I can hardly understand the speakers. The descriptions of the rooms workshops in the webcast window is not updated and gives sometimes wrong session information. Rudi Vansnick ------------------ Internet Society Belgium --------------------- President - CEO Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16 rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 Dendermondesteenweg 143 B-9070 Destelbergen www.internetsociety.be "The Internet is for everyone" Op 8-nov-2012, om 04:29 heeft Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond het volgende geschreven: > I suppose rp has probably been flooded with enquiries. > Since the beginning of the week, I saw Bernard run around trying to fix > things. > The remote participation computers running Webex are all wired in and > appear to work well but the network sometimes goes through some periods > of being very slow. This is when the WIFI works and guess what, the WIFI > does not work well at all. In fact, I have spent complete afternoons > without WIFI. (not enough IPv4 addresses to allocate -- and no IPv6 > connectivity at all in case you ask) > > Whilst so far, I have been super impressed with the host country, this > is, in my opinion, the poorest Internet connectivity we've had at the > venue in recent IGFs. > > Kind regards, > > Olivier > > On 07/11/2012 00:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:16 PM, shaila mistry wrote: >>> Hi everyone >>> I too have tried several times to participate. Each time I am sent a >>> different route of downloads and logins , finally leading to a dead end. >>> Please advise what can be done ? >>> Shaila Rao Mistry >> Have you tried contacting >> >> "Remote Participation general help" >> >> ? >> >> Do they respond? >> >> If yes, what are they saying? >> >> If no, let us know, so that we can push locally for those help email >> addresses to be handled in a meaningful way. >> >> In the long run, what we need is funding to put a competent person in >> charge of ensuring in an ongoing manner (year after year) that IGF >> remote participation is made available in a way that can be expected >> to work (which presupposes learning from what went wrong in earlier >> years, and it presupposes serious testing well before the first day of >> the IGF). It is simply unacceptable for an entirely new technical team >> to put in charge of remote participation every year, and the remote >> participation infrastructure again and again being so absurdly >> unreliable.) >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> > > -- > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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 -- 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 -- http://www.timdavies.org.uk 07834 856 303. @timdavies Co-director of Practical Participation: http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk -------------------------- Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - #5381958. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Nov 15 23:22:25 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 04:22:25 +0000 Subject: Suggestions for services for people with disabilities and remote participation aRe: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection In-Reply-To: References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16B782@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16B79F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> thanks Sala, will do Lee ________________________________ From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 11:07 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Lee W McKnight Subject: Re: Suggestions for services for people with disabilities and remote participation aRe: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection This is excellent, Lee, please thank your students and I agree with their suggestions. On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Lee W McKnight > wrote: Hi, While this is all fresh in folks minds, I thought I would share some recommendations from students in my undergrad 'Information Policy and Decisionmaking' class - cc'd - Cineve, Shannon, and Nicholas, who chose to focus on IGF and accessibility issues for their class project this semester. Their suggestions are generally in line with other suggestions made on the list, but include a few specific ideas which might help. Following their participation in and review of IGF workshops and remote participation procedures, they suggest: Recommendations for Next IGF Conference: * All future IGF conferences should have all available services for people with disabilities including: * Assign a DCAD representative on the IGF Secretariat Staff/ Planning o Who can serve as a consultant to IGF * Have user generated information accessible o ie Live Captioning Youtube Videos , blogs * Create an online training module/webinar to inform presenters on how to make accessible presentations * Add more accessibility o Ie Sign Language professionals, hearing aid professionals ________________________________ From: tim.g.davies at gmail.com [tim.g.davies at gmail.com] on behalf of Tim Davies [tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk] Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 5:02 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ray Pelletier Cc: Ginger Paque; Marilia Maciel Subject: Re: Suggestions for remote participation Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection Hello Ray, Many thanks for sharing this. Having looked through the IETF draft, it appears to address very clearly many of the issues that were discussed in the RP workshop at this years IGF. I would very much encourage any Remote Participation report to IGF Secretariat / MAG etc. to use this as a basis for setting out clear technical and process principles for future RP. All best wishes Tim On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Ray Pelletier > wrote: All; I just want to invite your attention to some work in the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) to establish requirements for want we are calling Remote Participation Services. The IETF is quite keen to provide for non-attendees to our three meetings per year and multiple interim meetings to participate in our Internet Standards Development efforts. That draft can be found here: We have used WebEx and lately have been experimenting with Meetecho, which has endeavored to incorporate the IETF requrements. We are now concluding IETF 85 in Atlanta. At this site you can find recordings of some of the sessions: . Also: I hope this is useful. Ray On Nov 9, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: Yes, Marilia, this is very important. We will be working on this document before posting to the IGC list and Secretariat. If you--or anyone else-- would like to join us, please let me know offlist. We will be actively working to join forces with the DCAD, Tim Davies, and others to work towards a compilation of guidelines, principles and standards for remote participation, in particular to avoid (as noted by Norbert in the session) repeating the same mistakes. We expect to be actively involved in the next open consultation to provide this support to the RP efforts of the IGF Secretariat (Chengetai and Bernard). This is an evolving, maturing process, which cannot be sustained by tech preparation alone. My first impression is that we now have a lot of information that we need, to put together the bigger picture, involving the strategies and awareness-raising of panel design, workshop structure and event planning. We need an organizational structure that counts remote participants as 'real' participants from the beginning. We need not only trained remote moderators, but aware and inclusive panels and panel moderators who consider remote participation to be part of the meeting. Thanks to everyone for their efforts and energy to include the rest of the world, isolated and/or excluded by distance and different access from the meetings in Baku. Best regards, Ginger On 9 November 2012 05:15, Marilia Maciel > wrote: Thanks for the feedback Ginger. The times zones were difficult to reconcile, but I will look for the transcripts online. Maybe we could send the result of the discussions of the workshop today and the suggestions for improvement that will be made on the list as a contribution to the next Open Consultation. Marília On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Ginger Paque > wrote: These are excellent points, Marilia. We have been discussing similar ideas, including Pranesh's suggestion that as remote participants we must 'make ourselves be noticed'. I think we do need to raise our concerns in a dynamic, strong, constructive way to make this possible. I ask that you join us tomorrow at WS 52 Remote Participation: Reality and Principles, at 11:00 a.m. Baku time, conference room 9, where we will discuss these issues and the way forward. We will continue collaborative work on the Remote Participation principles, started last year in Nairobi, on an open etherpad document. The url and password will be published tomorrow morning. If you cannot join us, we will add your points to the document. We invite others to make their voices heard, so we can include your points in our final document. We hope to see you there, or to include you with our work. This is an important issue of access, and must be addressed. Obrigada, saludos, Ginger On 8 November 2012 10:28, Marilia Maciel > wrote: Hi all, I would like to start a thread of concrete suggestions for improving RP. I know all of us who participated remotely have our impressions of what could be better, so why not share them? My personal views about being a remote participant today - for the first time in the IGF - is that the webcast of all sessions and the captioning are tremendous tools, the existence of hubs multiplies IGF discussions, and the fact that RP is available to any individual in the world is a remarkable sign of openness. But, in spite of all the undeniable achievements, progress needs to be made to ensure inclusion of views of remote participants into the IGF debate. That difficulty, in my opinion, has to do with one main reason: In spite of the huge number of remote participants (47 hubs, more than 800 people last year), the methodology of most workshop sessions remains unchanged. We have not adjust to the new reality and the sessions are planned exclusively for those who are physically in the IGF. One possible reason for that could be that we have too many sessions on the schedule and too many issues to discuss. My feeling was that session moderators were so under pressure that, on the heat of the debate, they tended to see remote participants as an obstacle to "moving the discussion forward", not as IGF participants. Maybe less and longer sessions on IGF schedule would reduce pressure. Time pressure makes people impatient with the difficulties that non-native English speakers may have, or with occasional technical glitches, which we need to cope with, if we really want to include remote participants. It is up to us to decide what we value the most as a community: Speed of discussions? Inclusion? Sometimes they are in a trade-off. It would be important to reduce the distance between remote participants and the session moderator. Most session moderators don't remember to look at the screen and check if questions are popping up in Webex. So remote participants lose the "timing" of making interventions. Maybe we could establish a procedure so remote participants could send questions to the session moderator before the IGF, so he could incorporate some of them into his own set of questions to the panelists. For the "live" questions, the remote participation moderator should have a clear visual way to sign to the session moderator that a remote question has been asked, like raising a red flag. Of course, audio interventions need to be more encouraged, even if their moment needs to be carefully planned and agreed upon between the session moderators and the technical team. There should not be a session without a remote moderator. Imagine someone who blocked her agenda to participate in a workshop and then, surprise: you stay in a room talking to the walls. If remote participation is an integral part of the IGF, this is unacceptable. Workshops without remote moderators should not be approved (for real), and those physically present in the room should confirm if the moderator is indeed there. As a last resort, anyone could take the role of being a moderator in case the person is missing. My main point is that, in spite of the technical improvements that should always be made, making remote participation inclusive is up to the community, especially of those who plan the sessions. Some organizers did a great job in linking up with remote hubs, planing for the participation of remote speakers and participants. But I seems they were still a minority. To mention the technical aspects, to me the greater problem was lack of integration between webex, webcast and captioning. Going back and forth in different windows was not practical. On a positive side, the quality of the image of the webcast seemed to be better, and the cameras were placed in a better position inside the room. It helped to read facial and body expressions. One last point: some time ago, it was proposed that a task force would be created to exchange knowledge and best practices regarding RP with other organizations that have also been struggling and making progress at it, such as ITU (and many others as a matter of fact) in the UN. I don't know why it did not fly. I hope that political sensitivities do not hamper what could be a fruitful dialogue about a topic that is a common challenge. Best wishes and a safe journey to all returning from Baku! Marília On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah > wrote: Hi all, I was logged into Room #10 remotely, webex but there was no other attendee. The webex Schedule (as on 6th and 7th) has single first day pre-meeting of 5th Nov but after refreshing promt appear for login and after login it connected me Room # 7th Nov meeting. I keep trying to obtain response from Moderator (Ms Nina), but could not established interactive response, and I do not know that have she read my text input or not. I think Moderator was too busy in the meeting physically and given zero importance to single Remote Participant. So, RP was useless. Regards Imran (for IGFPAK) ________________________________ From: Jean-Yves GATETE > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >; Rudi Vansnick > Sent: Thursday, 8 November 2012, 3:18 Subject: Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection Hi all, as Mr Rudi, I ve been following via that webcast tool too. I have the same problem too and the Room10 is not working either. Wishing you all the best, Jean-Yves GATETE De : Rudi Vansnick > À : Crepin-Leblond Olivier > Cc : governance at lists.igcaucus.org Envoyé le : Jeudi 8 novembre 2012 10h54 Objet : Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection I've used the remote participation tools daily (till today). The webex allows to participate through the chat and the Q&A windows, but the webcast is always giving me the same error. If I want to see the room I have to use the webcast tool (http://webcast.igf2012.com/) , which is of course not fully synchronised with the webex session. From room 6 till room 9 the audio in the webcast is very low. With the volume on the max here I can hardly understand the speakers. The descriptions of the rooms workshops in the webcast window is not updated and gives sometimes wrong session information. Rudi Vansnick ------------------ Internet Society Belgium --------------------- President - CEO Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16 rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 Dendermondesteenweg 143 B-9070 Destelbergen www.internetsociety.be "The Internet is for everyone" Op 8-nov-2012, om 04:29 heeft Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond het volgende geschreven: > I suppose rp has probably been flooded with enquiries. > Since the beginning of the week, I saw Bernard run around trying to fix > things. > The remote participation computers running Webex are all wired in and > appear to work well but the network sometimes goes through some periods > of being very slow. This is when the WIFI works and guess what, the WIFI > does not work well at all. In fact, I have spent complete afternoons > without WIFI. (not enough IPv4 addresses to allocate -- and no IPv6 > connectivity at all in case you ask) > > Whilst so far, I have been super impressed with the host country, this > is, in my opinion, the poorest Internet connectivity we've had at the > venue in recent IGFs. > > Kind regards, > > Olivier > > On 07/11/2012 00:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:16 PM, shaila mistry > wrote: >>> Hi everyone >>> I too have tried several times to participate. Each time I am sent a >>> different route of downloads and logins , finally leading to a dead end. >>> Please advise what can be done ? >>> Shaila Rao Mistry >> Have you tried contacting >> >> "Remote Participation general help" > >> >> ? >> >> Do they respond? >> >> If yes, what are they saying? >> >> If no, let us know, so that we can push locally for those help email >> addresses to be handled in a meaningful way. >> >> In the long run, what we need is funding to put a competent person in >> charge of ensuring in an ongoing manner (year after year) that IGF >> remote participation is made available in a way that can be expected >> to work (which presupposes learning from what went wrong in earlier >> years, and it presupposes serious testing well before the first day of >> the IGF). It is simply unacceptable for an entirely new technical team >> to put in charge of remote participation every year, and the remote >> participation infrastructure again and again being so absurdly >> unreliable.) >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> > > -- > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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 -- 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 -- http://www.timdavies.org.uk 07834 856 303. @timdavies Co-director of Practical Participation: http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk -------------------------- Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - #5381958. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji 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 Fri Nov 16 01:23:45 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 22:23:45 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: The ITU/WCIT: Thinking About Internet Regulatory Policy From An LDC Perspective? In-Reply-To: <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03244DEA@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <056001cda79c$6fcd1360$4f673a20$@gmail.com> <22F4FCB44A7EBC40BB806F5BC29D86E502F6DFC93E@exch-man.analysys.com> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03244DEA@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <01bb01cdc3c3$039d1e40$0ad75ac0$@gmail.com> Michael Kende, of AnalysisMason and the author of two reports that I referred to in my earlier blogpost replied to the message that I sent to the Governance e-list, but since he isn't a subscriber it didn't appear on the list and he has asked me to ensure that it is circulated to the IGC. My apologies to him and to you that this is coming late--it rather got caught up in my work/travel first in central Africa and then at the IGF. My reply to his comments can be found on the orginal blogpost @ http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet -regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ (note that my own thinking on this has now evolved somewhat based in part on the interaction with Michael and others on the blogsite, the BestBits meeting, the IGF, the various discussions on various lists on the WCIT and the interactions on this list in the last couple of days. Best to all, M From: Michael Kende Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 6:30 PM To: michael gurstein; ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: peter at hellmonds.net; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Subject: RE: The ITU/WCIT: Thinking About Internet Regulatory Policy From An LDC Perspective? Dear Mike, Many thanks for providing a wider audience for the debate started on the ISOC mailing list – if this email does not automatically post to the new list, as well as your blog, I would appreciate your forwarding it on my behalf. I would like to raise several comments. First, the first of the two papers that you link to below (“Driving broadband Africa”) was written by my two colleagues Robert Schumann and Roz Roseboro in our Johannesburg office, and was written as part of our research program, and not on behalf of any clients. Second, I began to work on internet interconnection issues in the late 1990s, when I was at the US Federal Communications Commission and led the teams reviewing the mergers of the large Internet backbones at the time, including MCI and WorldCom. As a result of that work, I wrote an FCC working paper, entitled “The Digital Handshake: Connecting Internet Backbones”, in which I explain the market dynamics of Internet interconnection and why the unregulated system was working and appropriate – the paper was released in 2000, and can be found here: http://www.fcc.gov/working-papers/digital-handshake-connecting-internet-back bones. At that time, the issue of cost-sharing for international interconnection had already been raised in a number of countries, notably in Asia-Pacific, and in my paper I analyzed the arguments and concluded that it would not be appropriate to regulate international interconnection. Having reviewed the incredible changes and growth in the Internet since then, my analysis and conclusions remain consistent. Third, with respect to the recommendations on promoting network infrastructure in the current paper (“Internet global growth”) which you cited below, I would like to clarify that I have worked for telecom regulators and Ministries in a number of developing countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, all interested in how to promote convergence – both network infrastructure and over-the-top services, and have consistently delivered the recommendations that I provided in this paper. I have also been invited to present on these topics to the World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, and the ITU, and have delivered the same message. Finally, I had responded to the original ISOC thread in order to contribute to the discussion, and look forward to continuing these discussions including contributions from a wide variety of authors and viewpoints. Please do let me know if you come across any or if you have any questions or comments. Best regards, Michael From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 12:38 PM To: ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: peter at hellmonds.net; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Michael Kende Subject: The ITU/WCIT: Thinking About Internet Regulatory Policy From An LDC Perspective? Note, this flows from a discussion that initially took place on a listserve sponsored by ISOC on Internet Policy. I've changed the subject line here and I've copied the others involved in this thread (I'm not sure if they are or are not subbed to the Community Informatics or the governance lists) but I know that they all have a deep knowledge and interest in this subject. I'm also putting all of this below up on my blog http://gurstein.wordpress.com where those with an interest might wish to carry forward this discussion. The extended discussion is probably only for those with an interest in Internet Governance issues and particularly as they apply to the regulatory regimes (and policy stances) of Less Developed Countries and I would point those with such an interest to research papers prepared by Michael Kende of the consulting firm AnalysysMason on behalf of Amazon, AT&T, Cisco Systems, Comcast, Google, Intel, Juniper Networks, Microsoft, National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), News Corporation, Oracle, Telefónica, Time Warner Cable, Verisign, and Verizon. specifically: https://fileshare.tools.isoc.org/wentworth/public/ISOC%20WCIT%20statements%2 0 &%20resources/Analysys_Mason_RDRK0_driving_broadband_Africa_Dec2011%20copy.p df and http://www.analysysmason.com/About-Us/News/Press-releases1/Internet-global-g rowth-PR-Sept2012/?bp=http%3a%2f%2fwww.analysysmason.com%2fSearch%2f%23query %3dglobal%2binternet%2bgrowth%26access%3dAll+content I should say that both of these reports are very interesting and contain a wealth of good information, however, the problem that I have with them and particularly the second report is that it so clearly starts off with its policy conclusion and builds a case to support this. This is not an area of particular expertise for me as I indicate in my comments in the below but my gut is that the conclusions as to the appropriate policy regime for Less Developed Countries (the apparent target for the second policy report from Michael Kende) would look quite different if it was done from/by folks from LDC's rather than sponsored as Kende's report was by Google, Cisco, Amazon, Microsoft and so on and so on. I'm not exactly sure what the LDC sponsored report would say but my guess would be that they would focus rather more on looking at how costs and benefits are and should be distributed as between some of the wealthiest companies from some of the wealthiest countries and LDC's looking to increase Internet access overall in environments of very low incomes, very difficult physical environments, extremely weak regulatory and taxation regimes, and vast areas and populations who might under some circumstances derive benefit from Internet access but who would under almost any conceivable current situation find paying for this almost impossible. My hunch is that they wouldn't start out with indicating as the number one recommendation of the report -- the basic point of the overall report from what I can see -- the overwhelming importance of Promoting network infrastructure: (by a) Focus on increasing investments throughout the network, from mobile broadband access through national and cross-border connectivity and IXPs, by removing roadblocks to lower the cost of investment, including allocating spectrum for mobile broadband or limiting licensing requirements and fees, in order to promote competitive entry and growth. >From what I am seeing (and Kende's report is as good a signal as any) the Internet biggies are running a bit scared (the term "moral panic" comes to mind) as to what "madness" might come out of the WCIT meeting that the ITU is hosting in December in Dubai. And they are pulling out all the stops in trying to derail any real discussion on how the costs and benefits might be allocated of improving/extending Internet access in and into LDC's and within LDC's to the other 99% or so in those countries who currently have no possible means of access. This is of course because the ITU as the traditional venue for global telecom "governance" includes among its 195 or so Member States a very goodly proportion, probably a majority, who are currently experiencing net costs (including many regimes who see these costs in terms of lost political control) from Internet access and paticularly if attempts at extending access to rural and maginalized populations are taken into consideration, rather than net benefits and not surprisingly they are looking at ways of righting that balance. And so instead of actually sitting down and trying to figure out a global regime for Internet (and possibly other) governance, that might in some sense lead to an equitable distribution of costs and benefits the biggies are launching verbal, research and whatever types of broadsides infinite amounts of money, easy access to expertise and the current ascendance of neo-libertarian (anti-State, anti-tax) ideology can muster. I myself am of two minds on this issue. I well recognize the value/benefits that could flow from Internet access even to the poorest of the poor and the overwhelming benefits that Internet access provides to those for example in civil society who can take advantage of its more or less unlimited free flow of communications and information (including through undermining various repressive political regimes). On the other hand, the unlimited unregulated policy environment advocated by reports like that of Kende and others of that ideological ilk would I think, lead almost directly to a further enrichment of the already stupendously wealthy and overall a signifcant transfer of wealth and benefit from those with the least to those with the most. The challenge I think is to recognize both of the above as equally likely/possible outcomes. This implies the need to design and implement a global regime which ensures the possibility of universal access to the benefits of the Internet while ensuring that the provision of these opportunities does not further enmiserate those currently least able to obtain these benefits at least in part by destroying the means by which such possible access to benefits could through public intervention, regulation and yes, even taxation ensure that such a possibility of benefits can be translated into actuality. Mike _____ _____ This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed to our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email enquiries at analysysmason.com or visit www.analysysmason.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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Nov 16 08:31:29 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 22:31:29 +0900 Subject: [governance] workshop evaluation Message-ID: The secretariat set-up a trial workshop evaluation form Wasn't widely used during the forum (problems with the web programming), though workshop organizers should have announced that is was available. Would be helpful to complete the evaluation while memories are still fresh (you'll need to know the workshop number, can check that from the IGF schedule or workshop link on the IGF website) 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Nov 16 08:32:37 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 22:32:37 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF Workshops In-Reply-To: References: <54A34818249DE34CB1697E94F0553F3701E5A528@mfp01.IFLA.lan> Message-ID: Good to hear that many of the workshops were of a high quality. I think clearly 11 tracks was too many, but there was a record number of proposals received this year (and no doubt more next.) Do we want the MAG to cut 50% or so? Or just keep the high number? Something to think about in time for taking stock consultation next February. Adam On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Luca Belli wrote: > Dear all, > > My impression is that the workshop quality has increased, compared to IGF 6. > > I think some efforts may be done in order to merge overlapping workshops but > it is important to stress the distinction between “duplicate workshops” and > workshops that analyse similar issues from a different angle. Indeed, many > of > the workshops have similar titles but completely different contents, format, > etc. > > For the sake of competition, I would say that it is better to have a wider > choice > of similar workshops and let the IGF participants “vote with their feet” by > participating to the most valuable ones, rather than oblige workshop > organisers > to merge. > > Furthermore, I would like to join Stuart’s nice comment on Workshop 146 > (Intellectual > Property Rights and the freedom to share: are the two compatible?). Although > my > opinion is not really impartial, because I was directly involved in the > organization of > the workshop, I have to say that I received a lot of positive feedbacks and > the > participants where extremely pleased by three main features of the session: > 1) the workshop was an interactive roundtable: panellists engaged in a > question-and-answer debate since the very beginning and they were not > allowed > to deliver lectures (they had a maximum of 3-4 minutes to reply my > questions); > 2) a large portion of the workshop was dedicated to interventions from the > audience. > Indeed, we all know that some of the most interesting inputs to the > workshops discussions > frequently come from the audience; > 3) we have decided to promote an intergenerational dialogue: the panel > make-up > included 11 panellists that were born between the 1950s and 1990s, and that > was > a real surplus value. > > I know that is not realistic to involve youngsters in every workshop, but I > believe > that the promotion of an intergenerational dialogue is the best way to seize > the dynamics > of an intergenerational Internet. Moreover, having some new faces around can > just help > strengthen the “legitimacy” of the IGF discussions. > > Best regards. > > Luca > > PS: the workshop report will be available by the end of the week > > Luca Belli > Doctorant en Droit Public > CERSA,Université Panthéon-Assas > Sorbonne University > > > >> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:46:29 +0100 >> From: Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; ajp at glocom.ac.jp >> Subject: RE: [governance] IGF Workshops > >> >> Hi Adam >> >> From the perspective of the library groups at the IGF we also felt that >> the quality of the workshops was good. We tried to put reports about the >> ones we were involved in as up as we went along, so please feel free to >> take a look here: >> >> http://www.ifla.org/news/igf-baku-workshop-130-outcomes-digital-inclusio >> n-and-public-access-to-the-internet >> http://www.ifla.org/news/igf-baku-workshop-168-outcomes-capacity-buildin >> g-initiatives >> http://www.ifla.org/news/igf-baku-workshop-146-outcomes-intellectual-pro >> perty-rights-and-the-freedom-to-share >> >> A background brief on libraries and public access was produced by all >> the library groups present, and ISOC, and can be found here: >> http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/clm/WSIS/libraries_public_access.pdf >> >> Our first Dynamic Coalition workshop also went well, so there will be >> outcomes from that to share soon enough. For those of you interested in >> issues relating to public access to the Internet please consider joining >> the DC's mailing list: http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/pal-dc >> >> In general, I felt that that the sessions I got the most out of were >> those on intellectual property - there seemed to be more input from >> rightsholders this year (RIAA, Disney) and this made the discussions >> more interesting for me. It was good to get some input from the side of >> the media corps/reps as I feel previous IGF workshops on this topic have >> had quite a lot of groups from civil society in general agreement. Made >> for a better discussion. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Stuart >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake >> Sent: 13 November 2012 11:18 >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: [governance] IGF Workshops >> >> A lot of people I spoke to in Baku last week were very positive about >> the workshops, pretty common message was that the content the best of >> any IGF. Not the main sessions, the workshops. I was working for the >> secretariat (contract ended with the conference), I didn't make it to >> any workshop, and not much outside the main hall. >> >> I'd love to hear of workshops and other meetings people found valuable. >> Is there something to build on for next year? Taking stock for the >> first consultation of next year will start soon (or soon'ish). >> >> 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 tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 09:15:52 2012 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 06:15:52 -0800 Subject: [governance] IGF Workshops In-Reply-To: References: <54A34818249DE34CB1697E94F0553F3701E5A528@mfp01.IFLA.lan> Message-ID: One suggestion could be to have a specific set of criteria for "Main" or "Feeder" workshops into the Main Sessions, assuming that the subject-specific Main Session is doing what it is supposed to be doing, and not degenerating into a "Mega Workshop". All Feeder Workshops should be organized in such a way that they can logically feed into the Main Session (i.e. they should happen before the Main Session begins). Additionally, perhaps the Main Sessions could /should take more of a structured "Open Forum" approach, with the Workshop Rapporteurs/Workshop Organizers leading and facilitating discussion from the audience with the concept of "Main Session Panelists" being replaced by "Discussants". These Discussants should be Subject Matter Experts in the areas under discussion in the Main Session (stating the obvious), and should also reflect various diversity considerations, as opposed to necessarily reflecting the organisational composition of the IGF. For non-"Feeder" Workshops, which are on topic, but yet not candidates for merging, perhaps a separate day (e.g. Friday) could be set aside for these workshops, which provide edge-type conversations to the "Main" or "Feeder" workshops. I noted the emergence of a series of "side sessions" at this IGF which seemed to fit this bill. On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Good to hear that many of the workshops were of a high quality. > > I think clearly 11 tracks was too many, but there was a record number > of proposals received this year (and no doubt more next.) Do we want > the MAG to cut 50% or so? Or just keep the high number? Something to > think about in time for taking stock consultation next February. > > Adam > > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Luca Belli wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > My impression is that the workshop quality has increased, compared to > IGF 6. > > > > I think some efforts may be done in order to merge overlapping workshops > but > > it is important to stress the distinction between “duplicate workshops” > and > > workshops that analyse similar issues from a different angle. Indeed, > many > > of > > the workshops have similar titles but completely different contents, > format, > > etc. > > > > For the sake of competition, I would say that it is better to have a > wider > > choice > > of similar workshops and let the IGF participants “vote with their feet” > by > > participating to the most valuable ones, rather than oblige workshop > > organisers > > to merge. > > > > Furthermore, I would like to join Stuart’s nice comment on Workshop 146 > > (Intellectual > > Property Rights and the freedom to share: are the two compatible?). > Although > > my > > opinion is not really impartial, because I was directly involved in the > > organization of > > the workshop, I have to say that I received a lot of positive feedbacks > and > > the > > participants where extremely pleased by three main features of the > session: > > 1) the workshop was an interactive roundtable: panellists engaged in a > > question-and-answer debate since the very beginning and they were not > > allowed > > to deliver lectures (they had a maximum of 3-4 minutes to reply my > > questions); > > 2) a large portion of the workshop was dedicated to interventions from > the > > audience. > > Indeed, we all know that some of the most interesting inputs to the > > workshops discussions > > frequently come from the audience; > > 3) we have decided to promote an intergenerational dialogue: the panel > > make-up > > included 11 panellists that were born between the 1950s and 1990s, and > that > > was > > a real surplus value. > > > > I know that is not realistic to involve youngsters in every workshop, > but I > > believe > > that the promotion of an intergenerational dialogue is the best way to > seize > > the dynamics > > of an intergenerational Internet. Moreover, having some new faces around > can > > just help > > strengthen the “legitimacy” of the IGF discussions. > > > > Best regards. > > > > Luca > > > > PS: the workshop report will be available by the end of the week > > > > Luca Belli > > Doctorant en Droit Public > > CERSA,Université Panthéon-Assas > > Sorbonne University > > > > > > > >> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:46:29 +0100 > >> From: Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org > >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; ajp at glocom.ac.jp > >> Subject: RE: [governance] IGF Workshops > > > >> > >> Hi Adam > >> > >> From the perspective of the library groups at the IGF we also felt that > >> the quality of the workshops was good. We tried to put reports about the > >> ones we were involved in as up as we went along, so please feel free to > >> take a look here: > >> > >> > http://www.ifla.org/news/igf-baku-workshop-130-outcomes-digital-inclusio > >> n-and-public-access-to-the-internet > >> > http://www.ifla.org/news/igf-baku-workshop-168-outcomes-capacity-buildin > >> g-initiatives > >> > http://www.ifla.org/news/igf-baku-workshop-146-outcomes-intellectual-pro > >> perty-rights-and-the-freedom-to-share > >> > >> A background brief on libraries and public access was produced by all > >> the library groups present, and ISOC, and can be found here: > >> http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/clm/WSIS/libraries_public_access.pdf > >> > >> Our first Dynamic Coalition workshop also went well, so there will be > >> outcomes from that to share soon enough. For those of you interested in > >> issues relating to public access to the Internet please consider joining > >> the DC's mailing list: http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/pal-dc > >> > >> In general, I felt that that the sessions I got the most out of were > >> those on intellectual property - there seemed to be more input from > >> rightsholders this year (RIAA, Disney) and this made the discussions > >> more interesting for me. It was good to get some input from the side of > >> the media corps/reps as I feel previous IGF workshops on this topic have > >> had quite a lot of groups from civil society in general agreement. Made > >> for a better discussion. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Stuart > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam > Peake > >> Sent: 13 November 2012 11:18 > >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> Subject: [governance] IGF Workshops > >> > >> A lot of people I spoke to in Baku last week were very positive about > >> the workshops, pretty common message was that the content the best of > >> any IGF. Not the main sessions, the workshops. I was working for the > >> secretariat (contract ended with the conference), I didn't make it to > >> any workshop, and not much outside the main hall. > >> > >> I'd love to hear of workshops and other meetings people found valuable. > >> Is there something to build on for next year? Taking stock for the > >> first consultation of next year will start soon (or soon'ish). > >> > >> 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 > > -- Best Regards, Tracy F. Hackshaw | T&T Mobile: +1 868 678 8710 | US/Google Voice: +1 786 273 9344 | tracyhackshaw at gmail.com | www.OurFutureisNow.info | Skype: hackshawt | GTalk: tracyhackshaw | MSN: tracyhackshaw | Yahoo: tracyhackshaw ---------------------------- Social Footprint Google Me: http://goo.gl/p4xs6 | Google+: http://plus.ly/tracy | Google Profile: http://goo.gl/8j2xk | LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/tracyhackshaw | Quora: http://www.quora.com/Tracy-Hackshaw| Twitter: @thackshaw | facebook: http://www.facebook.com/tracyhackshaw | Storify: http://storify.com/tracyhackshaw | Pinterest: http://pinterest.com/tracyhackshaw/ | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Fri Nov 16 09:36:31 2012 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:36:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF Workshops In-Reply-To: References: <54A34818249DE34CB1697E94F0553F3701E5A528@mfp01.IFLA.lan> Message-ID: <01a201cdc407$c59369c0$50ba3d40$@benjemaa@planet.tn> Hi Adam, Are you proposing that the MAC cut 50% of the proposed workshops? On which base? How to decide which one has to be removed? I do think that it must be dealt with as it was before; after all, the quality of the workshops is increasing, and we manage to have this great number organized without major problem. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 Mobile: +216 41 649 605 Fax: +216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Message d'origine----- De : apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] De la part de Adam Peake Envoyé : vendredi 16 novembre 2012 14:33 À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org Objet : Re: [governance] IGF Workshops Good to hear that many of the workshops were of a high quality. I think clearly 11 tracks was too many, but there was a record number of proposals received this year (and no doubt more next.) Do we want the MAG to cut 50% or so? Or just keep the high number? Something to think about in time for taking stock consultation next February. Adam On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Luca Belli wrote: > Dear all, > > My impression is that the workshop quality has increased, compared to IGF 6. > > I think some efforts may be done in order to merge overlapping > workshops but it is important to stress the distinction between > “duplicate workshops” and workshops that analyse similar issues from a > different angle. Indeed, many of the workshops have similar titles but > completely different contents, format, etc. > > For the sake of competition, I would say that it is better to have a > wider choice of similar workshops and let the IGF participants “vote > with their feet” by participating to the most valuable ones, rather > than oblige workshop organisers to merge. > > Furthermore, I would like to join Stuart’s nice comment on Workshop > 146 (Intellectual Property Rights and the freedom to share: are the > two compatible?). Although my opinion is not really impartial, because > I was directly involved in the organization of the workshop, I have to > say that I received a lot of positive feedbacks and the participants > where extremely pleased by three main features of the session: > 1) the workshop was an interactive roundtable: panellists engaged in > a question-and-answer debate since the very beginning and they were > not allowed to deliver lectures (they had a maximum of 3-4 minutes to > reply my questions); > 2) a large portion of the workshop was dedicated to interventions > from the audience. > Indeed, we all know that some of the most interesting inputs to the > workshops discussions frequently come from the audience; > 3) we have decided to promote an intergenerational dialogue: the > panel make-up included 11 panellists that were born between the 1950s > and 1990s, and that was a real surplus value. > > I know that is not realistic to involve youngsters in every workshop, > but I believe that the promotion of an intergenerational dialogue is > the best way to seize the dynamics of an intergenerational Internet. > Moreover, having some new faces around can just help strengthen the > “legitimacy” of the IGF discussions. > > Best regards. > > Luca > > PS: the workshop report will be available by the end of the week > > Luca Belli > Doctorant en Droit Public > CERSA,Université Panthéon-Assas > Sorbonne University > > > >> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:46:29 +0100 >> From: Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; ajp at glocom.ac.jp >> Subject: RE: [governance] IGF Workshops > >> >> Hi Adam >> >> From the perspective of the library groups at the IGF we also felt >> that the quality of the workshops was good. We tried to put reports >> about the ones we were involved in as up as we went along, so please >> feel free to take a look here: >> >> http://www.ifla.org/news/igf-baku-workshop-130-outcomes-digital-inclu >> sio >> n-and-public-access-to-the-internet >> http://www.ifla.org/news/igf-baku-workshop-168-outcomes-capacity-buil >> din >> g-initiatives >> http://www.ifla.org/news/igf-baku-workshop-146-outcomes-intellectual- >> pro perty-rights-and-the-freedom-to-share >> >> A background brief on libraries and public access was produced by all >> the library groups present, and ISOC, and can be found here: >> http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/clm/WSIS/libraries_public_access.pdf >> >> Our first Dynamic Coalition workshop also went well, so there will be >> outcomes from that to share soon enough. For those of you interested >> in issues relating to public access to the Internet please consider >> joining the DC's mailing list: >> http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/pal-dc >> >> In general, I felt that that the sessions I got the most out of were >> those on intellectual property - there seemed to be more input from >> rightsholders this year (RIAA, Disney) and this made the discussions >> more interesting for me. It was good to get some input from the side >> of the media corps/reps as I feel previous IGF workshops on this >> topic have had quite a lot of groups from civil society in general >> agreement. Made for a better discussion. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Stuart >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam >> Peake >> Sent: 13 November 2012 11:18 >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: [governance] IGF Workshops >> >> A lot of people I spoke to in Baku last week were very positive about >> the workshops, pretty common message was that the content the best of >> any IGF. Not the main sessions, the workshops. I was working for the >> secretariat (contract ended with the conference), I didn't make it to >> any workshop, and not much outside the main hall. >> >> I'd love to hear of workshops and other meetings people found valuable. >> Is there something to build on for next year? Taking stock for the >> first consultation of next year will start soon (or soon'ish). >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> ----- Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2629/5896 - Date: 15/11/2012 ----- Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2629/5896 - Date: 15/11/2012 -------------- 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 charityg at diplomacy.edu Sat Nov 17 01:52:18 2012 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 00:52:18 -0600 Subject: Suggestions for services for people with disabilities and remote participation aRe: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16B782@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16B782@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi, Our Student Disability Services here at Texas Tech University (TTU-SDS) where I work uses a special hook-up for TV and phone that our deaf/mute specialist uses to communicate when our students call in remotely. I don't know if a similar set-up like that might in the IGF for RP. This is something the IGF Secretariat and host country have to provide. We would call it "special accommodations." Providing "accommodations" has a hands-on quality and this is something the secretariat needs to fully understand. Another thing is, I have worked with a deaf/mute student who uses a hearing aid. Depending on the capacity of the hearing aid, I need to be in very close proximity with her so she can read my lips aside from trying to listen to me. If we have remote participants in this kind of disability, the host country and the people they pull out for this kind of job needs to be well-trained - they have to talk slowly. But you can't expect people to talk slowly in a session so you can fully accommodate them. I'm just saying if Indonesia (next year's host) wants to fully integrate RP accessibility for those people with disability, they need to start training their people. Right now, the way I see it - the concept of accessibility for disabled people has to be fully integrated into the RP model. Question is - can the IGF Secretariat embrace that concept fully into the RP model? It takes different "specialists" to work with hearing-impaired, deaf-mute, blind, paraplegic, or someone with no hands to manipulate a computer, etc. That's why here at TTU-SDS, work is very hands-on. Wherever they are in the part of the globe, they have to have someone with them to help them get set up. Indonesia is in SouthEast Asia and if the remote participant is in North America, that's a different time zone. Who would want to wake up at 3:00 AM Central Time and have a trained specialist set up equipment when offices are closed so they could participate remotely? When I say "to fully integrate (accessibility) into the RP Model" - the IGF Secretariat needs to pull its resources: -Set up platform for audio alone -Use a sign language interpreter for every session and have live feed and record it like in Mediasite -If a deaf/mute remote participant needs to ask a question from a session, you would need a specialist onsite viewing different video windows in one screen alone to pay attention for any questions and then intervene to the panelists in behalf of the remote participants. - Advance registration for IGF Remote Participants would be required and for each specific sessions they want to join. This would give the secretariat the chance to prepare and pull out the number of specialist they need for those sessions alone. Panelists can also prepare their own accommodations. This is the "advance training" part. -Call for volunteers and find hundreds in the host country who can sign language in different languages -Ask presenters to give accommodations, for instance, have their MS PowerPoint presentation written down and then convert it into an audio media file prior to presenting that can be accessed on a site (a couple of our ADHD students love this because reading makes them restless so listening to the audio version of their textbook is a lot better than reading) -If presenters decide to give their accommodations, who will convert those text files into audio files? (Students at the university pay $1,200.00 per semester to have one these accommodations FYI) - Explore QR code accessibility and uses for persons with disabilities. This is called *Assistive Technology*. It means that materials can be placed in a QR code that would be accessible to those people with disabilities and could be an audio file that can is easily accessible using a mobile app. I just recently presented with a colleague on the use of QR codes in the classrooms. We had most of the QR codes we created linking to audio files online that were easily accessible to any iOS or Android devices. If there is a kiosk on site at the IGF specifically for QR codes, it will be used like a map that would link to an app that uses the phone camera to show them around the site. This concept of QR codes is a lot harder for visually-impaired people because the labels where there are QR codes have to be in Braille. They need to touch it. Unless they are on site, then the Braille-like QR codes will not be much of a help. Plus, reading QR codes is different from generating them. It took me 2 months to devise plans and generate QR codes for learning activities. I'm still working with another colleague about devising Braille QR Codes. Nothing else comes to mind. But all I can say is it sure is a lot of of work BUT it needs to be done. I'm glad that we're finally coming around to fully integrating assistive technology in the IGF. Charity Gamboa-Embley On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Hi, > > While this is all fresh in folks minds, I thought I would share some > recommendations from students in my undergrad 'Information Policy and > Decisionmaking' class - cc'd - Cineve, Shannon, and Nicholas, who chose to > focus on IGF and accessibility issues for their class project this > semester. Their suggestions are generally in line with other suggestions > made on the list, but include a few specific ideas which might help. > Following their participation in and review of IGF workshops and remote > participation procedures, they suggest: > > > *Recommendations for Next IGF Conference:* > > * > * > > - All future IGF conferences should have all available services for > people with disabilities including: > > · Assign a DCAD representative on the IGF Secretariat Staff/ > Planning > > o Who can serve as a consultant to IGF > > > > · Have user generated information accessible > > o ie Live Captioning Youtube Videos , blogs > > > > · Create an online training module/webinar to inform presenters > on how to make accessible presentations > > > > · Add more accessibility > > o Ie Sign Language professionals, hearing aid professionals > > ------------------------------ > *From:* tim.g.davies at gmail.com [tim.g.davies at gmail.com] on behalf of Tim > Davies [tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk] > *Sent:* Saturday, November 10, 2012 5:02 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ray Pelletier > *Cc:* Ginger Paque; Marilia Maciel > *Subject:* Re: Suggestions for remote participation Re: [governance] > IGF2012, Remote Connection > > Hello Ray, > > Many thanks for sharing this. > > Having looked through the IETF draft, it appears to address very clearly > many of the issues that were discussed in the RP workshop at this years IGF. > > I would very much encourage any Remote Participation report to IGF > Secretariat / MAG etc. to use this as a basis for setting out clear > technical and process principles for future RP. > > All best wishes > > Tim > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Ray Pelletier wrote: > >> All; >> >> I just want to invite your attention to some work in the Internet >> Engineering Task Force (IETF) to establish requirements for want we are >> calling Remote Participation Services. The IETF is quite keen to provide >> for non-attendees to our three meetings per year and multiple interim >> meetings to participate in our Internet Standards Development efforts. >> >> That draft can be found here: < >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-genarea-rps-reqs/?include_text=1 >> > >> >> We have used WebEx and lately have been experimenting with Meetecho, >> which has endeavored to incorporate the IETF requrements. >> >> We are now concluding IETF 85 in Atlanta. At this site you can find >> recordings of some of the sessions: >> . >> >> Also: >> >> I hope this is useful. >> >> Ray >> >> >> On Nov 9, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> Yes, Marilia, this is very important. We will be working on this document >> before posting to the IGC list and Secretariat. If you--or anyone else-- >> would like to join us, please let me know offlist. >> >> We will be actively working to join forces with the DCAD, Tim Davies, and >> others to work towards a compilation of guidelines, principles and >> standards for remote participation, in particular to avoid (as noted by >> Norbert in the session) repeating the same mistakes. We expect to be >> actively involved in the next open consultation to provide this support to >> the RP efforts of the IGF Secretariat (Chengetai and Bernard). >> >> This is an evolving, maturing process, which cannot be sustained by tech >> preparation alone. My first impression is that we now have a lot of >> information that we need, to put together the bigger picture, involving the >> strategies and awareness-raising of panel design, workshop structure and >> event planning. We need an organizational structure that counts remote >> participants as 'real' participants from the beginning. We need not only >> trained remote moderators, but aware and inclusive panels and panel >> moderators who consider remote participation to be part of the meeting. >> >> Thanks to everyone for their efforts and energy to include the rest of >> the world, isolated and/or excluded by distance and different access from >> the meetings in Baku. >> >> Best regards, >> Ginger >> >> >> On 9 November 2012 05:15, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >>> Thanks for the feedback Ginger. The times zones were difficult to >>> reconcile, but I will look for the transcripts online. >>> Maybe we could send the result of the discussions of the workshop today >>> and the suggestions for improvement that will be made on the list as a >>> contribution to the next Open Consultation. >>> >>> Marília >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >>> >>>> These are excellent points, Marilia. We have been discussing similar >>>> ideas, including Pranesh's suggestion that as remote participants we must >>>> 'make ourselves be noticed'. I think we do need to raise our concerns in a >>>> dynamic, strong, constructive way to make this possible. I ask that you >>>> join us tomorrow at WS 52 Remote Participation: Reality and Principles, at >>>> 11:00 a.m. Baku time, conference room 9, where we will discuss these issues >>>> and the way forward. We will continue collaborative work on the Remote >>>> Participation principles, started last year in Nairobi, on an open etherpad >>>> document. The url and password will be published tomorrow morning. If you >>>> cannot join us, we will add your points to the document. We invite others >>>> to make their voices heard, so we can include your points in our final >>>> document. We hope to see you there, or to include you with our work. This >>>> is an important issue of access, and must be addressed. >>>> Obrigada, saludos, >>>> Ginger >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 November 2012 10:28, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I would like to start a thread of concrete suggestions for improving >>>>> RP. I know all of us who participated remotely have our impressions of what >>>>> could be better, so why not share them? >>>>> >>>>> My personal views about being a remote participant today - for the >>>>> first time in the IGF - is that the webcast of all sessions and the >>>>> captioning are tremendous tools, the existence of hubs multiplies IGF >>>>> discussions, and the fact that RP is available to any individual in the >>>>> world is a remarkable sign of openness. But, in spite of all the undeniable >>>>> achievements, progress needs to be made to ensure inclusion of views of >>>>> remote participants into the IGF debate. >>>>> >>>>> That difficulty, in my opinion, has to do with one main reason: In >>>>> spite of the huge number of remote participants (47 hubs, more than 800 >>>>> people last year), the *methodology of most workshop sessions* *remains >>>>> unchanged*. We have not adjust to the new reality and the sessions >>>>> are planned exclusively for those who are physically in the IGF. One >>>>> possible reason for that could be that we have too many sessions on the >>>>> schedule and too many issues to discuss. My feeling was that session >>>>> moderators were so under pressure that, on the heat of the debate, they >>>>> tended to see remote participants as an obstacle to "moving the discussion >>>>> forward", not as IGF participants. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe* less and longer sessions* on IGF schedule would reduce >>>>> pressure. Time pressure makes people impatient with the difficulties that >>>>> non-native English speakers may have, or with occasional technical >>>>> glitches, which we need to cope with, if we really want to include remote >>>>> participants. It is up to us to decide what we value the most as a >>>>> community: Speed of discussions? Inclusion? Sometimes they are in a >>>>> trade-off. >>>>> >>>>> It would be important to r*educe the distance between remote >>>>> participants and the session moderator*. Most session moderators >>>>> don't remember to look at the screen and check if questions are popping up >>>>> in Webex. So remote participants lose the "timing" of making interventions. >>>>> Maybe we could establish a procedure so remote participants could *send >>>>> questions to the session moderator before the IGF*, so he could >>>>> incorporate some of them into his own set of questions to the panelists. >>>>> For the "live" questions, the remote participation moderator should have a >>>>> *clear visual way* to sign to the session moderator that a remote >>>>> question has been asked, like raising a red flag. Of course, audio >>>>> interventions need to be more encouraged, even if their moment needs to be >>>>> carefully planned and agreed upon between the session moderators and the >>>>> technical team. >>>>> >>>>> *There should not be a session without a remote moderator*. Imagine >>>>> someone who blocked her agenda to participate in a workshop and then, >>>>> surprise: you stay in a room talking to the walls. If remote participation >>>>> is an integral part of the IGF, this is unacceptable. Workshops without >>>>> remote moderators should not be approved (for real), and those physically >>>>> present in the room should confirm if the moderator is indeed there. As a >>>>> last resort, anyone could take the role of being a moderator in case the >>>>> person is missing. >>>>> >>>>> My main point is that, in spite of the technical improvements that >>>>> should always be made, *making remote participation inclusive is up >>>>> to the community, especially of those who plan the sessions*. Some >>>>> organizers did a great job in linking up with remote hubs, planing for the >>>>> participation of remote speakers and participants. But I seems they were >>>>> still a minority. >>>>> >>>>> To mention the *technical aspects*, to me the greater problem was >>>>> lack of integration between webex, webcast and captioning. Going back and >>>>> forth in different windows was not practical. On a positive side, the >>>>> quality of the image of the webcast seemed to be better, and the cameras >>>>> were placed in a better position inside the room. It helped to read facial >>>>> and body expressions. >>>>> >>>>> One last point: some time ago, it was proposed that a task force >>>>> would be created to *exchange knowledge and best practices regarding >>>>> RP* with other organizations that have also been struggling and >>>>> making progress at it, such as ITU (and many others as a matter of fact) in >>>>> the UN. I don't know why it did not fly. I hope that political >>>>> sensitivities do not hamper what could be a fruitful dialogue about a topic >>>>> that is a common challenge. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes and a safe journey to all returning from Baku! >>>>> >>>>> Marília >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> I was logged into Room #10 remotely, webex but there was no other >>>>>> attendee. >>>>>> The webex Schedule (as on 6th and 7th) has single first day >>>>>> pre-meeting of 5th Nov but after refreshing promt appear for login and >>>>>> after login it connected me Room # 7th Nov meeting. >>>>>> >>>>>> I keep trying to obtain response from Moderator (Ms Nina), but >>>>>> could not established interactive response, and I do not know that have she >>>>>> read my text input or not. I think Moderator was too busy in the >>>>>> meeting physically and given zero importance to single Remote Participant. >>>>>> So, RP was useless. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Imran >>>>>> (for IGFPAK) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> *From:* Jean-Yves GATETE >>>>>> *To:* "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; >>>>>> Rudi Vansnick >>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, 8 November 2012, 3:18 >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> as Mr Rudi, I ve been following via that webcast tool too. I have >>>>>> the same problem too and the Room10 is not working either. >>>>>> >>>>>> Wishing you all the best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Jean-Yves GATETE >>>>>> >>>>>> *De :* Rudi Vansnick >>>>>> *À :* Crepin-Leblond Olivier >>>>>> *Cc :* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> *Envoyé le :* Jeudi 8 novembre 2012 10h54 >>>>>> *Objet :* Re: [governance] IGF2012, Remote Connection >>>>>> >>>>>> I've used the remote participation tools daily (till today). The >>>>>> webex allows to participate through the chat and the Q&A windows, but the >>>>>> webcast is always giving me the same error. >>>>>> If I want to see the room I have to use the webcast tool ( >>>>>> http://webcast.igf2012.com/) , which is of course not fully >>>>>> synchronised with the webex session. From room 6 till room 9 the audio in >>>>>> the webcast is very low. With the volume on the max here I can hardly >>>>>> understand the speakers. >>>>>> >>>>>> The descriptions of the rooms workshops in the webcast window is not >>>>>> updated and gives sometimes wrong session information. >>>>>> >>>>>> Rudi Vansnick >>>>>> ------------------ Internet Society Belgium --------------------- >>>>>> President - CEO Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16 >>>>>> rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 >>>>>> Dendermondesteenweg 143 B-9070 Destelbergen >>>>>> www.internetsociety.be "The Internet is for everyone" >>>>>> >>>>>> Op 8-nov-2012, om 04:29 heeft Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond het volgende >>>>>> geschreven: >>>>>> >>>>>> > I suppose rp has probably been flooded with enquiries. >>>>>> > Since the beginning of the week, I saw Bernard run around trying to >>>>>> fix >>>>>> > things. >>>>>> > The remote participation computers running Webex are all wired in >>>>>> and >>>>>> > appear to work well but the network sometimes goes through some >>>>>> periods >>>>>> > of being very slow. This is when the WIFI works and guess what, the >>>>>> WIFI >>>>>> > does not work well at all. In fact, I have spent complete afternoons >>>>>> > without WIFI. (not enough IPv4 addresses to allocate -- and no IPv6 >>>>>> > connectivity at all in case you ask) >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Whilst so far, I have been super impressed with the host country, >>>>>> this >>>>>> > is, in my opinion, the poorest Internet connectivity we've had at >>>>>> the >>>>>> > venue in recent IGFs. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Kind regards, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Olivier >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On 07/11/2012 00:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>>> >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:16 PM, shaila mistry >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>> Hi everyone >>>>>> >>> I too have tried several times to participate. Each time I am >>>>>> sent a >>>>>> >>> different route of downloads and logins , finally leading to a >>>>>> dead end. >>>>>> >>> Please advise what can be done ? >>>>>> >>> Shaila Rao Mistry >>>>>> >> Have you tried contacting >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> "Remote Participation general help" >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> ? >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Do they respond? >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> If yes, what are they saying? >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> If no, let us know, so that we can push locally for those help >>>>>> email >>>>>> >> addresses to be handled in a meaningful way. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> In the long run, what we need is funding to put a competent person >>>>>> in >>>>>> >> charge of ensuring in an ongoing manner (year after year) that IGF >>>>>> >> remote participation is made available in a way that can be >>>>>> expected >>>>>> >> to work (which presupposes learning from what went wrong in earlier >>>>>> >> years, and it presupposes serious testing well before the first >>>>>> day of >>>>>> >> the IGF). It is simply unacceptable for an entirely new technical >>>>>> team >>>>>> >> to put in charge of remote participation every year, and the remote >>>>>> >> participation infrastructure again and again being so absurdly >>>>>> >> unreliable.) >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Greetings, >>>>>> >> Norbert >>>>>> >> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > -- >>>>>> > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD >>>>>> > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> > >>>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> >> > > > -- > > > http://www.timdavies.org.uk > 07834 856 303. > @timdavies > > Co-director of Practical Participation: > http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk > -------------------------- > Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - > #5381958. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 17 04:11:05 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 14:41:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] [Dewayne-Net] Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Regulatory Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network In-Reply-To: <20121115204446.3ae6c214@quill.bollow.ch> References: <000c01cdc359$32f16940$98d43bc0$@gmail.com> <20121115204446.3ae6c214@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <50A754A9.9000003@itforchange.net> Norbert's exposition of what is different with the Internet is rather convincing. At the same time, as he also argues, there are higher level principles that need to articulated, and articulated now, before it is too late - like net neutrality (also well defined by him). To this I will add the principle of universal access as a right (as Mike suggests), that must be assured to all. Such a right is more necessary now then ever earlier with Internet being so essential to mediating sociality today. At the same time as we remain circumspect of putting in too many specific regulations, we as much need a space where the larger social tectonics that the Internet has unleashed gets discussed, and, importantly, from time to time, as required and appropriate, norms, principles and if needed laws treaties, laws and regulation get shaped. Such a space must be created in the UN system, with a new-age structure which maximises democratic participation. It is not ok, and I know I am saying this for the hundredth time, that OECD, CoE and US gov does this kind of norm/ principles/ treaty/ law making, as happens today. The problem comes when we see the issue with the lock-ins that ITU may put on the Internet's potential, but turn a completely blind eye, or become fatalistic, about other lock-ins that are right now being put on the Internet, especially in terms of its egalitarian potential. This is where it begs a political economy explanation - /whose interests are being protected/ promoted by whom/. This is where it begins to suggest that the involved parties, including civil society, are pursuing a one sided agenda, in cooperating with the dominant economic forces of today. Such lock-ins come not only from things like OECD's recent Internet policy principles, CoE's data protection treaty, and Internet related features of ACTA, TPP kind of pluri-lateral treaties, but also in numerous other ways of which we read almost by the day in the newspapers. To give an idea of the rapidity with which these monumental decisions are being taken on our behalf, and our complete powerlessness in the face of them, I mention just two that I read about in just the last few hour..... Apples gets a patent for 'page turn' in any e-reader device in the US. Doesnt matter if software patents are not allowed in most countries in the world. What matters is what US authorities decide, and it would of course apply all over the world. Verizon and Time Warner have come up with asix strike rule to throttle Internet, which measure they claim is just for educational purposes. And since everyone here seems to agree that Internet should not be regulated, no one can tell them not to do it; it is up to them how they configure and offer their 'commercial' service. A little while back I also read how google demoted web pages in its search result that are getting copyright violation alerts on its automated alert registering system, even without checking who has sent them and their veracity. Facebook is offering services to promote content by those who pay them on Facebook pages of their 'friends' without demarcating paid/ promoted content from non-paid one...... Path breaking stuff all of this, which is shaping the global Internet in very basic ways, but we should just sit by and watch. It may not only be ITU - or, rather, some countries through the ITU - that may be intent on damaging the Internet, as we want to see it to be. There are many others, and these latter ones have been rather more successful at their enterprise. The issue of who is going to stop them - and what global institutional mechanisms are needed for that purpose - shouldbother usas much as stopping anything adverse happening at the ITU. On the other hand, even ITU can be employed for some positive purposes by getting high level principles like on universal access, right to communicate and net neutrality into the ITRs and other instruments of the ITU, while staying away from any kind of close regulation that for instance the ETNO proposal sought. Parminder On Friday 16 November 2012 01:14 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> I'm sure this is naïve of me, but I'm wondering what the difference >> (at the level of principle) might be between arguing as below, for >> regulation (in support of the public interest) for an IP based >> network through the FCC and arguing for regulation of "the >> Internet" (in support of the public interest) at the WCIT/the ITU (as >> per for example >> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet >> -regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ >> >> (and please could we discuss this at the level of theory/principle >> while avoiding US "exceptionalism"... > I would suggest that the main difference is that the classical telephony > network has a single, well-understood main purpose which is not changing > over time. This makes it possible to have meaningful regulation that > ties directly into this purpose. > > By contrast, the Internet is designed to be useful quite generally > without tying it to any particular intended main purpose. As a > consequence, the Internet enables rapid innovation of new ways in which > it can be used. This fast evolution is a significant difference in > regard to practical feasibility of regulation. As a matter of > principle, it is not possible to effectively address by means > of regulation aspects can that change more quickly than the time > that it takes to change the regulations, except of course if people > are willing to accept regulation that significantly slows down the > pace of innovation. > > There are still issues that are sufficiently fundamental and > therefore slow-changing that effective regulation is possible and in > fact highly desirable. For example, I'm all in favor of a strong network > neutrality principle which says that a company in the business of > transmitting Internet protocol datagrams may define its price structure > only in terms of properties of the service of transmitting these > datagrams. (This allows to distinguish between a basic "best effort" > service and a more expensive service with stronger QoS guarantees, but > disallows the various "profit maximization at the expense of the > integrity of the Internet" schemes.) > > 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 suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 17 04:32:07 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 15:02:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] [Dewayne-Net] Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Regulatory Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network In-Reply-To: <50A754A9.9000003@itforchange.net> References: <000c01cdc359$32f16940$98d43bc0$@gmail.com> <20121115204446.3ae6c214@quill.bollow.ch> <50A754A9.9000003@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <676C6A8A-12ED-41EE-8D45-FFFCCD3AD4CA@hserus.net> Lock ins? What lock ins? Go get input from industry and technologists, policy makers etc, write your own best practices and publish them. Possibly a bit more difficult than sitting around denying the right of any other person or organisation to publish theirs, though. --srs (iPad) On 17-Nov-2012, at 14:41, parminder wrote: > > Norbert's exposition of what is different with the Internet is rather convincing. At the same time, as he also argues, there are higher level principles that need to articulated, and articulated now, before it is too late - like net neutrality (also well defined by him). To this I will add the principle of universal access as a right (as Mike suggests), that must be assured to all. Such a right is more necessary now then ever earlier with Internet being so essential to mediating sociality today. > > At the same time as we remain circumspect of putting in too many specific regulations, we as much need a space where the larger social tectonics that the Internet has unleashed gets discussed, and, importantly, from time to time, as required and appropriate, norms, principles and if needed laws treaties, laws and regulation get shaped. Such a space must be created in the UN system, with a new-age structure which maximises democratic participation. It is not ok, and I know I am saying this for the hundredth time, that OECD, CoE and US gov does this kind of norm/ principles/ treaty/ law making, as happens today. > > The problem comes when we see the issue with the lock-ins that ITU may put on the Internet's potential, but turn a completely blind eye, or become fatalistic, about other lock-ins that are right now being put on the Internet, especially in terms of its egalitarian potential. This is where it begs a political economy explanation - whose interests are being protected/ promoted by whom. This is where it begins to suggest that the involved parties, including civil society, are pursuing a one sided agenda, in cooperating with the dominant economic forces of today. > > Such lock-ins come not only from things like OECD's recent Internet policy principles, CoE's data protection treaty, and Internet related features of ACTA, TPP kind of pluri-lateral treaties, but also in numerous other ways of which we read almost by the day in the newspapers. To give an idea of the rapidity with which these monumental decisions are being taken on our behalf, and our complete powerlessness in the face of them, I mention just two that I read about in just the last few hour..... > > Apples gets a patent for 'page turn' in any e-reader device in the US. Doesnt matter if software patents are not allowed in most countries in the world. What matters is what US authorities decide, and it would of course apply all over the world. > Verizon and Time Warner have come up with a six strike rule to throttle Internet, which measure they claim is just for educational purposes. And since everyone here seems to agree that Internet should not be regulated, no one can tell them not to do it; it is up to them how they configure and offer their 'commercial' service. > > A little while back I also read how google demoted web pages in its search result that are getting copyright violation alerts on its automated alert registering system, even without checking who has sent them and their veracity. Facebook is offering services to promote content by those who pay them on Facebook pages of their 'friends' without demarcating paid/ promoted content from non-paid one...... Path breaking stuff all of this, which is shaping the global Internet in very basic ways, but we should just sit by and watch. > > It may not only be ITU - or, rather, some countries through the ITU - that may be intent on damaging the Internet, as we want to see it to be. There are many others, and these latter ones have been rather more successful at their enterprise. The issue of who is going to stop them - and what global institutional mechanisms are needed for that purpose - should bother us as much as stopping anything adverse happening at the ITU. > > On the other hand, even ITU can be employed for some positive purposes by getting high level principles like on universal access, right to communicate and net neutrality into the ITRs and other instruments of the ITU, while staying away from any kind of close regulation that for instance the ETNO proposal sought. > > Parminder > > > On Friday 16 November 2012 01:14 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Michael Gurstein wrote: >> >>> I'm sure this is naïve of me, but I'm wondering what the difference >>> (at the level of principle) might be between arguing as below, for >>> regulation (in support of the public interest) for an IP based >>> network through the FCC and arguing for regulation of "the >>> Internet" (in support of the public interest) at the WCIT/the ITU (as >>> per for example >>> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet >>> -regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ >>> >>> (and please could we discuss this at the level of theory/principle >>> while avoiding US "exceptionalism"... >> I would suggest that the main difference is that the classical telephony >> network has a single, well-understood main purpose which is not changing >> over time. This makes it possible to have meaningful regulation that >> ties directly into this purpose. >> >> By contrast, the Internet is designed to be useful quite generally >> without tying it to any particular intended main purpose. As a >> consequence, the Internet enables rapid innovation of new ways in which >> it can be used. This fast evolution is a significant difference in >> regard to practical feasibility of regulation. As a matter of >> principle, it is not possible to effectively address by means >> of regulation aspects can that change more quickly than the time >> that it takes to change the regulations, except of course if people >> are willing to accept regulation that significantly slows down the >> pace of innovation. >> >> There are still issues that are sufficiently fundamental and >> therefore slow-changing that effective regulation is possible and in >> fact highly desirable. For example, I'm all in favor of a strong network >> neutrality principle which says that a company in the business of >> transmitting Internet protocol datagrams may define its price structure >> only in terms of properties of the service of transmitting these >> datagrams. (This allows to distinguish between a basic "best effort" >> service and a more expensive service with stronger QoS guarantees, but >> disallows the various "profit maximization at the expense of the >> integrity of the Internet" schemes.) >> >> 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 17 09:00:42 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 06:00:42 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003101cdc4cb$ef4823e0$cdd86ba0$@gmail.com> Who can we rely on to act in support of the (global) public interest--IBM, Google, Facebook, AT&T, the USG, "the market"..? M ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: mobileactive-discuss at googlegroups.com [mailto:mobileactive-discuss at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Katrin Verclas Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:01 AM To: Stanford tech list List; MobileActive-discuss Subject: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg A smart rant by Susan Crawford on telco policy and the impotent Federal Communication Commission. Important lessons here - not just for the US. http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-15/why-cell-phones-went-dead-after- hurricane-sandy.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MobileActive-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to mobileactive-discuss at googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mobileactive-discuss+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mobileactive-discuss?hl=en MobileActive.org: A resource for activists using mobile technology worldwide -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 17 09:38:34 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 06:38:34 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg In-Reply-To: <003101cdc4cb$ef4823e0$cdd86ba0$@gmail.com> References: <003101cdc4cb$ef4823e0$cdd86ba0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20121117143834.GA20556@hserus.net> michael gurstein [17/11/12 06:00 -0800]: >Who can we rely on to act in support of the (global) public interest--IBM, >Google, Facebook, AT&T, the USG, "the market"..? "civil society"? also note "act effectively" Generalizing would be a grave mistake here. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Nov 17 10:18:37 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 07:18:37 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg In-Reply-To: <20121117143834.GA20556@hserus.net> References: <003101cdc4cb$ef4823e0$cdd86ba0$@gmail.com> <20121117143834.GA20556@hserus.net> Message-ID: <006e01cdc4d6$d2c58d60$7850a820$@gmail.com> Why? The discussions around the WCIT/are overrun with precisely those kinds of generalizations. But it is a serious question, if we believe that there is a global public interest (in the Internet) who do we trust to best represent that public interest (IBM, Google, the USG?) and within what (global) framework will that representation best take place (the market place, the US State Department, Google, the IGF?). (Unfortunately, I don't see CS as sufficiently strong or as sufficiently independent to even mention it in this context.) M -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:39 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg michael gurstein [17/11/12 06:00 -0800]: >Who can we rely on to act in support of the (global) public >interest--IBM, Google, Facebook, AT&T, the USG, "the market"..? "civil society"? also note "act effectively" Generalizing would be a grave mistake here. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 17 10:40:56 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 21:10:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg In-Reply-To: <006e01cdc4d6$d2c58d60$7850a820$@gmail.com> References: <003101cdc4cb$ef4823e0$cdd86ba0$@gmail.com> <20121117143834.GA20556@hserus.net> <006e01cdc4d6$d2c58d60$7850a820$@gmail.com> Message-ID: There is no such thing as a global public interest, it is too utopian a concept. A shared consensus on best practices and acceptable standards of behaviour / codes of conduct are about the closest you will have in real life and outside wcit, igf etc slide decks. --srs (iPad) On 17-Nov-2012, at 20:48, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Why? > > The discussions around the WCIT/are overrun with precisely those kinds of > generalizations. > > But it is a serious question, if we believe that there is a global public > interest (in the Internet) who do we trust to best represent that public > interest (IBM, Google, the USG?) and within what (global) framework will > that representation best take place (the market place, the US State > Department, Google, the IGF?). (Unfortunately, I don't see CS as > sufficiently strong or as sufficiently independent to even mention it in > this context.) > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:39 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went > Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg > > michael gurstein [17/11/12 06:00 -0800]: >> Who can we rely on to act in support of the (global) public >> interest--IBM, Google, Facebook, AT&T, the USG, "the market"..? > > "civil society"? also note "act effectively" > > Generalizing would be a grave mistake here. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 17 11:15:03 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 08:15:03 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg In-Reply-To: References: <003101cdc4cb$ef4823e0$cdd86ba0$@gmail.com> <20121117143834.GA20556@hserus.net> <006e01cdc4d6$d2c58d60$7850a820$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <008d01cdc4de$b422dd60$1c689820$@gmail.com> Of course, what you are saying is precisely what is being said in the current deregulation push in US telecoms i.e. that corporate actors can be trusted (in a deregulated context) to act in accordance with the public interest (with the consequences that Susan Crawford is pointing to in her piece noted bleow... You might note in passing that CS in the context of the BestBits discussion indicated in the context of the anticipated revision of the ITR's and a requirement that " the framing of public policy is the pursuit of the public interest" and that this statement was signed onto by numerous CS (and other actors). http://bestbits.igf-online.net/statement/ M -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 7:41 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg There is no such thing as a global public interest, it is too utopian a concept. A shared consensus on best practices and acceptable standards of behaviour / codes of conduct are about the closest you will have in real life and outside wcit, igf etc slide decks. --srs (iPad) On 17-Nov-2012, at 20:48, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Why? > > The discussions around the WCIT/are overrun with precisely those kinds > of generalizations. > > But it is a serious question, if we believe that there is a global > public interest (in the Internet) who do we trust to best represent > that public interest (IBM, Google, the USG?) and within what (global) > framework will that representation best take place (the market place, > the US State Department, Google, the IGF?). (Unfortunately, I don't > see CS as sufficiently strong or as sufficiently independent to even > mention it in this context.) > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:39 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones > Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg > > michael gurstein [17/11/12 06:00 -0800]: >> Who can we rely on to act in support of the (global) public >> interest--IBM, Google, Facebook, AT&T, the USG, "the market"..? > > "civil society"? also note "act effectively" > > Generalizing would be a grave mistake here. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 17 11:36:56 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 22:06:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg In-Reply-To: <008d01cdc4de$b422dd60$1c689820$@gmail.com> References: <003101cdc4cb$ef4823e0$cdd86ba0$@gmail.com> <20121117143834.GA20556@hserus.net> <006e01cdc4d6$d2c58d60$7850a820$@gmail.com> <008d01cdc4de$b422dd60$1c689820$@gmail.com> Message-ID: As far as I have seen in industry associations like maawg (www.maawg.org) there is a substantial push towards best practice in areas such as ethical email marketing that is respectful of user privacy, besides the various other practices evolved on security, malware etc. And that best practice is, sort of, enforced in that marketers who don't adhere to that code of practice don't get to become members, or on previous occasions, have had ther membership revoked. So, this does occur and is not unknown in an industry context. It would be equally naive to only bank on industry goodwill, which is why a regulatory system, and a transparent complaints / redressal process are essential, That, and informed civil society that doesn't see industry as the enemy. Note: I have had my share of arguments with various civil society people and groups on that account, simply because making points without demonising the groups they make those points against seems to be a dying art. Like Susan Crawford describing DPI with terms like "inside job", or the eff comparing spam filtering to blackmail and extortion. http://www.mail-archive.com/silklist at lists.hserus.net/msg20400.html for several such examples. --srs (iPad) On 17-Nov-2012, at 21:45, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Of course, what you are saying is precisely what is being said in the > current deregulation push in US telecoms i.e. that corporate actors can be > trusted (in a deregulated context) to act in accordance with the public > interest (with the consequences that Susan Crawford is pointing to in her > piece noted bleow... > > You might note in passing that CS in the context of the BestBits discussion > indicated in the context of the anticipated revision of the ITR's and a > requirement that " the framing of public policy is the pursuit of the > public interest" and that this statement was signed onto by numerous CS (and > other actors). http://bestbits.igf-online.net/statement/ > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 7:41 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went > Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg > > There is no such thing as a global public interest, it is too utopian a > concept. > > A shared consensus on best practices and acceptable standards of behaviour / > codes of conduct are about the closest you will have in real life and > outside wcit, igf etc slide decks. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 17-Nov-2012, at 20:48, "michael gurstein" wrote: > >> Why? >> >> The discussions around the WCIT/are overrun with precisely those kinds >> of generalizations. >> >> But it is a serious question, if we believe that there is a global >> public interest (in the Internet) who do we trust to best represent >> that public interest (IBM, Google, the USG?) and within what (global) >> framework will that representation best take place (the market place, >> the US State Department, Google, the IGF?). (Unfortunately, I don't >> see CS as sufficiently strong or as sufficiently independent to even >> mention it in this context.) >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] >> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:39 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein >> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones >> Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg >> >> michael gurstein [17/11/12 06:00 -0800]: >>> Who can we rely on to act in support of the (global) public >>> interest--IBM, Google, Facebook, AT&T, the USG, "the market"..? >> >> "civil society"? also note "act effectively" >> >> Generalizing would be a grave mistake here. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 17 12:01:20 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 09:01:20 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg In-Reply-To: References: <003101cdc4cb$ef4823e0$cdd86ba0$@gmail.com> <20121117143834.GA20556@hserus.net> <006e01cdc4d6$d2c58d60$7850a820$@gmail.com> <008d01cdc4de$b422dd60$1c689820$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <00c801cdc4e5$392c93b0$ab85bb10$@gmail.com> To bring this back to the WCIT/ITU context, the issue isn't direct nastiness (illegality) via spam or whatever, there are in most instances enforceable national laws to cover this and the self-regulation is for the most part a way of keeping national regulators off the corporate backs. The issue is precisely in the area of standards and policies for those corporations and countries with global and transborder reach where national policies/regulations are essentially unenforceable but where because of industry or other dominance (including what is in practice standards "capture") there is no effective way of pursuing a public interest. My own example which I keep trundling out is a fairly direct indicator of some of the issues from a consumer protection perspective and I think a reasonable example where some sort of means for enforcing a global public interest including through transparency and accountabliity is required. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/gmail-hell-day-4-dealing-with-the-borg-or-being-evil-without-really-thinking-about-it/ http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/gmail-hell2-an-epilogue-they-are-the-borg-and-they-are-too-big-to-be-allowed-to-fail/ M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 8:37 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg As far as I have seen in industry associations like maawg (www.maawg.org) there is a substantial push towards best practice in areas such as ethical email marketing that is respectful of user privacy, besides the various other practices evolved on security, malware etc. And that best practice is, sort of, enforced in that marketers who don't adhere to that code of practice don't get to become members, or on previous occasions, have had ther membership revoked. So, this does occur and is not unknown in an industry context. It would be equally naive to only bank on industry goodwill, which is why a regulatory system, and a transparent complaints / redressal process are essential, That, and informed civil society that doesn't see industry as the enemy. Note: I have had my share of arguments with various civil society people and groups on that account, simply because making points without demonising the groups they make those points against seems to be a dying art. Like Susan Crawford describing DPI with terms like "inside job", or the eff comparing spam filtering to blackmail and extortion. http://www.mail-archive.com/silklist at lists.hserus.net/msg20400.html for several such examples. --srs (iPad) On 17-Nov-2012, at 21:45, "michael gurstein" wrote: Of course, what you are saying is precisely what is being said in the current deregulation push in US telecoms i.e. that corporate actors can be trusted (in a deregulated context) to act in accordance with the public interest (with the consequences that Susan Crawford is pointing to in her piece noted bleow... You might note in passing that CS in the context of the BestBits discussion indicated in the context of the anticipated revision of the ITR's and a requirement that " the framing of public policy is the pursuit of the public interest" and that this statement was signed onto by numerous CS (and other actors). http://bestbits.igf-online.net/statement/ M -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 7:41 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg There is no such thing as a global public interest, it is too utopian a concept. A shared consensus on best practices and acceptable standards of behaviour / codes of conduct are about the closest you will have in real life and outside wcit, igf etc slide decks. --srs (iPad) On 17-Nov-2012, at 20:48, "michael gurstein" wrote: Why? The discussions around the WCIT/are overrun with precisely those kinds of generalizations. But it is a serious question, if we believe that there is a global public interest (in the Internet) who do we trust to best represent that public interest (IBM, Google, the USG?) and within what (global) framework will that representation best take place (the market place, the US State Department, Google, the IGF?). (Unfortunately, I don't see CS as sufficiently strong or as sufficiently independent to even mention it in this context.) M -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:39 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg michael gurstein [17/11/12 06:00 -0800]: Who can we rely on to act in support of the (global) public interest--IBM, Google, Facebook, AT&T, the USG, "the market"..? "civil society"? also note "act effectively" Generalizing would be a grave mistake here. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 17 12:17:56 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 22:47:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg In-Reply-To: <00c801cdc4e5$392c93b0$ab85bb10$@gmail.com> References: <003101cdc4cb$ef4823e0$cdd86ba0$@gmail.com> <20121117143834.GA20556@hserus.net> <006e01cdc4d6$d2c58d60$7850a820$@gmail.com> <008d01cdc4de$b422dd60$1c689820$@gmail.com> <00c801cdc4e5$392c93b0$ab85bb10$@gmail.com> Message-ID: I only quoted the maawg example as, well, an example. Any organization, especially one with a multinational presence, will tailor its public policy efforts to ensure a stable and open operating environment for itself. And in the case of Internet content providers, this generally (though there are always exceptions) boils down to making common cause with civil society in the context of online freedom and network neutrality. Telcos with huge amounts of infrastructure might well take a different view when it comes to a question of net neutrality, but they too would tend to make common cause with civil society and content providers when it comes to advocating free speech. Most of what industry (and civil society) deem to be common ground generally gets codified into one of several best practices and codes of conduct that become generally accepted among similar organisations worldwide. Some of it even does, to address your gmail example, include a set of best practices to respect an Internet users rights and determine how and in what circumstances an isp or email provider can deny him service, not to mention best practices for customer service. Cross border enforcement of legislation is definitely possible. Parminder likes to disparage the council of Europe Budapest convention on cybercrime, but it is, at a basic level, a way to rationalise mutual legal assistance treaties that countries, even those that may not have signed the Budapest convention, have with each other. Then there is the national link concept that a country tends to use to determine whether its law applies to a given situation, and the concept of dual criminality, which prevents a Thai warrant against someone who disparages their king become easily enforceable against, say, a British subject who is outside the borders of Thailand. --srs (iPad) On 17-Nov-2012, at 22:31, "michael gurstein" wrote: > To bring this back to the WCIT/ITU context, the issue isn't direct nastiness (illegality) via spam or whatever, there are in most instances enforceable national laws to cover this and the self-regulation is for the most part a way of keeping national regulators off the corporate backs. > > The issue is precisely in the area of standards and policies for those corporations and countries with global and transborder reach where national policies/regulations are essentially unenforceable but where because of industry or other dominance (including what is in practice standards "capture") there is no effective way of pursuing a public interest. My own example which I keep trundling out is a fairly direct indicator of some of the issues from a consumer protection perspective and I think a reasonable example where some sort of means for enforcing a global public interest including through transparency and accountabliity is required. > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/gmail-hell-day-4-dealing-with-the-borg-or-being-evil-without-really-thinking-about-it/ > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/gmail-hell2-an-epilogue-they-are-the-borg-and-they-are-too-big-to-be-allowed-to-fail/ > > M > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 8:37 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg > > As far as I have seen in industry associations like maawg (www.maawg.org) there is a substantial push towards best practice in areas such as ethical email marketing that is respectful of user privacy, besides the various other practices evolved on security, malware etc. > > And that best practice is, sort of, enforced in that marketers who don't adhere to that code of practice don't get to become members, or on previous occasions, have had ther membership revoked. > > So, this does occur and is not unknown in an industry context. > > It would be equally naive to only bank on industry goodwill, which is why a regulatory system, and a transparent complaints / redressal process are essential, That, and informed civil society that doesn't see industry as the enemy. > > Note: I have had my share of arguments with various civil society people and groups on that account, simply because making points without demonising the groups they make those points against seems to be a dying art. Like Susan Crawford describing DPI with terms like "inside job", or the eff comparing spam filtering to blackmail and extortion. http://www.mail-archive.com/silklist at lists.hserus.net/msg20400.html for several such examples. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 17-Nov-2012, at 21:45, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Of course, what you are saying is precisely what is being said in the > current deregulation push in US telecoms i.e. that corporate actors can be > trusted (in a deregulated context) to act in accordance with the public > interest (with the consequences that Susan Crawford is pointing to in her > piece noted bleow... > > You might note in passing that CS in the context of the BestBits discussion > indicated in the context of the anticipated revision of the ITR's and a > requirement that " the framing of public policy is the pursuit of the > public interest" and that this statement was signed onto by numerous CS (and > other actors). http://bestbits.igf-online.net/statement/ > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 7:41 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went > Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg > > There is no such thing as a global public interest, it is too utopian a > concept. > > A shared consensus on best practices and acceptable standards of behaviour / > codes of conduct are about the closest you will have in real life and > outside wcit, igf etc slide decks. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 17-Nov-2012, at 20:48, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Why? > > The discussions around the WCIT/are overrun with precisely those kinds > of generalizations. > > But it is a serious question, if we believe that there is a global > public interest (in the Internet) who do we trust to best represent > that public interest (IBM, Google, the USG?) and within what (global) > framework will that representation best take place (the market place, > the US State Department, Google, the IGF?). (Unfortunately, I don't > see CS as sufficiently strong or as sufficiently independent to even > mention it in this context.) > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:39 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones > Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg > > michael gurstein [17/11/12 06:00 -0800]: > Who can we rely on to act in support of the (global) public > interest--IBM, Google, Facebook, AT&T, the USG, "the market"..? > > "civil society"? also note "act effectively" > > Generalizing would be a grave mistake here. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Nov 17 12:55:46 2012 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 23:25:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] [Dewayne-Net] Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Regulatory Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network In-Reply-To: <50A754A9.9000003@itforchange.net> References: <000c01cdc359$32f16940$98d43bc0$@gmail.com> <20121115204446.3ae6c214@quill.bollow.ch> <50A754A9.9000003@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50A7CFA2.4070103@cis-india.org> parminder [2012-11-17 14:41]: > Apples gets a patent for 'page turn' > > > > in any e-reader device in the US. Doesnt matter if software patents > are not allowed in most countries in the world. What matters is what > US authorities decide, and it would of course apply all over the world. If bad domestic policy is what it takes for the USA to lose its pre-eminence in hardware-branding, then so be it. May a thousand ZTEs and M-Techs and Micromaxes bloom in Apple's dust, and may a thousand enlightened policies bloom in the ruins of America's patent policy implosion. I'm more concerned about the patent policies of global standard-setting bodies (Unicode, ISO, 3GPP, ITU, IEEE, ETSI, W3C, ISO, IETF, and the like) and the direction that browser companies push online content in (I'm looking at you, H.264). > Verizon and Time Warner have come up with asix strike rule > > > > to throttle Internet, which measure they claim is just for > educational purposes. And since everyone here seems to agree that > Internet should not be regulated, no one can tell them not to do it; > it is up to them how they configure and offer their 'commercial' > service. That's a convenient straw-man. Given how often people paint your arguments in a uni-dimensional manner, one would think you would refrain from responding to them in kind. Alas! Also, does this particular offence against online freedom affect people outside the USA? While I would stand up against bad policy everywhere, I thought the reason you were raising it was to highlight how US domestic policy affects other countries directly. (I would point to my favourite example of domain name seizures as being more appropriate.) -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 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 suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 17 13:01:58 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 23:31:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] [Dewayne-Net] Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Regulatory Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network In-Reply-To: <50A7CFA2.4070103@cis-india.org> References: <000c01cdc359$32f16940$98d43bc0$@gmail.com> <20121115204446.3ae6c214@quill.bollow.ch> <50A754A9.9000003@itforchange.net> <50A7CFA2.4070103@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <550EA01A-D168-47EF-9223-35B2F6005E15@hserus.net> Funny, I would have thought it wouldn't even affect US citizens other than those that have the great good fortune to be customers of Verizon or time Warner. But whenever did facts get in the way of a plausible sounding argument? --srs (iPad) On 17-Nov-2012, at 23:25, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > parminder [2012-11-17 14:41]: >> Verizon and Time Warner have come up with asix strike rule >> >> > > That's a convenient straw-man. Given how often people paint your arguments in a uni-dimensional manner, one would think you would refrain from responding to them in kind. Alas! > > Also, does this particular offence against online freedom affect people outside the USA? While I would stand up against bad policy everywhere, I thought the reason you were raising it was to highlight how US domestic policy affects other countries directly. (I would point to my favourite example of domain name seizures as being more appropriate.) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Sat Nov 17 13:30:17 2012 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at)) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 19:30:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Improving User Rights In-Reply-To: <00c801cdc4e5$392c93b0$ab85bb10$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Michael, this story is a good example for what is needed in terms of operationalizing rights of internet users, which is the topic of a currently ongoing Council of Europe Committee, which works on a "compendium" of such rights for internet user rights. A minimum of basic services may be more than a contractual consumer rights issue, when the user practically has no alternative. If You have a problem with Your mobile phone or internet service provider there is a hotline, maybe You have to pay something, but You get a service. Companies like Google present themselves as user-oriented, but there is a need to identify and provide minimum services in order not to be cut off from Your freedom of expression. Suggestions from this list are welcome! Best regards Wolfgang Benedek Institute for International Law and International Relations University of Graz Universitätsstraße 15, A4 A-8010 Graz Tel.: +43/316/380/3411 Fax: +43/316/380/9455 Von: michael gurstein > Antworten an: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >, michael gurstein > Datum: Samstag, 17. November 2012 18:01 An: 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' > Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > Betreff: RE: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg To bring this back to the WCIT/ITU context, the issue isn't direct nastiness (illegality) via spam or whatever, there are in most instances enforceable national laws to cover this and the self-regulation is for the most part a way of keeping national regulators off the corporate backs. The issue is precisely in the area of standards and policies for those corporations and countries with global and transborder reach where national policies/regulations are essentially unenforceable but where because of industry or other dominance (including what is in practice standards "capture") there is no effective way of pursuing a public interest. My own example which I keep trundling out is a fairly direct indicator of some of the issues from a consumer protection perspective and I think a reasonable example where some sort of means for enforcing a global public interest including through transparency and accountabliity is required. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/gmail-hell-day-4-dealing-with-the-borg-or-being-evil-without-really-thinking-about-it/ http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/gmail-hell2-an-epilogue-they-are-the-borg-and-they-are-too-big-to-be-allowed-to-fail/ M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 8:37 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg As far as I have seen in industry associations like maawg (www.maawg.org) there is a substantial push towards best practice in areas such as ethical email marketing that is respectful of user privacy, besides the various other practices evolved on security, malware etc. And that best practice is, sort of, enforced in that marketers who don't adhere to that code of practice don't get to become members, or on previous occasions, have had ther membership revoked. So, this does occur and is not unknown in an industry context. It would be equally naive to only bank on industry goodwill, which is why a regulatory system, and a transparent complaints / redressal process are essential, That, and informed civil society that doesn't see industry as the enemy. Note: I have had my share of arguments with various civil society people and groups on that account, simply because making points without demonising the groups they make those points against seems to be a dying art. Like Susan Crawford describing DPI with terms like "inside job", or the eff comparing spam filtering to blackmail and extortion. http://www.mail-archive.com/silklist at lists.hserus.net/msg20400.html for several such examples. --srs (iPad) On 17-Nov-2012, at 21:45, "michael gurstein" > wrote: Of course, what you are saying is precisely what is being said in the current deregulation push in US telecoms i.e. that corporate actors can be trusted (in a deregulated context) to act in accordance with the public interest (with the consequences that Susan Crawford is pointing to in her piece noted bleow... You might note in passing that CS in the context of the BestBits discussion indicated in the context of the anticipated revision of the ITR's and a requirement that " the framing of public policy is the pursuit of the public interest" and that this statement was signed onto by numerous CS (and other actors). http://bestbits.igf-online.net/statement/ M -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 7:41 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg There is no such thing as a global public interest, it is too utopian a concept. A shared consensus on best practices and acceptable standards of behaviour / codes of conduct are about the closest you will have in real life and outside wcit, igf etc slide decks. --srs (iPad) On 17-Nov-2012, at 20:48, "michael gurstein" > wrote: Why? The discussions around the WCIT/are overrun with precisely those kinds of generalizations. But it is a serious question, if we believe that there is a global public interest (in the Internet) who do we trust to best represent that public interest (IBM, Google, the USG?) and within what (global) framework will that representation best take place (the market place, the US State Department, Google, the IGF?). (Unfortunately, I don't see CS as sufficiently strong or as sufficiently independent to even mention it in this context.) M -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:39 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg michael gurstein [17/11/12 06:00 -0800]: Who can we rely on to act in support of the (global) public interest--IBM, Google, Facebook, AT&T, the USG, "the market"..? "civil society"? also note "act effectively" Generalizing would be a grave mistake here. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 17 13:44:33 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 00:14:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Improving User Rights In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <11D5DB73-A546-44EF-A966-296A589DCCF2@hserus.net> You do have customer service desks in free email providers, and escalation paths, just as you do with mobile phone and Internet service. Customer service, to cut costs, tends to be staffed with lower paid, lower skilled people at times, and this might unintentionally lead to service getting shut off or otherwise restricted. But that is by no means restricted to the online world. Credit cards, public utility companies, supermarkets etc .. Anywhere that caters to a large number of people. How would you draw a distinction between those? --srs (iPad) On 18-Nov-2012, at 0:00, "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)" wrote: > Dear Michael, > > this story is a good example for what is needed in terms of operationalizing rights of internet users, which is the topic of a currently ongoing Council of Europe Committee, which works on a "compendium" of such rights for internet user rights. > > A minimum of basic services may be more than a contractual consumer rights issue, when the user practically has no alternative. > > If You have a problem with Your mobile phone or internet service provider there is a hotline, maybe You have to pay something, but You get a service. > > Companies like Google present themselves as user-oriented, but there is a need to identify and provide minimum services in order not to be cut off from Your freedom of expression. > > Suggestions from this list are welcome! > > Best regards > > Wolfgang Benedek > > Institute for International Law and International Relations > University of Graz > Universitätsstraße 15, A4 > A-8010 Graz > Tel.: +43/316/380/3411 > Fax: +43/316/380/9455 > > Von: michael gurstein > Antworten an: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , michael gurstein > Datum: Samstag, 17. November 2012 18:01 > An: 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' > Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > Betreff: RE: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg > > To bring this back to the WCIT/ITU context, the issue isn't direct nastiness (illegality) via spam or whatever, there are in most instances enforceable national laws to cover this and the self-regulation is for the most part a way of keeping national regulators off the corporate backs. > > The issue is precisely in the area of standards and policies for those corporations and countries with global and transborder reach where national policies/regulations are essentially unenforceable but where because of industry or other dominance (including what is in practice standards "capture") there is no effective way of pursuing a public interest. My own example which I keep trundling out is a fairly direct indicator of some of the issues from a consumer protection perspective and I think a reasonable example where some sort of means for enforcing a global public interest including through transparency and accountabliity is required. > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/gmail-hell-day-4-dealing-with-the-borg-or-being-evil-without-really-thinking-about-it/ > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/gmail-hell2-an-epilogue-they-are-the-borg-and-they-are-too-big-to-be-allowed-to-fail/ > > M > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 8:37 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg > > As far as I have seen in industry associations like maawg (www.maawg.org) there is a substantial push towards best practice in areas such as ethical email marketing that is respectful of user privacy, besides the various other practices evolved on security, malware etc. > > And that best practice is, sort of, enforced in that marketers who don't adhere to that code of practice don't get to become members, or on previous occasions, have had ther membership revoked. > > So, this does occur and is not unknown in an industry context. > > It would be equally naive to only bank on industry goodwill, which is why a regulatory system, and a transparent complaints / redressal process are essential, That, and informed civil society that doesn't see industry as the enemy. > > Note: I have had my share of arguments with various civil society people and groups on that account, simply because making points without demonising the groups they make those points against seems to be a dying art. Like Susan Crawford describing DPI with terms like "inside job", or the eff comparing spam filtering to blackmail and extortion. http://www.mail-archive.com/silklist at lists.hserus.net/msg20400.html for several such examples. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 17-Nov-2012, at 21:45, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Of course, what you are saying is precisely what is being said in the > current deregulation push in US telecoms i.e. that corporate actors can be > trusted (in a deregulated context) to act in accordance with the public > interest (with the consequences that Susan Crawford is pointing to in her > piece noted bleow... > > You might note in passing that CS in the context of the BestBits discussion > indicated in the context of the anticipated revision of the ITR's and a > requirement that " the framing of public policy is the pursuit of the > public interest" and that this statement was signed onto by numerous CS (and > other actors). http://bestbits.igf-online.net/statement/ > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 7:41 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went > Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg > > There is no such thing as a global public interest, it is too utopian a > concept. > > A shared consensus on best practices and acceptable standards of behaviour / > codes of conduct are about the closest you will have in real life and > outside wcit, igf etc slide decks. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 17-Nov-2012, at 20:48, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Why? > > The discussions around the WCIT/are overrun with precisely those kinds > of generalizations. > > But it is a serious question, if we believe that there is a global > public interest (in the Internet) who do we trust to best represent > that public interest (IBM, Google, the USG?) and within what (global) > framework will that representation best take place (the market place, > the US State Department, Google, the IGF?). (Unfortunately, I don't > see CS as sufficiently strong or as sufficiently independent to even > mention it in this context.) > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:39 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones > Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg > > michael gurstein [17/11/12 06:00 -0800]: > Who can we rely on to act in support of the (global) public > interest--IBM, Google, Facebook, AT&T, the USG, "the market"..? > > "civil society"? also note "act effectively" > > Generalizing would be a grave mistake here. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Nov 17 14:01:01 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 04:01:01 +0900 Subject: [governance] Russia demands broad UN role in Net governance, leak reveals Message-ID: Long days in Dubai. 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sat Nov 17 14:25:30 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 11:25:30 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Improving User Rights In-Reply-To: <11D5DB73-A546-44EF-A966-296A589DCCF2@hserus.net> References: <11D5DB73-A546-44EF-A966-296A589DCCF2@hserus.net> Message-ID: <012601cdc4f9$4f6fcc00$ee4f6400$@gmail.com> Suresh, I don't know if you read my sorry tale of woe (mirrored I should say by hundreds of others I have come across once I started looking… The point was that there were no accessible "customer service desks" nor any recourse in terms of finding one (try finding a telephone number for Google or a customer oriented email address that will respond within a reasonable period of time -- and I mean days or even weeks). At least in this instance there was no public (or even customer facing) transparency or accountability and no clear national path for accountability that I could call on--I as a Canadian, accessing a US based company from where I was, temporarily at the time of the incident, Bangladesh. And, as Wolfgang is pointing to, the issue at least for email (and probably other Internet based services) rather goes beyond the jurisdiction of a "help desk". Supposing that I had been cut off from my account "for cause", or because of a mistaken identity, or a glitch somewhere in the various electronic pathways that my email traverses--would a "help desk" be sufficient (have the authority) to resolve the problem. And of course, given the global ubiquity in the use of gmail (which has to a considerable degree become the global standard--to Google's considerable profit it should be pointed out) and as one's email address (as in my instance) has become for many the cornerstone of one's electronic identity, the significance of this kind of lock out could be extremely damaging and even in some instances dangerous. The absence of any means for recourse--i.e. accountability or transparency on the part of the service supplier is to my mind something that is clearly not "in the public interest". And if that is the case, what or where is the framework for appropriate intervention and who (and how) has the standing to effect such an intervention. Notably of course, given the nature of the Google/eBay/Facebook/PayPal etc.etc. transnational beast such a framework (and the actors with standing sufficient for an appropriate intervention) must themselves necessarily be global. M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 10:45 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Improving User Rights You do have customer service desks in free email providers, and escalation paths, just as you do with mobile phone and Internet service. Customer service, to cut costs, tends to be staffed with lower paid, lower skilled people at times, and this might unintentionally lead to service getting shut off or otherwise restricted. But that is by no means restricted to the online world. Credit cards, public utility companies, supermarkets etc .. Anywhere that caters to a large number of people. How would you draw a distinction between those? --srs (iPad) On 18-Nov-2012, at 0:00, "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)" wrote: Dear Michael, this story is a good example for what is needed in terms of operationalizing rights of internet users, which is the topic of a currently ongoing Council of Europe Committee, which works on a "compendium" of such rights for internet user rights. A minimum of basic services may be more than a contractual consumer rights issue, when the user practically has no alternative. If You have a problem with Your mobile phone or internet service provider there is a hotline, maybe You have to pay something, but You get a service. Companies like Google present themselves as user-oriented, but there is a need to identify and provide minimum services in order not to be cut off from Your freedom of expression. Suggestions from this list are welcome! Best regards Wolfgang Benedek Institute for International Law and International Relations University of Graz Universitätsstraße 15, A4 A-8010 Graz Tel.: +43/316/380/3411 Fax: +43/316/380/9455 Von: michael gurstein Antworten an: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , michael gurstein Datum: Samstag, 17. November 2012 18:01 An: 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Betreff: RE: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg To bring this back to the WCIT/ITU context, the issue isn't direct nastiness (illegality) via spam or whatever, there are in most instances enforceable national laws to cover this and the self-regulation is for the most part a way of keeping national regulators off the corporate backs. The issue is precisely in the area of standards and policies for those corporations and countries with global and transborder reach where national policies/regulations are essentially unenforceable but where because of industry or other dominance (including what is in practice standards "capture") there is no effective way of pursuing a public interest. My own example which I keep trundling out is a fairly direct indicator of some of the issues from a consumer protection perspective and I think a reasonable example where some sort of means for enforcing a global public interest including through transparency and accountabliity is required. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/gmail-hell-day-4-dealing-with-the-borg-or-being-evil-without-really-thinking-about-it/ http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/gmail-hell2-an-epilogue-they-are-the-borg-and-they-are-too-big-to-be-allowed-to-fail/ M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 8:37 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg As far as I have seen in industry associations like maawg (www.maawg.org) there is a substantial push towards best practice in areas such as ethical email marketing that is respectful of user privacy, besides the various other practices evolved on security, malware etc. And that best practice is, sort of, enforced in that marketers who don't adhere to that code of practice don't get to become members, or on previous occasions, have had ther membership revoked. So, this does occur and is not unknown in an industry context. It would be equally naive to only bank on industry goodwill, which is why a regulatory system, and a transparent complaints / redressal process are essential, That, and informed civil society that doesn't see industry as the enemy. Note: I have had my share of arguments with various civil society people and groups on that account, simply because making points without demonising the groups they make those points against seems to be a dying art. Like Susan Crawford describing DPI with terms like "inside job", or the eff comparing spam filtering to blackmail and extortion. http://www.mail-archive.com/silklist at lists.hserus.net/msg20400.html for several such examples. --srs (iPad) On 17-Nov-2012, at 21:45, "michael gurstein" wrote: Of course, what you are saying is precisely what is being said in the current deregulation push in US telecoms i.e. that corporate actors can be trusted (in a deregulated context) to act in accordance with the public interest (with the consequences that Susan Crawford is pointing to in her piece noted bleow... You might note in passing that CS in the context of the BestBits discussion indicated in the context of the anticipated revision of the ITR's and a requirement that " the framing of public policy is the pursuit of the public interest" and that this statement was signed onto by numerous CS (and other actors). http://bestbits.igf-online.net/statement/ M -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 7:41 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg There is no such thing as a global public interest, it is too utopian a concept. A shared consensus on best practices and acceptable standards of behaviour / codes of conduct are about the closest you will have in real life and outside wcit, igf etc slide decks. --srs (iPad) On 17-Nov-2012, at 20:48, "michael gurstein" wrote: Why? The discussions around the WCIT/are overrun with precisely those kinds of generalizations. But it is a serious question, if we believe that there is a global public interest (in the Internet) who do we trust to best represent that public interest (IBM, Google, the USG?) and within what (global) framework will that representation best take place (the market place, the US State Department, Google, the IGF?). (Unfortunately, I don't see CS as sufficiently strong or as sufficiently independent to even mention it in this context.) M -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:39 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg michael gurstein [17/11/12 06:00 -0800]: Who can we rely on to act in support of the (global) public interest--IBM, Google, Facebook, AT&T, the USG, "the market"..? "civil society"? also note "act effectively" Generalizing would be a grave mistake here. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 17 14:47:41 2012 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 21:47:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Improving User Rights In-Reply-To: <012601cdc4f9$4f6fcc00$ee4f6400$@gmail.com> References: <11D5DB73-A546-44EF-A966-296A589DCCF2@hserus.net> <012601cdc4f9$4f6fcc00$ee4f6400$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear all, Thank you very much for very interesting discussion. Key words for me here were "Council of Europe". ICANN, ISOC and so on have zero influence on Ukrainian officials, because all these organizations have no binding responsibilities for governments. So, I would like to repeat again and again - without CoE, OECD, EU etc. binding treaties it is impossible to deal with "quazi-democratic" countries. And, of course, without US money (or with the risk to leave without them)))) Best regards, Oksana 2012/11/17 michael gurstein : > Suresh, > > > > I don't know if you read my sorry tale of woe (mirrored I should say by > hundreds of others I have come across once I started looking… The point was > that there were no accessible "customer service desks" nor any recourse in > terms of finding one (try finding a telephone number for Google or a > customer oriented email address that will respond within a reasonable period > of time -- and I mean days or even weeks). > > > > At least in this instance there was no public (or even customer facing) > transparency or accountability and no clear national path for accountability > that I could call on--I as a Canadian, accessing a US based company from > where I was, temporarily at the time of the incident, Bangladesh. > > > > And, as Wolfgang is pointing to, the issue at least for email (and probably > other Internet based services) rather goes beyond the jurisdiction of a > "help desk". Supposing that I had been cut off from my account "for cause", > or because of a mistaken identity, or a glitch somewhere in the various > electronic pathways that my email traverses--would a "help desk" be > sufficient (have the authority) to resolve the problem. > > > > And of course, given the global ubiquity in the use of gmail (which has to a > considerable degree become the global standard--to Google's considerable > profit it should be pointed out) and as one's email address (as in my > instance) has become for many the cornerstone of one's electronic identity, > the significance of this kind of lock out could be extremely damaging and > even in some instances dangerous. > > > > The absence of any means for recourse--i.e. accountability or transparency > on the part of the service supplier is to my mind something that is clearly > not "in the public interest". And if that is the case, what or where is the > framework for appropriate intervention and who (and how) has the standing to > effect such an intervention. > > > > Notably of course, given the nature of the Google/eBay/Facebook/PayPal > etc.etc. transnational beast such a framework (and the actors with standing > sufficient for an appropriate intervention) must themselves necessarily be > global. > > > > M > > > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 10:45 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang > (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Improving User Rights > > > > You do have customer service desks in free email providers, and escalation > paths, just as you do with mobile phone and Internet service. Customer > service, to cut costs, tends to be staffed with lower paid, lower skilled > people at times, and this might unintentionally lead to service getting shut > off or otherwise restricted. But that is by no means restricted to the > online world. > > > > Credit cards, public utility companies, supermarkets etc .. Anywhere that > caters to a large number of people. > > > > How would you draw a distinction between those? > > --srs (iPad) > > > On 18-Nov-2012, at 0:00, "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)" > wrote: > > Dear Michael, > > > > this story is a good example for what is needed in terms of operationalizing > rights of internet users, which is the topic of a currently ongoing Council > of Europe Committee, which works on a "compendium" of such rights for > internet user rights. > > > > A minimum of basic services may be more than a contractual consumer rights > issue, when the user practically has no alternative. > > > > If You have a problem with Your mobile phone or internet service provider > there is a hotline, maybe You have to pay something, but You get a service. > > > > Companies like Google present themselves as user-oriented, but there is a > need to identify and provide minimum services in order not to be cut off > from Your freedom of expression. > > > > Suggestions from this list are welcome! > > > > Best regards > > > > Wolfgang Benedek > > > > Institute for International Law and International Relations > > University of Graz > > Universitätsstraße 15, A4 > > A-8010 Graz > > Tel.: +43/316/380/3411 > > Fax: +43/316/380/9455 > > > > Von: michael gurstein > Antworten an: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > , michael gurstein > Datum: Samstag, 17. November 2012 18:01 > An: 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' > Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > Betreff: RE: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went > Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg > > > > To bring this back to the WCIT/ITU context, the issue isn't direct nastiness > (illegality) via spam or whatever, there are in most instances enforceable > national laws to cover this and the self-regulation is for the most part a > way of keeping national regulators off the corporate backs. > > > > The issue is precisely in the area of standards and policies for those > corporations and countries with global and transborder reach where national > policies/regulations are essentially unenforceable but where because of > industry or other dominance (including what is in practice standards > "capture") there is no effective way of pursuing a public interest. My own > example which I keep trundling out is a fairly direct indicator of some of > the issues from a consumer protection perspective and I think a reasonable > example where some sort of means for enforcing a global public interest > including through transparency and accountabliity is required. > > > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/gmail-hell-day-4-dealing-with-the-borg-or-being-evil-without-really-thinking-about-it/ > > > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/gmail-hell2-an-epilogue-they-are-the-borg-and-they-are-too-big-to-be-allowed-to-fail/ > > > > M > > > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 8:37 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went > Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg > > > > As far as I have seen in industry associations like maawg (www.maawg.org) > there is a substantial push towards best practice in areas such as ethical > email marketing that is respectful of user privacy, besides the various > other practices evolved on security, malware etc. > > > > And that best practice is, sort of, enforced in that marketers who don't > adhere to that code of practice don't get to become members, or on previous > occasions, have had ther membership revoked. > > > > So, this does occur and is not unknown in an industry context. > > > > It would be equally naive to only bank on industry goodwill, which is why a > regulatory system, and a transparent complaints / redressal process are > essential, That, and informed civil society that doesn't see industry as > the enemy. > > > > Note: I have had my share of arguments with various civil society people and > groups on that account, simply because making points without demonising the > groups they make those points against seems to be a dying art. Like Susan > Crawford describing DPI with terms like "inside job", or the eff comparing > spam filtering to blackmail and extortion. > http://www.mail-archive.com/silklist at lists.hserus.net/msg20400.html for > several such examples. > > > --srs (iPad) > > > On 17-Nov-2012, at 21:45, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Of course, what you are saying is precisely what is being said in the > current deregulation push in US telecoms i.e. that corporate actors can be > trusted (in a deregulated context) to act in accordance with the public > interest (with the consequences that Susan Crawford is pointing to in her > piece noted bleow... > > You might note in passing that CS in the context of the BestBits discussion > indicated in the context of the anticipated revision of the ITR's and a > requirement that " the framing of public policy is the pursuit of the > public interest" and that this statement was signed onto by numerous CS (and > other actors). http://bestbits.igf-online.net/statement/ > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 7:41 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went > Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg > > There is no such thing as a global public interest, it is too utopian a > concept. > > A shared consensus on best practices and acceptable standards of behaviour / > codes of conduct are about the closest you will have in real life and > outside wcit, igf etc slide decks. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 17-Nov-2012, at 20:48, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Why? > > > > The discussions around the WCIT/are overrun with precisely those kinds > > of generalizations. > > > > But it is a serious question, if we believe that there is a global > > public interest (in the Internet) who do we trust to best represent > > that public interest (IBM, Google, the USG?) and within what (global) > > framework will that representation best take place (the market place, > > the US State Department, Google, the IGF?). (Unfortunately, I don't > > see CS as sufficiently strong or as sufficiently independent to even > > mention it in this context.) > > > > M > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:39 AM > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones > > Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg > > > > michael gurstein [17/11/12 06:00 -0800]: > > Who can we rely on to act in support of the (global) public > > interest--IBM, Google, Facebook, AT&T, the USG, "the market"..? > > > > "civil society"? also note "act effectively" > > > > Generalizing would be a grave mistake here. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 pranesh at cis-india.org Sat Nov 17 16:17:50 2012 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 02:47:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg In-Reply-To: <003101cdc4cb$ef4823e0$cdd86ba0$@gmail.com> References: <003101cdc4cb$ef4823e0$cdd86ba0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50A7FEFE.6000005@cis-india.org> michael gurstein [2012-11-17 19:30]: > Who can we rely on to act in support of the (global) public interest--IBM, > Google, Facebook, AT&T, the USG, "the market"..? In India we face the opposite problem of that described by Susan Crawford. Through the ISP Licence, the UAS Licence, the Telecom licence, the government has armed itself with powers against the ISPs and telecom companies that it does not have under any law. For instance, there is a stricture in those licences against "bulk encryption" of more than 40bits without key escrow, despite the government requiring 128 bit encryption by all banks in another law. There is a requirement of having a black box room on their premises with access to all communications, though blanket surveillance (under some readings of Indian law and the judicial interpretation of the right to privacy as a fundamental right) is not permissible. Importantly, if it doesn't harm their bottom line, these companies have no incentive to not cooperate. While we should avoid moving to a state of 'no regulation' (competition law, consumer law, etc., should apply), in many countries, especially LDCs and developing countries, we are on the opposite side of the spectrum. Please spare a thought for developing countries too ;) -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Nov 17 16:47:41 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:47:41 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg In-Reply-To: <50A7FEFE.6000005@cis-india.org> References: <003101cdc4cb$ef4823e0$cdd86ba0$@gmail.com> <50A7FEFE.6000005@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <01c001cdc50d$3cbe65d0$b63b3170$@gmail.com> Those are good points and serious issues Pranesh. I think what this discussion indicates is that there is a need for a nuanced approach to the issue of standard setting/regulation at the global level including taking into consideration how this will (or could) impact at the national level. What is not needed and particularly from CS is an uncritical adherence to the "hands off the Internet/free the Internet" position being advocated by some governments and many (self-interested) corporations, ignoring the need for various kinds of interventions as a support to various issues of significance from the perspective of a global public interest. A problem with the approach currently being advocated by many is that there is no opportunity for reflection as to what issues could and should be addressed and in what fora, and which should not. Being stampeded over an anti-governance "no-regulation" libertarian cliff is not I think, in the interests of most whether in Developed or in Less Developed Countries. M -----Original Message----- From: Pranesh Prakash [mailto:pranesh at cis-india.org] Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:18 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg michael gurstein [2012-11-17 19:30]: > Who can we rely on to act in support of the (global) public > interest--IBM, Google, Facebook, AT&T, the USG, "the market"..? In India we face the opposite problem of that described by Susan Crawford. Through the ISP Licence, the UAS Licence, the Telecom licence, the government has armed itself with powers against the ISPs and telecom companies that it does not have under any law. For instance, there is a stricture in those licences against "bulk encryption" of more than 40bits without key escrow, despite the government requiring 128 bit encryption by all banks in another law. There is a requirement of having a black box room on their premises with access to all communications, though blanket surveillance (under some readings of Indian law and the judicial interpretation of the right to privacy as a fundamental right) is not permissible. Importantly, if it doesn't harm their bottom line, these companies have no incentive to not cooperate. While we should avoid moving to a state of 'no regulation' (competition law, consumer law, etc., should apply), in many countries, especially LDCs and developing countries, we are on the opposite side of the spectrum. Please spare a thought for developing countries too ;) -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Sat Nov 17 16:58:25 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 21:58:25 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg In-Reply-To: <01c001cdc50d$3cbe65d0$b63b3170$@gmail.com> References: <003101cdc4cb$ef4823e0$cdd86ba0$@gmail.com> <50A7FEFE.6000005@cis-india.org>,<01c001cdc50d$3cbe65d0$b63b3170$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DAEAD20@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Michael, don't forget layers. Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Enviado el: sábado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 15:47 Hasta: 'Pranesh Prakash'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: RE: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg Those are good points and serious issues Pranesh. I think what this discussion indicates is that there is a need for a nuanced approach to the issue of standard setting/regulation at the global level including taking into consideration how this will (or could) impact at the national level. What is not needed and particularly from CS is an uncritical adherence to the "hands off the Internet/free the Internet" position being advocated by some governments and many (self-interested) corporations, ignoring the need for various kinds of interventions as a support to various issues of significance from the perspective of a global public interest. A problem with the approach currently being advocated by many is that there is no opportunity for reflection as to what issues could and should be addressed and in what fora, and which should not. Being stampeded over an anti-governance "no-regulation" libertarian cliff is not I think, in the interests of most whether in Developed or in Less Developed Countries. M -----Original Message----- From: Pranesh Prakash [mailto:pranesh at cis-india.org] Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:18 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg michael gurstein [2012-11-17 19:30]: > Who can we rely on to act in support of the (global) public > interest--IBM, Google, Facebook, AT&T, the USG, "the market"..? In India we face the opposite problem of that described by Susan Crawford. Through the ISP Licence, the UAS Licence, the Telecom licence, the government has armed itself with powers against the ISPs and telecom companies that it does not have under any law. For instance, there is a stricture in those licences against "bulk encryption" of more than 40bits without key escrow, despite the government requiring 128 bit encryption by all banks in another law. There is a requirement of having a black box room on their premises with access to all communications, though blanket surveillance (under some readings of Indian law and the judicial interpretation of the right to privacy as a fundamental right) is not permissible. Importantly, if it doesn't harm their bottom line, these companies have no incentive to not cooperate. While we should avoid moving to a state of 'no regulation' (competition law, consumer law, etc., should apply), in many countries, especially LDCs and developing countries, we are on the opposite side of the spectrum. Please spare a thought for developing countries too ;) -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Nov 17 17:24:42 2012 From: hakik at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 22:24:42 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg In-Reply-To: <01c001cdc50d$3cbe65d0$b63b3170$@gmail.com> References: <003101cdc4cb$ef4823e0$cdd86ba0$@gmail.com> <50A7FEFE.6000005@cis-india.org> <01c001cdc50d$3cbe65d0$b63b3170$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Internet is now a global good and thus need to set a global standard as mentioned by Michael Gurstein, but at the same time need to uphold national interest for the mass population, not for a few advantaged ones. Being governed is not regulation as long as it is dynamically adjustable to the need of the society. Best regards, Hakikur At 21:47 17-11-2012, michael gurstein wrote: >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="utf-8" >Content-Language: en-us > >Those are good points and serious issues Pranesh. > >I think what this discussion indicates is that there is a need for a >nuanced approach to the issue of standard setting/regulation at the >global level including taking into consideration how this will (or >could) impact at the national level. What is not needed and >particularly from CS is an uncritical adherence to the "hands off >the Internet/free the Internet" position being advocated by some >governments and many (self-interested) corporations, ignoring the >need for various kinds of interventions as a support to various >issues of significance from the perspective of a global public interest. > >A problem with the approach currently being advocated by many is >that there is no opportunity for reflection as to what issues could >and should be addressed and in what fora, and which should >not. Being stampeded over an anti-governance "no-regulation" >libertarian cliff is not I think, in the interests of most whether >in Developed or in Less Developed Countries. > >M > >-----Original Message----- >From: Pranesh Prakash [mailto:pranesh at cis-india.org] >Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:18 PM >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein >Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones >Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg > >michael gurstein [2012-11-17 19:30]: > > Who can we rely on to act in support of the (global) public > > interest--IBM, Google, Facebook, AT&T, the USG, "the market"..? > >In India we face the opposite problem of that described by Susan >Crawford. Through the ISP Licence, the UAS Licence, the Telecom >licence, the government has armed itself with powers against the >ISPs and telecom companies that it does not have under any law. > >For instance, there is a stricture in those licences against "bulk >encryption" of more than 40bits without key escrow, despite the >government requiring 128 bit encryption by all banks in another law. >There is a requirement of having a black box room on their premises >with access to all communications, though blanket surveillance >(under some readings of Indian law and the judicial interpretation >of the right to privacy as a fundamental right) is not >permissible. Importantly, if it doesn't harm their bottom line, >these companies have no incentive to not cooperate. > >While we should avoid moving to a state of 'no regulation' >(competition law, consumer law, etc., should apply), in many >countries, especially LDCs and developing countries, we are on the >opposite side of the spectrum. Please spare a thought for >developing countries too ;) > >-- >Pranesh Prakash >Policy Director >Centre for Internet and Society >T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | >Twitter: @pranesh_prakash > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your 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 Nov 17 17:57:20 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 14:57:20 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DAEAD20@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <003101cdc4cb$ef4823e0$cdd86ba0$@gmail.com> <50A7FEFE.6000005@cis-india.org>,<01c001cdc50d$3cbe65d0$b63b3170$@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DAEAD20@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <01d501cdc516$f35c7e90$da157bb0$@gmail.com> And back to you Alejandro... what interventions would make sense and what wouldn't (and who and how... M -----Original Message----- From: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch [mailto:apisan at unam.mx] Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:58 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; 'Pranesh Prakash' Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg Michael, don't forget layers. Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Enviado el: sábado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 15:47 Hasta: 'Pranesh Prakash'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: RE: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg Those are good points and serious issues Pranesh. I think what this discussion indicates is that there is a need for a nuanced approach to the issue of standard setting/regulation at the global level including taking into consideration how this will (or could) impact at the national level. What is not needed and particularly from CS is an uncritical adherence to the "hands off the Internet/free the Internet" position being advocated by some governments and many (self-interested) corporations, ignoring the need for various kinds of interventions as a support to various issues of significance from the perspective of a global public interest. A problem with the approach currently being advocated by many is that there is no opportunity for reflection as to what issues could and should be addressed and in what fora, and which should not. Being stampeded over an anti-governance "no-regulation" libertarian cliff is not I think, in the interests of most whether in Developed or in Less Developed Countries. M -----Original Message----- From: Pranesh Prakash [mailto:pranesh at cis-india.org] Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:18 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg michael gurstein [2012-11-17 19:30]: > Who can we rely on to act in support of the (global) public > interest--IBM, Google, Facebook, AT&T, the USG, "the market"..? In India we face the opposite problem of that described by Susan Crawford. Through the ISP Licence, the UAS Licence, the Telecom licence, the government has armed itself with powers against the ISPs and telecom companies that it does not have under any law. For instance, there is a stricture in those licences against "bulk encryption" of more than 40bits without key escrow, despite the government requiring 128 bit encryption by all banks in another law. There is a requirement of having a black box room on their premises with access to all communications, though blanket surveillance (under some readings of Indian law and the judicial interpretation of the right to privacy as a fundamental right) is not permissible. Importantly, if it doesn't harm their bottom line, these companies have no incentive to not cooperate. While we should avoid moving to a state of 'no regulation' (competition law, consumer law, etc., should apply), in many countries, especially LDCs and developing countries, we are on the opposite side of the spectrum. Please spare a thought for developing countries too ;) -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash = -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 17 18:42:28 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 05:12:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Improving User Rights In-Reply-To: <012601cdc4f9$4f6fcc00$ee4f6400$@gmail.com> References: <11D5DB73-A546-44EF-A966-296A589DCCF2@hserus.net> <012601cdc4f9$4f6fcc00$ee4f6400$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <57A896C7-7331-47CC-8861-2E217A17C51D@hserus.net> For a free service? Maybe not, you get a level of service commensurate with what you pay for. I do come from about 14,,15 years working closely with ISP tech support desks, and I would be the last to claim that the process work perfectly every time. If, as i gathered from skimming through your blog before my earlier reply, were cut off that is still a matter for one of several help desks that exist and not all of them are manned by low paid kids with little actual authority. --srs (iPad) On 18-Nov-2012, at 0:55, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Suresh, > > I don't know if you read my sorry tale of woe (mirrored I should say by hundreds of others I have come across once I started looking… The point was that there were no accessible "customer service desks" nor any recourse in terms of finding one (try finding a telephone number for Google or a customer oriented email address that will respond within a reasonable period of time -- and I mean days or even weeks). > > At least in this instance there was no public (or even customer facing) transparency or accountability and no clear national path for accountability that I could call on--I as a Canadian, accessing a US based company from where I was, temporarily at the time of the incident, Bangladesh. > > And, as Wolfgang is pointing to, the issue at least for email (and probably other Internet based services) rather goes beyond the jurisdiction of a "help desk". Supposing that I had been cut off from my account "for cause", or because of a mistaken identity, or a glitch somewhere in the various electronic pathways that my email traverses--would a "help desk" be sufficient (have the authority) to resolve the problem. > > And of course, given the global ubiquity in the use of gmail (which has to a considerable degree become the global standard--to Google's considerable profit it should be pointed out) and as one's email address (as in my instance) has become for many the cornerstone of one's electronic identity, the significance of this kind of lock out could be extremely damaging and even in some instances dangerous. > > The absence of any means for recourse--i.e. accountability or transparency on the part of the service supplier is to my mind something that is clearly not "in the public interest". And if that is the case, what or where is the framework for appropriate intervention and who (and how) has the standing to effect such an intervention. > > Notably of course, given the nature of the Google/eBay/Facebook/PayPal etc.etc. transnational beast such a framework (and the actors with standing sufficient for an appropriate intervention) must themselves necessarily be global. > > M > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 10:45 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Improving User Rights > > You do have customer service desks in free email providers, and escalation paths, just as you do with mobile phone and Internet service. Customer service, to cut costs, tends to be staffed with lower paid, lower skilled people at times, and this might unintentionally lead to service getting shut off or otherwise restricted. But that is by no means restricted to the online world. > > Credit cards, public utility companies, supermarkets etc .. Anywhere that caters to a large number of people. > > How would you draw a distinction between those? > > --srs (iPad) > > On 18-Nov-2012, at 0:00, "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)" wrote: > > Dear Michael, > > this story is a good example for what is needed in terms of operationalizing rights of internet users, which is the topic of a currently ongoing Council of Europe Committee, which works on a "compendium" of such rights for internet user rights. > > A minimum of basic services may be more than a contractual consumer rights issue, when the user practically has no alternative. > > If You have a problem with Your mobile phone or internet service provider there is a hotline, maybe You have to pay something, but You get a service. > > Companies like Google present themselves as user-oriented, but there is a need to identify and provide minimum services in order not to be cut off from Your freedom of expression. > > Suggestions from this list are welcome! > > Best regards > > Wolfgang Benedek > > Institute for International Law and International Relations > University of Graz > Universitätsstraße 15, A4 > A-8010 Graz > Tel.: +43/316/380/3411 > Fax: +43/316/380/9455 > > Von: michael gurstein > Antworten an: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , michael gurstein > Datum: Samstag, 17. November 2012 18:01 > An: 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' > Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > Betreff: RE: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg > > To bring this back to the WCIT/ITU context, the issue isn't direct nastiness (illegality) via spam or whatever, there are in most instances enforceable national laws to cover this and the self-regulation is for the most part a way of keeping national regulators off the corporate backs. > > The issue is precisely in the area of standards and policies for those corporations and countries with global and transborder reach where national policies/regulations are essentially unenforceable but where because of industry or other dominance (including what is in practice standards "capture") there is no effective way of pursuing a public interest. My own example which I keep trundling out is a fairly direct indicator of some of the issues from a consumer protection perspective and I think a reasonable example where some sort of means for enforcing a global public interest including through transparency and accountabliity is required. > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/gmail-hell-day-4-dealing-with-the-borg-or-being-evil-without-really-thinking-about-it/ > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/gmail-hell2-an-epilogue-they-are-the-borg-and-they-are-too-big-to-be-allowed-to-fail/ > > M > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 8:37 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg > > As far as I have seen in industry associations like maawg (www.maawg.org) there is a substantial push towards best practice in areas such as ethical email marketing that is respectful of user privacy, besides the various other practices evolved on security, malware etc. > > And that best practice is, sort of, enforced in that marketers who don't adhere to that code of practice don't get to become members, or on previous occasions, have had ther membership revoked. > > So, this does occur and is not unknown in an industry context. > > It would be equally naive to only bank on industry goodwill, which is why a regulatory system, and a transparent complaints / redressal process are essential, That, and informed civil society that doesn't see industry as the enemy. > > Note: I have had my share of arguments with various civil society people and groups on that account, simply because making points without demonising the groups they make those points against seems to be a dying art. Like Susan Crawford describing DPI with terms like "inside job", or the eff comparing spam filtering to blackmail and extortion. http://www.mail-archive.com/silklist at lists.hserus.net/msg20400.html for several such examples. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 17-Nov-2012, at 21:45, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Of course, what you are saying is precisely what is being said in the > current deregulation push in US telecoms i.e. that corporate actors can be > trusted (in a deregulated context) to act in accordance with the public > interest (with the consequences that Susan Crawford is pointing to in her > piece noted bleow... > > You might note in passing that CS in the context of the BestBits discussion > indicated in the context of the anticipated revision of the ITR's and a > requirement that " the framing of public policy is the pursuit of the > public interest" and that this statement was signed onto by numerous CS (and > other actors). http://bestbits.igf-online.net/statement/ > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 7:41 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went > Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg > > There is no such thing as a global public interest, it is too utopian a > concept. > > A shared consensus on best practices and acceptable standards of behaviour / > codes of conduct are about the closest you will have in real life and > outside wcit, igf etc slide decks. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 17-Nov-2012, at 20:48, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Why? > > The discussions around the WCIT/are overrun with precisely those kinds > of generalizations. > > But it is a serious question, if we believe that there is a global > public interest (in the Internet) who do we trust to best represent > that public interest (IBM, Google, the USG?) and within what (global) > framework will that representation best take place (the market place, > the US State Department, Google, the IGF?). (Unfortunately, I don't > see CS as sufficiently strong or as sufficiently independent to even > mention it in this context.) > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:39 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones > Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg > > michael gurstein [17/11/12 06:00 -0800]: > Who can we rely on to act in support of the (global) public > interest--IBM, Google, Facebook, AT&T, the USG, "the market"..? > > "civil society"? also note "act effectively" > > Generalizing would be a grave mistake here. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 17 18:46:53 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 05:16:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg In-Reply-To: <01c001cdc50d$3cbe65d0$b63b3170$@gmail.com> References: <003101cdc4cb$ef4823e0$cdd86ba0$@gmail.com> <50A7FEFE.6000005@cis-india.org> <01c001cdc50d$3cbe65d0$b63b3170$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <940DE247-A4C9-47EA-BA49-4100962A82CF@hserus.net> You won't find me supporting a laissez faire, blind hands off the Internet approach either, and I hope you did not construe my earlier comments that way. We need effective engagement across stakeholder groups, and I would put it to you that more nuanced approaches do exist, but may not always be visible or popular in at least us based civil society circles. --srs (iPad) On 18-Nov-2012, at 3:17, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Those are good points and serious issues Pranesh. > > I think what this discussion indicates is that there is a need for a nuanced approach to the issue of standard setting/regulation at the global level including taking into consideration how this will (or could) impact at the national level. What is not needed and particularly from CS is an uncritical adherence to the "hands off the Internet/free the Internet" position being advocated by some governments and many (self-interested) corporations, ignoring the need for various kinds of interventions as a support to various issues of significance from the perspective of a global public interest. > > A problem with the approach currently being advocated by many is that there is no opportunity for reflection as to what issues could and should be addressed and in what fora, and which should not. Being stampeded over an anti-governance "no-regulation" libertarian cliff is not I think, in the interests of most whether in Developed or in Less Developed Countries. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pranesh Prakash [mailto:pranesh at cis-india.org] > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:18 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg > > michael gurstein [2012-11-17 19:30]: >> Who can we rely on to act in support of the (global) public >> interest--IBM, Google, Facebook, AT&T, the USG, "the market"..? > > In India we face the opposite problem of that described by Susan Crawford. Through the ISP Licence, the UAS Licence, the Telecom licence, the government has armed itself with powers against the ISPs and telecom companies that it does not have under any law. > > For instance, there is a stricture in those licences against "bulk encryption" of more than 40bits without key escrow, despite the government requiring 128 bit encryption by all banks in another law. > There is a requirement of having a black box room on their premises with access to all communications, though blanket surveillance (under some readings of Indian law and the judicial interpretation of the right to privacy as a fundamental right) is not permissible. Importantly, if it doesn't harm their bottom line, these companies have no incentive to not cooperate. > > While we should avoid moving to a state of 'no regulation' (competition law, consumer law, etc., should apply), in many countries, especially LDCs and developing countries, we are on the opposite side of the spectrum. Please spare a thought for developing countries too ;) > > -- > Pranesh Prakash > Policy Director > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Nov 17 19:16:32 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 16:16:32 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Improving User Rights In-Reply-To: <57A896C7-7331-47CC-8861-2E217A17C51D@hserus.net> References: <11D5DB73-A546-44EF-A966-296A589DCCF2@hserus.net> <012601cdc4f9$4f6fcc00$ee4f6400$@gmail.com> <57A896C7-7331-47CC-8861-2E217A17C51D@hserus.net> Message-ID: <01f301cdc522$04e8d4a0$0eba7de0$@gmail.com> Suresh, it is hardly a "free" service… They are making a very considerable amount of money off the use of my (and everyone's) information and attention for advertising and other revenue based services--they aren't doing what they do as a public service. I allow them to use me and my information in this way in exchange for the use of their software… I think it is not an unfair transaction as I continue with it however, I do expect some, at least minimal degree of support from their side of the transaction and again as I indicated in my blog, NO help desk was effectively available. Also, their increasingly dominant position in this crucial functional area almost certainly places additional service responsibilities on their shoulder. It is perhaps too unfortunate that they have been so successful, but that's the way it is… If they want to be the cateloguer and indexer of all of human knowledge then they need to take the responsibilities that go with that position! M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 3:42 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: Benedek, Wolfgang; Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Improving User Rights For a free service? Maybe not, you get a level of service commensurate with what you pay for. I do come from about 14,,15 years working closely with ISP tech support desks, and I would be the last to claim that the process work perfectly every time. If, as i gathered from skimming through your blog before my earlier reply, were cut off that is still a matter for one of several help desks that exist and not all of them are manned by low paid kids with little actual authority. --srs (iPad) On 18-Nov-2012, at 0:55, "michael gurstein" wrote: Suresh, I don't know if you read my sorry tale of woe (mirrored I should say by hundreds of others I have come across once I started looking… The point was that there were no accessible "customer service desks" nor any recourse in terms of finding one (try finding a telephone number for Google or a customer oriented email address that will respond within a reasonable period of time -- and I mean days or even weeks). At least in this instance there was no public (or even customer facing) transparency or accountability and no clear national path for accountability that I could call on--I as a Canadian, accessing a US based company from where I was, temporarily at the time of the incident, Bangladesh. And, as Wolfgang is pointing to, the issue at least for email (and probably other Internet based services) rather goes beyond the jurisdiction of a "help desk". Supposing that I had been cut off from my account "for cause", or because of a mistaken identity, or a glitch somewhere in the various electronic pathways that my email traverses--would a "help desk" be sufficient (have the authority) to resolve the problem. And of course, given the global ubiquity in the use of gmail (which has to a considerable degree become the global standard--to Google's considerable profit it should be pointed out) and as one's email address (as in my instance) has become for many the cornerstone of one's electronic identity, the significance of this kind of lock out could be extremely damaging and even in some instances dangerous. The absence of any means for recourse--i.e. accountability or transparency on the part of the service supplier is to my mind something that is clearly not "in the public interest". And if that is the case, what or where is the framework for appropriate intervention and who (and how) has the standing to effect such an intervention. Notably of course, given the nature of the Google/eBay/Facebook/PayPal etc.etc. transnational beast such a framework (and the actors with standing sufficient for an appropriate intervention) must themselves necessarily be global. M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 10:45 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Improving User Rights You do have customer service desks in free email providers, and escalation paths, just as you do with mobile phone and Internet service. Customer service, to cut costs, tends to be staffed with lower paid, lower skilled people at times, and this might unintentionally lead to service getting shut off or otherwise restricted. But that is by no means restricted to the online world. Credit cards, public utility companies, supermarkets etc .. Anywhere that caters to a large number of people. How would you draw a distinction between those? --srs (iPad) On 18-Nov-2012, at 0:00, "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)" wrote: Dear Michael, this story is a good example for what is needed in terms of operationalizing rights of internet users, which is the topic of a currently ongoing Council of Europe Committee, which works on a "compendium" of such rights for internet user rights. A minimum of basic services may be more than a contractual consumer rights issue, when the user practically has no alternative. If You have a problem with Your mobile phone or internet service provider there is a hotline, maybe You have to pay something, but You get a service. Companies like Google present themselves as user-oriented, but there is a need to identify and provide minimum services in order not to be cut off from Your freedom of expression. Suggestions from this list are welcome! Best regards Wolfgang Benedek Institute for International Law and International Relations University of Graz Universitätsstraße 15, A4 A-8010 Graz Tel.: +43/316/380/3411 Fax: +43/316/380/9455 Von: michael gurstein Antworten an: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , michael gurstein Datum: Samstag, 17. November 2012 18:01 An: 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Betreff: RE: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg To bring this back to the WCIT/ITU context, the issue isn't direct nastiness (illegality) via spam or whatever, there are in most instances enforceable national laws to cover this and the self-regulation is for the most part a way of keeping national regulators off the corporate backs. The issue is precisely in the area of standards and policies for those corporations and countries with global and transborder reach where national policies/regulations are essentially unenforceable but where because of industry or other dominance (including what is in practice standards "capture") there is no effective way of pursuing a public interest. My own example which I keep trundling out is a fairly direct indicator of some of the issues from a consumer protection perspective and I think a reasonable example where some sort of means for enforcing a global public interest including through transparency and accountabliity is required. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/gmail-hell-day-4-dealing-with-the-borg-or-being-evil-without-really-thinking-about-it/ http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/gmail-hell2-an-epilogue-they-are-the-borg-and-they-are-too-big-to-be-allowed-to-fail/ M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 8:37 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg As far as I have seen in industry associations like maawg (www.maawg.org) there is a substantial push towards best practice in areas such as ethical email marketing that is respectful of user privacy, besides the various other practices evolved on security, malware etc. And that best practice is, sort of, enforced in that marketers who don't adhere to that code of practice don't get to become members, or on previous occasions, have had ther membership revoked. So, this does occur and is not unknown in an industry context. It would be equally naive to only bank on industry goodwill, which is why a regulatory system, and a transparent complaints / redressal process are essential, That, and informed civil society that doesn't see industry as the enemy. Note: I have had my share of arguments with various civil society people and groups on that account, simply because making points without demonising the groups they make those points against seems to be a dying art. Like Susan Crawford describing DPI with terms like "inside job", or the eff comparing spam filtering to blackmail and extortion. http://www.mail-archive.com/silklist at lists.hserus.net/msg20400.html for several such examples. --srs (iPad) On 17-Nov-2012, at 21:45, "michael gurstein" wrote: Of course, what you are saying is precisely what is being said in the current deregulation push in US telecoms i.e. that corporate actors can be trusted (in a deregulated context) to act in accordance with the public interest (with the consequences that Susan Crawford is pointing to in her piece noted bleow... You might note in passing that CS in the context of the BestBits discussion indicated in the context of the anticipated revision of the ITR's and a requirement that " the framing of public policy is the pursuit of the public interest" and that this statement was signed onto by numerous CS (and other actors). http://bestbits.igf-online.net/statement/ M -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 7:41 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg There is no such thing as a global public interest, it is too utopian a concept. A shared consensus on best practices and acceptable standards of behaviour / codes of conduct are about the closest you will have in real life and outside wcit, igf etc slide decks. --srs (iPad) On 17-Nov-2012, at 20:48, "michael gurstein" wrote: Why? The discussions around the WCIT/are overrun with precisely those kinds of generalizations. But it is a serious question, if we believe that there is a global public interest (in the Internet) who do we trust to best represent that public interest (IBM, Google, the USG?) and within what (global) framework will that representation best take place (the market place, the US State Department, Google, the IGF?). (Unfortunately, I don't see CS as sufficiently strong or as sufficiently independent to even mention it in this context.) M -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:39 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg michael gurstein [17/11/12 06:00 -0800]: Who can we rely on to act in support of the (global) public interest--IBM, Google, Facebook, AT&T, the USG, "the market"..? "civil society"? also note "act effectively" Generalizing would be a grave mistake here. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 17 19:23:28 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 05:53:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Improving User Rights In-Reply-To: <01f301cdc522$04e8d4a0$0eba7de0$@gmail.com> References: <11D5DB73-A546-44EF-A966-296A589DCCF2@hserus.net> <012601cdc4f9$4f6fcc00$ee4f6400$@gmail.com> <57A896C7-7331-47CC-8861-2E217A17C51D@hserus.net> <01f301cdc522$04e8d4a0$0eba7de0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3DB52053-FD22-4FCA-95F9-48142A0AE059@hserus.net> Yes but they and other companies are hardly providing this out of a sense of altruism, are they? The dominance, at least in email, is notional. Or at any rate, it is hardly a monopoly. You have a variety of other freemail choices, not to mention the "run a Linux box on your dsl line" approach. --srs (iPad) On 18-Nov-2012, at 5:46, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Suresh, it is hardly a "free" service… They are making a very considerable amount of money off the use of my (and everyone's) information and attention for advertising and other revenue based services--they aren't doing what they do as a public service. > > I allow them to use me and my information in this way in exchange for the use of their software… I think it is not an unfair transaction as I continue with it however, I do expect some, at least minimal degree of support from their side of the transaction and again as I indicated in my blog, NO help desk was effectively available. > > Also, their increasingly dominant position in this crucial functional area almost certainly places additional service responsibilities on their shoulder. It is perhaps too unfortunate that they have been so successful, but that's the way it is… If they want to be the cateloguer and indexer of all of human knowledge then they need to take the responsibilities that go with that position! > > M > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 3:42 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Cc: Benedek, Wolfgang; > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Improving User Rights > > For a free service? Maybe not, you get a level of service commensurate with what you pay for. > > I do come from about 14,,15 years working closely with ISP tech support desks, and I would be the last to claim that the process work perfectly every time. > > If, as i gathered from skimming through your blog before my earlier reply, were cut off that is still a matter for one of several help desks that exist and not all of them are manned by low paid kids with little actual authority. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 18-Nov-2012, at 0:55, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Suresh, > > I don't know if you read my sorry tale of woe (mirrored I should say by hundreds of others I have come across once I started looking… The point was that there were no accessible "customer service desks" nor any recourse in terms of finding one (try finding a telephone number for Google or a customer oriented email address that will respond within a reasonable period of time -- and I mean days or even weeks). > > At least in this instance there was no public (or even customer facing) transparency or accountability and no clear national path for accountability that I could call on--I as a Canadian, accessing a US based company from where I was, temporarily at the time of the incident, Bangladesh. > > And, as Wolfgang is pointing to, the issue at least for email (and probably other Internet based services) rather goes beyond the jurisdiction of a "help desk". Supposing that I had been cut off from my account "for cause", or because of a mistaken identity, or a glitch somewhere in the various electronic pathways that my email traverses--would a "help desk" be sufficient (have the authority) to resolve the problem. > > And of course, given the global ubiquity in the use of gmail (which has to a considerable degree become the global standard--to Google's considerable profit it should be pointed out) and as one's email address (as in my instance) has become for many the cornerstone of one's electronic identity, the significance of this kind of lock out could be extremely damaging and even in some instances dangerous. > > The absence of any means for recourse--i.e. accountability or transparency on the part of the service supplier is to my mind something that is clearly not "in the public interest". And if that is the case, what or where is the framework for appropriate intervention and who (and how) has the standing to effect such an intervention. > > Notably of course, given the nature of the Google/eBay/Facebook/PayPal etc.etc. transnational beast such a framework (and the actors with standing sufficient for an appropriate intervention) must themselves necessarily be global. > > M > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 10:45 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Improving User Rights > > You do have customer service desks in free email providers, and escalation paths, just as you do with mobile phone and Internet service. Customer service, to cut costs, tends to be staffed with lower paid, lower skilled people at times, and this might unintentionally lead to service getting shut off or otherwise restricted. But that is by no means restricted to the online world. > > Credit cards, public utility companies, supermarkets etc .. Anywhere that caters to a large number of people. > > How would you draw a distinction between those? > > --srs (iPad) > > On 18-Nov-2012, at 0:00, "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)" wrote: > > Dear Michael, > > this story is a good example for what is needed in terms of operationalizing rights of internet users, which is the topic of a currently ongoing Council of Europe Committee, which works on a "compendium" of such rights for internet user rights. > > A minimum of basic services may be more than a contractual consumer rights issue, when the user practically has no alternative. > > If You have a problem with Your mobile phone or internet service provider there is a hotline, maybe You have to pay something, but You get a service. > > Companies like Google present themselves as user-oriented, but there is a need to identify and provide minimum services in order not to be cut off from Your freedom of expression. > > Suggestions from this list are welcome! > > Best regards > > Wolfgang Benedek > > Institute for International Law and International Relations > University of Graz > Universitätsstraße 15, A4 > A-8010 Graz > Tel.: +43/316/380/3411 > Fax: +43/316/380/9455 > > Von: michael gurstein > Antworten an: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , michael gurstein > Datum: Samstag, 17. November 2012 18:01 > An: 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' > Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > Betreff: RE: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg > > To bring this back to the WCIT/ITU context, the issue isn't direct nastiness (illegality) via spam or whatever, there are in most instances enforceable national laws to cover this and the self-regulation is for the most part a way of keeping national regulators off the corporate backs. > > The issue is precisely in the area of standards and policies for those corporations and countries with global and transborder reach where national policies/regulations are essentially unenforceable but where because of industry or other dominance (including what is in practice standards "capture") there is no effective way of pursuing a public interest. My own example which I keep trundling out is a fairly direct indicator of some of the issues from a consumer protection perspective and I think a reasonable example where some sort of means for enforcing a global public interest including through transparency and accountabliity is required. > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/gmail-hell-day-4-dealing-with-the-borg-or-being-evil-without-really-thinking-about-it/ > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/gmail-hell2-an-epilogue-they-are-the-borg-and-they-are-too-big-to-be-allowed-to-fail/ > > M > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 8:37 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg > > As far as I have seen in industry associations like maawg (www.maawg.org) there is a substantial push towards best practice in areas such as ethical email marketing that is respectful of user privacy, besides the various other practices evolved on security, malware etc. > > And that best practice is, sort of, enforced in that marketers who don't adhere to that code of practice don't get to become members, or on previous occasions, have had ther membership revoked. > > So, this does occur and is not unknown in an industry context. > > It would be equally naive to only bank on industry goodwill, which is why a regulatory system, and a transparent complaints / redressal process are essential, That, and informed civil society that doesn't see industry as the enemy. > > Note: I have had my share of arguments with various civil society people and groups on that account, simply because making points without demonising the groups they make those points against seems to be a dying art. Like Susan Crawford describing DPI with terms like "inside job", or the eff comparing spam filtering to blackmail and extortion. http://www.mail-archive.com/silklist at lists.hserus.net/msg20400.html for several such examples. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 17-Nov-2012, at 21:45, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Of course, what you are saying is precisely what is being said in the > current deregulation push in US telecoms i.e. that corporate actors can be > trusted (in a deregulated context) to act in accordance with the public > interest (with the consequences that Susan Crawford is pointing to in her > piece noted bleow... > > You might note in passing that CS in the context of the BestBits discussion > indicated in the context of the anticipated revision of the ITR's and a > requirement that " the framing of public policy is the pursuit of the > public interest" and that this statement was signed onto by numerous CS (and > other actors). http://bestbits.igf-online.net/statement/ > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 7:41 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went > Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg > > There is no such thing as a global public interest, it is too utopian a > concept. > > A shared consensus on best practices and acceptable standards of behaviour / > codes of conduct are about the closest you will have in real life and > outside wcit, igf etc slide decks. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 17-Nov-2012, at 20:48, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Why? > > The discussions around the WCIT/are overrun with precisely those kinds > of generalizations. > > But it is a serious question, if we believe that there is a global > public interest (in the Internet) who do we trust to best represent > that public interest (IBM, Google, the USG?) and within what (global) > framework will that representation best take place (the market place, > the US State Department, Google, the IGF?). (Unfortunately, I don't > see CS as sufficiently strong or as sufficiently independent to even > mention it in this context.) > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:39 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones > Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg > > michael gurstein [17/11/12 06:00 -0800]: > Who can we rely on to act in support of the (global) public > interest--IBM, Google, Facebook, AT&T, the USG, "the market"..? > > "civil society"? also note "act effectively" > > Generalizing would be a grave mistake here. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Sun Nov 18 08:20:01 2012 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 14:20:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg In-Reply-To: <003101cdc4cb$ef4823e0$cdd86ba0$@gmail.com> References: <003101cdc4cb$ef4823e0$cdd86ba0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: The market place. Link it with 'multi stakeholders' approach. How do we go about it? Sonigitu On Nov 17, 2012 3:02 PM, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Who can we rely on to act in support of the (global) public interest--IBM, > Google, Facebook, AT&T, the USG, "the market"….?**** > > ** ** > > M**** > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------** > ** > > ** ** > > *From:* mobileactive-discuss at googlegroups.com [mailto: > mobileactive-discuss at googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Katrin Verclas > *Sent:* Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:01 AM > *To:* Stanford tech list List; MobileActive-discuss > *Subject:* [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After > Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg**** > > ** ** > > A smart rant by Susan Crawford on telco policy and the impotent Federal > Communication Commission. Important lessons here - not just for the US.*** > * > > > http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-15/why-cell-phones-went-dead-after-hurricane-sandy.html > **** > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "MobileActive-discuss" group. > To post to this group, send email to > mobileactive-discuss at googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > mobileactive-discuss+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/mobileactive-discuss?hl=en > > MobileActive.org: A resource for activists using mobile technology > worldwide**** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 18 10:13:10 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 20:43:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg In-Reply-To: References: <003101cdc4cb$ef4823e0$cdd86ba0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Find where the industry and civil society groups in your focus area already are, and join that community? There's way too many marketplaces, and even more stakeholders, so pick and choose. --srs (iPad) On 18-Nov-2012, at 18:50, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > The market place. > > Link it with 'multi stakeholders' approach. > > How do we go about it? > > Sonigitu > On Nov 17, 2012 3:02 PM, "michael gurstein" wrote: >> Who can we rely on to act in support of the (global) public interest--IBM, Google, Facebook, AT&T, the USG, "the market"….? >> >> >> >> M >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> From: mobileactive-discuss at googlegroups.com [mailto:mobileactive-discuss at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Katrin Verclas >> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:01 AM >> To: Stanford tech list List; MobileActive-discuss >> Subject: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg >> >> >> >> A smart rant by Susan Crawford on telco policy and the impotent Federal Communication Commission. Important lessons here - not just for the US. >> >> http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-15/why-cell-phones-went-dead-after-hurricane-sandy.html >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "MobileActive-discuss" group. >> To post to this group, send email to >> mobileactive-discuss at googlegroups.com >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> mobileactive-discuss+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/mobileactive-discuss?hl=en >> >> MobileActive.org: A resource for activists using mobile technology worldwide >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 18 11:04:30 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 08:04:30 -0800 Subject: [governance] NYT: Your Online Attention, Bought in an Instant Message-ID: <007101cdc5a6$734299c0$59c7cd40$@gmail.com> More on Google (etc.) providing "free" services on the web. M ---------------------------------------------- From: Ottawadissenters at yahoogroups.com [mailto:Ottawadissenters at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 7:04 AM To: Ottawadissenters at yahoogroups.com; 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' Subject: [Ottawadissenters] Your Online Attention, Bought in an Instant NY Times Nov 17, 2012 YOU can be sold in seconds. No, wait: make that milliseconds. The odds are that access to you - or at least the online you - is being bought and sold in less than the blink of an eye. On the Web, powerful algorithms are sizing you up, based on myriad data points: what you Google, the sites you visit, the ads you click. Then, in real time, the chance to show you an ad is auctioned to the highest bidder. Not that you'd know it. These days in the hyperkinetic world of digital advertising, all of this happens automatically, and imperceptibly, to most consumers. Ever wonder why that same ad for a car or a couch keeps popping up on your screen? Nearly always, the answer is real-time bidding, an electronic trading system that sells ad space on the Web pages people visit at the very moment they are visiting them. Think of these systems as a sort of Nasdaq stock market, only trading in audiences for online ads. Millions of bids flood in every second. And those bids - essentially what your eyeballs are worth to advertisers - could determine whether you see an ad for, say, a new Lexus or a used Ford, for sneakers or a popcorn maker. More...... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/technology/your-online-attention-bought-in -an-instant-by-advertisers.html?nl=todaysheadlines &emc=edit_th_20121118&_r=1& http://tinyurl.com/bw9ngoq __._,_.___ Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1) Recent Activity: Visit Your Group Yahoo! Groups Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest . Unsubscribe . Terms of Use . Send us Feedback . __,_._,___ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 18 11:15:28 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 21:45:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] NYT: Your Online Attention, Bought in an Instant In-Reply-To: <007101cdc5a6$734299c0$59c7cd40$@gmail.com> References: <007101cdc5a6$734299c0$59c7cd40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <410EC486-9113-4BD0-9F94-7BB09E393D00@hserus.net> Of course you can pay a few dollars a month for an ads free service. There are also free services supported by other means of funding .. public libraries and such. Is this news of any sort? Or unexpected? Or somehow evil? --srs (iPad) On 18-Nov-2012, at 21:34, "michael gurstein" wrote: > More on Google (etc.) providing "free" services on the web… > > M > > ---------------------------------------------- > From: Ottawadissenters at yahoogroups.com [mailto:Ottawadissenters at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell > Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 7:04 AM > To: Ottawadissenters at yahoogroups.com; 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' > Subject: [Ottawadissenters] Your Online Attention, Bought in an Instant > NY Times Nov 17, 2012 > YOU can be sold in seconds. > > No, wait: make that milliseconds. > > The odds are that access to you — or at least the online you — is being bought and sold in less than the blink of an eye. On the Web, powerful algorithms are sizing you up, based on myriad data points: what you Google, the sites you visit, the ads you click. Then, in real time, the chance to show you an ad is auctioned to the highest bidder. > > Not that you’d know it. These days in the hyperkinetic world of digital advertising, all of this happens automatically, and imperceptibly, to most consumers. > > Ever wonder why that same ad for a car or a couch keeps popping up on your screen? Nearly always, the answer is real-time bidding, an electronic trading system that sells ad space on the Web pages people visit at the very moment they are visiting them. Think of these systems as a sort of Nasdaq stock market, only trading in audiences for online ads. Millions of bids flood in every second. And those bids — essentially what your eyeballs are worth to advertisers — could determine whether you see an ad for, say, a new Lexus or a used Ford, for sneakers or a popcorn maker. > > More………….. > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/technology/your-online-attention-bought-in-an-instant-by-advertisers.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121118&_r=1& > http://tinyurl.com/bw9ngoq > > __._,_.___ > Reply via web post > > Reply to sender > > Reply to group > > Start a New Topic > > Messages in this topic (1) > > RECENT ACTIVITY: > Visit Your Group > > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback > . > > __,_._,___ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 18 11:39:10 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 08:39:10 -0800 Subject: [governance] NYT: Your Online Attention, Bought in an Instant In-Reply-To: <410EC486-9113-4BD0-9F94-7BB09E393D00@hserus.net> References: <007101cdc5a6$734299c0$59c7cd40$@gmail.com> <410EC486-9113-4BD0-9F94-7BB09E393D00@hserus.net> Message-ID: <00ae01cdc5ab$4ca00f50$e5e02df0$@gmail.com> None of the below… Simply demonstrating that Google's online services are not "free" … (an interesting partial surrogate for the actual cost of the service would be the price one would pay for the "ad free service". Google of course, is getting additional revenue from the sale/rental of the information that you are providing as a user of the its services over and above that obtained through advertising… Nothing wrong with any of that, but it is well to see the services for what they are and to place them in the correct context as "commercial" services rather than "free" services as you indicated earlier in arguing that Google had no customer service obligations since the services it was providing were "free".) M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 8:15 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: Subject: Re: [governance] NYT: Your Online Attention, Bought in an Instant Of course you can pay a few dollars a month for an ads free service. There are also free services supported by other means of funding .. public libraries and such. Is this news of any sort? Or unexpected? Or somehow evil? --srs (iPad) On 18-Nov-2012, at 21:34, "michael gurstein" wrote: More on Google (etc.) providing "free" services on the web… M ---------------------------------------------- From: Ottawadissenters at yahoogroups.com [mailto:Ottawadissenters at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 7:04 AM To: Ottawadissenters at yahoogroups.com; 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' Subject: [Ottawadissenters] Your Online Attention, Bought in an Instant NY Times Nov 17, 2012 YOU can be sold in seconds. No, wait: make that milliseconds. The odds are that access to you — or at least the online you — is being bought and sold in less than the blink of an eye. On the Web, powerful algorithms are sizing you up, based on myriad data points: what you Google, the sites you visit, the ads you click. Then, in real time, the chance to show you an ad is auctioned to the highest bidder. Not that you’d know it. These days in the hyperkinetic world of digital advertising, all of this happens automatically, and imperceptibly, to most consumers. Ever wonder why that same ad for a car or a couch keeps popping up on your screen? Nearly always, the answer is real-time bidding, an electronic trading system that sells ad space on the Web pages people visit at the very moment they are visiting them. Think of these systems as a sort of Nasdaq stock market, only trading in audiences for online ads. Millions of bids flood in every second. And those bids — essentially what your eyeballs are worth to advertisers — could determine whether you see an ad for, say, a new Lexus or a used Ford, for sneakers or a popcorn maker. More………….. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/technology/your-online-attention-bought-in-an-instant-by-advertisers.html?nl=todaysheadlines &emc=edit_th_20121118&_r=1& http://tinyurl.com/bw9ngoq __._,_.___ Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1) Recent Activity: Visit Your Group Yahoo! Groups Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback . http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=15209059/grpspId=1705083512/msgId=21243/stime=1353251021/nc1=3858796/nc2=5898817/nc3=5028924 __,_._,___ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, 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.gif Type: application/octet-stream Size: 2303 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: application/octet-stream Size: 43 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 suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 18 12:08:24 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 22:38:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] NYT: Your Online Attention, Bought in an Instant In-Reply-To: <00ae01cdc5ab$4ca00f50$e5e02df0$@gmail.com> References: <007101cdc5a6$734299c0$59c7cd40$@gmail.com> <410EC486-9113-4BD0-9F94-7BB09E393D00@hserus.net> <00ae01cdc5ab$4ca00f50$e5e02df0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes, that, and hotmail, yahoo and the like, are definitely free as in beer rather than free as in freedom. But unless our standpoint is to be that industry must not be allowed to express any sort of opinion at all, or that whatever opinion they have somehow ranks less than an opinion expressed by a civil society group, we cannot (a) not put substantial work ourselves into policy and tech issues and (b) then accuse them of dominating the discourse. Do note that I don't claim that they don't have customer service obligations. They employ a sizeable staff, rather larger than the staff of many a large NGO, to provide email and other free services, and provide even the basic level of service that they do offer free accounts. Sure, things can be better handled, there is always scope for improvement and all that, but I am sorry if I gave you the impression google has no customer service obligations at all to their free / ad supported customer base. --srs (iPad) On 18-Nov-2012, at 22:09, "michael gurstein" wrote: > None of the below… Simply demonstrating that Google's online services are not "free" … (an interesting partial surrogate for the actual cost of the service would be the price one would pay for the "ad free service". Google of course, is getting additional revenue from the sale/rental of the information that you are providing as a user of the its services over and above that obtained through advertising… > > Nothing wrong with any of that, but it is well to see the services for what they are and to place them in the correct context as "commercial" services rather than "free" services as you indicated earlier in arguing that Google had no customer service obligations since the services it was providing were "free".) > > M > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 8:15 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Cc: > Subject: Re: [governance] NYT: Your Online Attention, Bought in an Instant > > Of course you can pay a few dollars a month for an ads free service. > > There are also free services supported by other means of funding .. public libraries and such. > > Is this news of any sort? Or unexpected? Or somehow evil? > > --srs (iPad) > > On 18-Nov-2012, at 21:34, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > More on Google (etc.) providing "free" services on the web… > > M > > ---------------------------------------------- > From: Ottawadissenters at yahoogroups.com [mailto:Ottawadissenters at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell > Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 7:04 AM > To: Ottawadissenters at yahoogroups.com; 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' > Subject: [Ottawadissenters] Your Online Attention, Bought in an Instant > NY Times Nov 17, 2012 > YOU can be sold in seconds. > > No, wait: make that milliseconds. > > The odds are that access to you — or at least the online you — is being bought and sold in less than the blink of an eye. On the Web, powerful algorithms are sizing you up, based on myriad data points: what you Google, the sites you visit, the ads you click. Then, in real time, the chance to show you an ad is auctioned to the highest bidder. > > Not that you’d know it. These days in the hyperkinetic world of digital advertising, all of this happens automatically, and imperceptibly, to most consumers. > > Ever wonder why that same ad for a car or a couch keeps popping up on your screen? Nearly always, the answer is real-time bidding, an electronic trading system that sells ad space on the Web pages people visit at the very moment they are visiting them. Think of these systems as a sort of Nasdaq stock market, only trading in audiences for online ads. Millions of bids flood in every second. And those bids — essentially what your eyeballs are worth to advertisers — could determine whether you see an ad for, say, a new Lexus or a used Ford, for sneakers or a popcorn maker. > > More………….. > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/technology/your-online-attention-bought-in-an-instant-by-advertisers.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121118&_r=1& > http://tinyurl.com/bw9ngoq > > __._,_.___ > Reply via web post > > Reply to sender > > Reply to group > > Start a New Topic > > Messages in this topic (1) > > RECENT ACTIVITY: > Visit Your Group > > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback > . > > __,_._,___ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Nov 18 13:33:13 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:33:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] MAG meeting this afternoon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20121118193313.6c78ca79@quill.bollow.ch> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Thinking that no MAG meeting when leave Baku is a big loss, I proposed > this morning to have ad hoc MAG meeting during lunch time. With very > short notice, a total of 22 people gathered and discussed our > take-aways of this IGF and also discussed about the way forward. > > There will be more official minutes prepared and shared I hope, but we > reviewed this IGF with serious and critical views, around the duties > of MAG, as well as some logistical aspects. WE also discussed things > between now and February MAG meeting in Paris, agreed to work together > for practical and effective preparation. > > I will report more later, Hi Izumi This is just a short note to say that I'm still eagerly awaiting, appreciative in advance, your promised further reporting about this meeting. (Or have I missed it???) Making the MAG's work as tranparent and trustworthy as possible is very important at the current stage, I think. 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 apisan at unam.mx Sun Nov 18 13:36:31 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 18:36:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg In-Reply-To: <01d501cdc516$f35c7e90$da157bb0$@gmail.com> References: <003101cdc4cb$ef4823e0$cdd86ba0$@gmail.com> <50A7FEFE.6000005@cis-india.org>,<01c001cdc50d$3cbe65d0$b63b3170$@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DAEAD20@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>,<01d501cdc516$f35c7e90$da157bb0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DAEB078@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Mike, the interventions that make most sense IMO are those that seek to solve a problem where the stakeholders for that problem meet. APWG, MAAWG, IETF, ICANN, national legislatures, national consumer-defense instances, regional coordination fora like CITEL, and so on. The IGF is particularly useful to detect blank issue areas not yet served and to start dialog among stakeholders. If a new mechanism or organization is needed they will have to create it. The IGF has not yielded that many results of this kind, partly because it turns out that problems identified by some participants already have a home and are taken there, partly because the stage in which they call for something new of this kind has not yet been achieved, and a couple other reasons. Coming back to the specific issue of concern (not on the subject line) of consumer response from global email service providers, this one is particularly thorny because consumer rights are defined and enforced differently in different national legislations, oftentimes the firms are not in dramatic deviation of their ToS (admittedly too open in many cases), and consumer expectations may be far higher than what the actual ToS and legislation support. Suresh has said almost all else I would say. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Enviado el: sábado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 16:57 Hasta: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Pranesh Prakash' Asunto: RE: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg And back to you Alejandro... what interventions would make sense and what wouldn't (and who and how... M -----Original Message----- From: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch [mailto:apisan at unam.mx] Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:58 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; 'Pranesh Prakash' Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg Michael, don't forget layers. Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Enviado el: sábado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 15:47 Hasta: 'Pranesh Prakash'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: RE: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg Those are good points and serious issues Pranesh. I think what this discussion indicates is that there is a need for a nuanced approach to the issue of standard setting/regulation at the global level including taking into consideration how this will (or could) impact at the national level. What is not needed and particularly from CS is an uncritical adherence to the "hands off the Internet/free the Internet" position being advocated by some governments and many (self-interested) corporations, ignoring the need for various kinds of interventions as a support to various issues of significance from the perspective of a global public interest. A problem with the approach currently being advocated by many is that there is no opportunity for reflection as to what issues could and should be addressed and in what fora, and which should not. Being stampeded over an anti-governance "no-regulation" libertarian cliff is not I think, in the interests of most whether in Developed or in Less Developed Countries. M -----Original Message----- From: Pranesh Prakash [mailto:pranesh at cis-india.org] Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:18 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg michael gurstein [2012-11-17 19:30]: > Who can we rely on to act in support of the (global) public > interest--IBM, Google, Facebook, AT&T, the USG, "the market"..? In India we face the opposite problem of that described by Susan Crawford. Through the ISP Licence, the UAS Licence, the Telecom licence, the government has armed itself with powers against the ISPs and telecom companies that it does not have under any law. For instance, there is a stricture in those licences against "bulk encryption" of more than 40bits without key escrow, despite the government requiring 128 bit encryption by all banks in another law. There is a requirement of having a black box room on their premises with access to all communications, though blanket surveillance (under some readings of Indian law and the judicial interpretation of the right to privacy as a fundamental right) is not permissible. Importantly, if it doesn't harm their bottom line, these companies have no incentive to not cooperate. While we should avoid moving to a state of 'no regulation' (competition law, consumer law, etc., should apply), in many countries, especially LDCs and developing countries, we are on the opposite side of the spectrum. Please spare a thought for developing countries too ;) -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash = -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Sun Nov 18 13:38:09 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 18:38:09 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg In-Reply-To: <50A7FEFE.6000005@cis-india.org> References: <003101cdc4cb$ef4823e0$cdd86ba0$@gmail.com>,<50A7FEFE.6000005@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DAEB095@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Pranesh, "appropriate" is the word, right? (and a most elusive target.) Cheers. Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Pranesh Prakash [pranesh at cis-india.org] Enviado el: sábado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 15:17 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Asunto: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg michael gurstein [2012-11-17 19:30]: > Who can we rely on to act in support of the (global) public interest--IBM, > Google, Facebook, AT&T, the USG, "the market"..? In India we face the opposite problem of that described by Susan Crawford. Through the ISP Licence, the UAS Licence, the Telecom licence, the government has armed itself with powers against the ISPs and telecom companies that it does not have under any law. For instance, there is a stricture in those licences against "bulk encryption" of more than 40bits without key escrow, despite the government requiring 128 bit encryption by all banks in another law. There is a requirement of having a black box room on their premises with access to all communications, though blanket surveillance (under some readings of Indian law and the judicial interpretation of the right to privacy as a fundamental right) is not permissible. Importantly, if it doesn't harm their bottom line, these companies have no incentive to not cooperate. While we should avoid moving to a state of 'no regulation' (competition law, consumer law, etc., should apply), in many countries, especially LDCs and developing countries, we are on the opposite side of the spectrum. Please spare a thought for developing countries too ;) -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 18 13:46:59 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:46:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] NYT: Your Online Attention, Bought in an Instant In-Reply-To: References: <007101cdc5a6$734299c0$59c7cd40$@gmail.com> <410EC486-9113-4BD0-9F94-7BB09E393D00@hserus.net> <00ae01cdc5ab$4ca00f50$e5e02df0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Pretty good and relevant video on Buyral clicking http://www.buyral.ca/ :-) Bill On Nov 18, 2012, at 6:08 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Yes, that, and hotmail, yahoo and the like, are definitely free as in beer rather than free as in freedom. > > But unless our standpoint is to be that industry must not be allowed to express any sort of opinion at all, or that whatever opinion they have somehow ranks less than an opinion expressed by a civil society group, we cannot (a) not put substantial work ourselves into policy and tech issues and (b) then accuse them of dominating the discourse. > > Do note that I don't claim that they don't have customer service obligations. They employ a sizeable staff, rather larger than the staff of many a large NGO, to provide email and other free services, and provide even the basic level of service that they do offer free accounts. > > Sure, things can be better handled, there is always scope for improvement and all that, but I am sorry if I gave you the impression google has no customer service obligations at all to their free / ad supported customer base. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 18-Nov-2012, at 22:09, "michael gurstein" wrote: > >> None of the below… Simply demonstrating that Google's online services are not "free" … (an interesting partial surrogate for the actual cost of the service would be the price one would pay for the "ad free service". Google of course, is getting additional revenue from the sale/rental of the information that you are providing as a user of the its services over and above that obtained through advertising… >> >> Nothing wrong with any of that, but it is well to see the services for what they are and to place them in the correct context as "commercial" services rather than "free" services as you indicated earlier in arguing that Google had no customer service obligations since the services it was providing were "free".) >> >> M >> >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] >> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 8:15 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein >> Cc: >> Subject: Re: [governance] NYT: Your Online Attention, Bought in an Instant >> >> Of course you can pay a few dollars a month for an ads free service. >> >> There are also free services supported by other means of funding .. public libraries and such. >> >> Is this news of any sort? Or unexpected? Or somehow evil? >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 18-Nov-2012, at 21:34, "michael gurstein" wrote: >> >> More on Google (etc.) providing "free" services on the web… >> >> M >> >> ---------------------------------------------- >> From: Ottawadissenters at yahoogroups.com [mailto:Ottawadissenters at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell >> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 7:04 AM >> To: Ottawadissenters at yahoogroups.com; 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' >> Subject: [Ottawadissenters] Your Online Attention, Bought in an Instant >> NY Times Nov 17, 2012 >> YOU can be sold in seconds. >> >> No, wait: make that milliseconds. >> >> The odds are that access to you — or at least the online you — is being bought and sold in less than the blink of an eye. On the Web, powerful algorithms are sizing you up, based on myriad data points: what you Google, the sites you visit, the ads you click. Then, in real time, the chance to show you an ad is auctioned to the highest bidder. >> >> Not that you’d know it. These days in the hyperkinetic world of digital advertising, all of this happens automatically, and imperceptibly, to most consumers. >> >> Ever wonder why that same ad for a car or a couch keeps popping up on your screen? Nearly always, the answer is real-time bidding, an electronic trading system that sells ad space on the Web pages people visit at the very moment they are visiting them. Think of these systems as a sort of Nasdaq stock market, only trading in audiences for online ads. Millions of bids flood in every second. And those bids — essentially what your eyeballs are worth to advertisers — could determine whether you see an ad for, say, a new Lexus or a used Ford, for sneakers or a popcorn maker. >> >> More………….. >> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/technology/your-online-attention-bought-in-an-instant-by-advertisers.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121118&_r=1& >> http://tinyurl.com/bw9ngoq >> >> __._,_.___ >> Reply via web post >> >> Reply to sender >> >> Reply to group >> >> Start a New Topic >> >> Messages in this topic (1) >> >> RECENT ACTIVITY: >> Visit Your Group >> >> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback >> . >> >> __,_._,___ >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sun Nov 18 14:15:00 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 21:15:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Social Media Surveillance OK'd by DHS 'Privacy Office' Message-ID: <50A933B4.9070106@gmail.com> Published on Friday, November 16, 2012 by Common Dreams Social Media Surveillance OK'd by DHS 'Privacy Office' - Common Dreams staff A section of the US Department of Homeland Security known as the "Privacy Office" recently approved a DHS initiative designed to monitor social media sites for "emerging threats," according a new report by the Center for Investigative Reporting -- a move that will add to fears that the US government may be 'friending' and 'following' an increasing number of citizens for surveillance purposes. U.S. Department of Homeland Security analysts at National Cybersecurity & Communications Integration Center (NCCIC (Reuters/Hyungwon Kang) Congress created the Privacy Office in 2003 to monitor DHS initiatives and databases to ensure citizens' rights are protected. However, social media monitoring, an increasingly common practice used by Homeland Security and other US departments, has now been given the official stamp of approval. "As Americans turn to social media sites like Twitter and Facebook to communicate with one another, intelligence officials are looking for ways to harness that ocean of data and convert it into actionable information," CIR reports. For example, in 2010, The Electronic Frontier Foundation discovered that federal Immigration Services investigators were "friending " people on Facebook who were applying to become citizens in order to monitor their lives and "snoop for marriage details." Such activities are now acceptable forms of surveillance according to the Privacy Office. The Homeland Security Department is currently on Twitter under the handle @DHSNOCMMC1 in a bid to conduct vast hashtag and keyword searches in hopes mining potential "threats." "Program employees... hunt for dozens of keywords in the social media landscape using relatively simple and widely available tools like TweetDeck. For that reason, it's unclear how words like 'burn,' 'cocaine' or 'collapse' can be analyzed effectively enough to reveal truly useful information among the hundreds of millions of tweets that course across the Web every day," G.W. Schulz of CIR writes . The Department of Homeland Security is not alone in these projects. According to CIR reporting, the FBI is now developing a tool to "alert agents of developing threats on social media, scrape historical data from the Web that can be searched later and display messages coming from a defined geographical area." The Department of Defense is exploring how to "forecast dynamic group behavior in social media" in a bid to "simultaneously scan more than 1,000 groups, more than 100,000 postings per day and more than 1 million people." An entire industry has developed to satisfy these surveillance fantasies, soon to be reality, as a growing number of private tech firms are now marketing tools that are "capable of automatically analyzing vast segments of the Internet and make simple keyword searches elementary by comparison," and pitching them to US departments and law enforcement agencies. Given the recent approval by the Privacy Office, "there are no assurances that down the road, homeland security officials won't seek much more sophisticated tools that can automatically mine the [entire] Web for what they determine to be a threat or use secret tactics that alarm privacy rights advocates." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 222222arlington-homeland-washington.n.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 32686 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Nov 18 16:49:19 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 22:49:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] [Dewayne-Net] Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Regulatory Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network In-Reply-To: <010d01cdc36e$b4e9ea20$1ebdbe60$@gmail.com> References: <000c01cdc359$32f16940$98d43bc0$@gmail.com> <20121115204446.3ae6c214@quill.bollow.ch> <010d01cdc36e$b4e9ea20$1ebdbe60$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20121118224919.6a33d468@quill.bollow.ch> Michael Gurstein wrote: > I'm wondering whether some sort of universal service obligation (and > universal service funds/funding) might also fall within your category > of "slow change"? Hi Michael I apologize that I currently don't have time to engage in any in-depth discussion of this subject... I can summarize my current thoughts though: 1. A *right to universal access to the Internet* is definitely appropriate to assert. (It is a more difficult question whether this is a logical consequence of the well-established, internationally recognized human rights, or whether this assertion goes in some aspects beyond the conclusions that can be drawn from the established human rights. Altough I used to support for the latter viewpoint, I'm now inclined to assert that in the context of the world in which we live, this *right to universal access to the Internet* is now a consequence of the established human rights.) 2. This right implies two fundamentally different types of obligations on states: First an obligation not to obstruct or hinder internet access in any way. Secondly an obligation to vigorously work towards progressive realization of making access available for all. For example, I would assert that setting up web blocking infrastructure at the boundaries of a country is a violation of the first obligation. An example of a violation of the second obligation would be if a government fails to have a plan and credible implementation efforts for ensuring that public Internet access (e.g. in a library or telecenter etc) is available at least within convenient travel distance of every human settlement within that country. Both are human rights violations. 3. When minimal availability of public Internet access (i.e. the library or telecenter kind) is achieved, the *right to universal access to the Internet* does not stop there, although it might be the case that further improvements might reasonably be given a lower priority than other urgent needs related to the implementation of other human rights. E.g. in a situation of famine, I would argue that basic communication equipment could be taken to the disaster area with the same trucks that transport the initial shipment of food, but any further improvement to Internet access capability can wait until the after basic needs for food, water, warmth, sanitation, etc., are fully met. 4. Although I support a right to universal service, I don't think that a universal service obligation is a reasonable strategy for achieving it in the Internet context. I'd rather suggest the following: In those areas where in the absence of universal service obligations the private sector is not offering internet access services, government funded *government owned* network infrastructure should be built, to be administrated by a local (e.g. municipal) government. I would suggest that this is probably best funded from taxes on something like energy consumption in general. A universal service obligation is also a form of taxation, but IMO one that would distort the markets in favor of incumbant telecom (ex?)-monopolists far too much. 5. I would consider "universal access to Internet access is a right" to be of sufficient long-term validity that I think it's ok to write that into law, but any particular means or strategy for achieving this should in my opinion not be written into law. What should be written into law is only general principles like that the government should have a strategy and an implementation plan for achieving this, and that these documents as well as the evidence on which they are based should be published, and that effective remedies must be available if the plan or its implementation is provably ineffective or otherwise bad. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Nov 18 17:16:35 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 23:16:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] [Dewayne-Net] Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Regulatory Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20121118231635.4031117c@quill.bollow.ch> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > A common carrier regulated by the FCC ends up having to carry > everything unfiltered, and in theory this also means spam, malware > and its related traffic, which too you can't discriminate against > once you attain that status. So beware of what you wish for. I certainly wish for my capability of communicating and exchanging files to not become subject to the whims of any third party. If sender and recipient are in agreement that they want a data transmission to happen, I want the network in between to be so dumb that it will reliably transmit those datagrams. Do you really want the network to become unreliable in some supposedly intelligent way intended to fight spam or malware? The same intelligent networks could then of course also be configured for blocking claimed copyright violations or facts that a government wishes to suppress and/or for blocking all encrypted communications. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Nov 18 17:22:01 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 23:22:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg In-Reply-To: References: <003101cdc4cb$ef4823e0$cdd86ba0$@gmail.com> <20121117143834.GA20556@hserus.net> <006e01cdc4d6$d2c58d60$7850a820$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20121118232201.0a75edfb@quill.bollow.ch> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > There is no such thing as a global public interest, it is too utopian > a concept. Would you disagree with both of the following statements? 1. It is in the global public interest for all of the internationally recognized human rights to be fully implemented worldwide. 2. It is in the global public interest for global total greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced significantly below their current rates. 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 suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 18 20:05:07 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:35:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg In-Reply-To: <20121118232201.0a75edfb@quill.bollow.ch> References: <003101cdc4cb$ef4823e0$cdd86ba0$@gmail.com> <20121117143834.GA20556@hserus.net> <006e01cdc4d6$d2c58d60$7850a820$@gmail.com> <20121118232201.0a75edfb@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <607BB6F4-349B-434C-930D-8CB1654CABD5@hserus.net> That constitutes a lowest common denominator. If all you want is consensus only on those, and on that favourite of miss universe contestants every year, "world peace" .. that'd have been achieved at the first IGF itself if not at one of several multistakeholder events before that. Once you get more nuanced, I will stand by what I said. --srs (iPad) On 19-Nov-2012, at 3:52, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> There is no such thing as a global public interest, it is too utopian >> a concept. > > Would you disagree with both of the following statements? > > 1. It is in the global public interest for all of the internationally > recognized human rights to be fully implemented worldwide. > > 2. It is in the global public interest for global total greenhouse gas > emissions to be reduced significantly below their current rates. > > 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 suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 18 20:08:44 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:38:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] [Dewayne-Net] Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Regulatory Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network In-Reply-To: <20121118231635.4031117c@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20121118231635.4031117c@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Oh lord. Ok try it this way. I drive on the right side of the road in India. So now when I next fly to san francisco and pick up a car at the airport hertz, I will proceed to exert my inalienable human right to continue driving on the right side of the road. Also, could we please have this argument again, this time without the use of a slippery slope logical fallacy. --srs (iPad) On 19-Nov-2012, at 3:46, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> A common carrier regulated by the FCC ends up having to carry >> everything unfiltered, and in theory this also means spam, malware >> and its related traffic, which too you can't discriminate against >> once you attain that status. So beware of what you wish for. > > I certainly wish for my capability of communicating and exchanging > files to not become subject to the whims of any third party. If sender > and recipient are in agreement that they want a data transmission to > happen, I want the network in between to be so dumb that it will > reliably transmit those datagrams. Do you really want the network to > become unreliable in some supposedly intelligent way intended to fight > spam or malware? The same intelligent networks could then of course > also be configured for blocking claimed copyright violations or facts > that a government wishes to suppress and/or for blocking all encrypted > communications. > > 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 suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 18 21:01:44 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 18:01:44 -0800 Subject: [governance] Social Media Surveillance OK'd by DHS 'Privacy Office' In-Reply-To: <50A933B4.9070106@gmail.com> References: <50A933B4.9070106@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20121119020144.GA11423@hserus.net> I love the rhetoric (predictable) and the (over)use of 1984 imagery Anyway, have you considered that "search" is enough to find public posts on social media, without "friending and following"? "stoking fears that" is precisely what this article sets out to do, unfortunately Which might be a useful goal elsewhere, but not, definitly not, when a forum has even some pretensions towards being multistakeholder in nature. Riaz K Tayob [18/11/12 21:15 +0200]: >Published on Friday, November 16, 2012 by Common Dreams > > > > Social Media Surveillance OK'd by DHS 'Privacy Office' > >- Common Dreams staff > >A section of the US Department of Homeland Security known as the >"Privacy Office" recently approved a DHS initiative designed to >monitor social media sites for "emerging threats," according a new >report >by the Center for Investigative Reporting -- a move that will add to >fears that the US government may be 'friending' and 'following' an >increasing number of citizens for surveillance purposes. > >U.S. Department of Homeland Security analysts at National >Cybersecurity & Communications Integration Center (NCCIC >(Reuters/Hyungwon Kang) Congress created the Privacy Office in 2003 >to monitor DHS initiatives and databases to ensure citizens' rights >are protected. > >However, social media monitoring, an increasingly common practice >used by Homeland Security and other US departments, has now been >given the official stamp of approval. > >"As Americans turn to social media sites like Twitter and Facebook to >communicate with one another, intelligence officials are looking for >ways to harness that ocean of data and convert it into actionable >information," CIR reports. > >For example, in 2010, The Electronic Frontier Foundation discovered >that federal Immigration Services investigators were "friending " >people on Facebook who were applying to become citizens in order to >monitor their lives and "snoop for marriage details." Such activities >are now acceptable forms of surveillance according to the Privacy >Office. > >The Homeland Security Department is currently on Twitter under the >handle @DHSNOCMMC1 in a bid to conduct vast hashtag and keyword >searches in hopes mining potential "threats." > >"Program employees... hunt for dozens of keywords in the social media >landscape using relatively simple and widely available tools like >TweetDeck. For that reason, it's unclear how words like 'burn,' >'cocaine' or 'collapse' can be analyzed effectively enough to reveal >truly useful information among the hundreds of millions of tweets >that course across the Web every day," G.W. Schulz of CIR writes . > >The Department of Homeland Security is not alone in these projects. >According to CIR reporting, the FBI is now developing >a tool to "alert agents of developing threats on social media, scrape >historical data from the Web that can be searched later and display >messages coming from a defined geographical area." > >The Department of Defense is exploring how to "forecast dynamic group >behavior in social media" in a bid to "simultaneously scan more than >1,000 groups, more than 100,000 postings per day and more than 1 >million people." > >An entire industry has developed to satisfy these surveillance >fantasies, soon to be reality, as a growing number of private tech >firms are now marketing tools that are "capable of automatically >analyzing vast segments of the Internet and make simple keyword >searches elementary by comparison," and pitching them to US >departments and law enforcement agencies. > >Given the recent approval by the Privacy Office, "there are no >assurances that down the road, homeland security officials won't seek >much more sophisticated tools that can automatically mine the >[entire] Web for what they determine to be a threat or use secret >tactics that alarm privacy rights advocates." > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Mon Nov 19 00:37:19 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 07:37:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] Social Media Surveillance OK'd by DHS 'Privacy Office' In-Reply-To: <20121119020144.GA11423@hserus.net> References: <50A933B4.9070106@gmail.com> <20121119020144.GA11423@hserus.net> Message-ID: <50A9C58F.1010105@gmail.com> Except for the hullabaloo that follows developing countries 'censorship' and 'abuse of the internet', I would be inclined to unequivocally agree with you... And it is rather trite to argue that 'stoking fears' is sufficient to dismiss the point of the article. The point is how are public resources used in the 'marketplace of ideas' (to use Justice Black's parlance), in the face of rising use of foodstamps, fiscal cliffs, unemployment etc... makes the European idea of the 'right to be forgotten' look rather appealing methinks... On 2012/11/19 04:01 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I love the rhetoric (predictable) and the (over)use of 1984 imagery > > Anyway, have you considered that "search" is enough to find public > posts on > social media, without "friending and following"? > > "stoking fears that" is precisely what this article sets out to do, > unfortunately > > Which might be a useful goal elsewhere, but not, definitly not, when a > forum has even some pretensions towards being multistakeholder in nature. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Nov 19 02:10:05 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 23:10:05 -0800 Subject: [governance] Social Media Surveillance OK'd by DHS 'Privacy Office' In-Reply-To: <50A9C58F.1010105@gmail.com> References: <50A933B4.9070106@gmail.com> <20121119020144.GA11423@hserus.net> <50A9C58F.1010105@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20121119071005.GB17668@hserus.net> The right to be forgotten is as utopian a right as it gets. I understand the historical context, but just because we had one adolf hitler in the past who used state census data to target "non aryan races" doesn't mean various other checks and balances don't exist now. You do have various "privacy activist" types circulating boilerplate letters demanding that their ISP not log anything at all about their online activity except for billing purposes .. and then they (and various others) get infected with a virus, which ddoses some poor guy in, say, a pacific island where connectivity is expensive and via satellite. If he complains to the ISP they're then glad to give him boilerplate that says "we don't track what our users do, because of european privacy laws. please have your national law enforcement contact our police, and our police will contact us, and we'll then start looking for where the problem is". By that time, the poor guy's network is probably long forced off the internet, it being that or he winds up paying an astronomical bill for bandwidth, ddos mitigation gear, higher server capacity etc etc. Anyway, the point they are making might - or might not - be valid. It certainly does not assume goodwill, and seems to suffer from a siege mentality of sorts. srs Riaz K Tayob [19/11/12 07:37 +0200]: >Except for the hullabaloo that follows developing countries >'censorship' and 'abuse of the internet', I would be inclined to >unequivocally agree with you... > >And it is rather trite to argue that 'stoking fears' is sufficient to >dismiss the point of the article. The point is how are public >resources used in the 'marketplace of ideas' (to use Justice Black's >parlance), in the face of rising use of foodstamps, fiscal cliffs, >unemployment etc... makes the European idea of the 'right to be >forgotten' look rather appealing methinks... > > >On 2012/11/19 04:01 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>I love the rhetoric (predictable) and the (over)use of 1984 imagery >> >>Anyway, have you considered that "search" is enough to find public >>posts on >>social media, without "friending and following"? >> >>"stoking fears that" is precisely what this article sets out to do, >>unfortunately >> >>Which might be a useful goal elsewhere, but not, definitly not, when a >>forum has even some pretensions towards being multistakeholder in nature. >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Mon Nov 19 02:30:30 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:30:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] Social Media Surveillance OK'd by DHS 'Privacy Office' In-Reply-To: <20121119071005.GB17668@hserus.net> References: <50A933B4.9070106@gmail.com> <20121119020144.GA11423@hserus.net> <50A9C58F.1010105@gmail.com> <20121119071005.GB17668@hserus.net> Message-ID: <50A9E016.7010407@gmail.com> There are valid reasons for questioning the goodwill of state institutions, especially on the grounds of necessity (which is why it remains contested in human rights discourse). Of course, as you say, it may or may not be valid, likewise one can assume or cannot assume goodwill. I prefer the liberal option myself irrespective of whether it is developing countries or developed countries... and need not fall for the rich country predilection to assume all the rich countries do is benign particularly given the intimate association of their states and corporations. Necessity is such a comprehensive argument... if we embrace the complexity, then solutions are possible... We can agree to disagree, On 2012/11/19 09:10 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > The right to be forgotten is as utopian a right as it gets. I understand > the historical context, but just because we had one adolf hitler in the > past who used state census data to target "non aryan races" doesn't mean > various other checks and balances don't exist now. > > You do have various "privacy activist" types circulating boilerplate > letters demanding that their ISP not log anything at all about their > online > activity except for billing purposes .. and then they (and various > others) > get infected with a virus, which ddoses some poor guy in, say, a pacific > island where connectivity is expensive and via satellite. > > If he complains to the ISP they're then glad to give him boilerplate that > says "we don't track what our users do, because of european privacy laws. > please have your national law enforcement contact our police, and our > police will contact us, and we'll then start looking for where the > problem > is". > > By that time, the poor guy's network is probably long forced off the > internet, it being that or he winds up paying an astronomical bill for > bandwidth, ddos mitigation gear, higher server capacity etc etc. > > Anyway, the point they are making might - or might not - be valid. It > certainly does not assume goodwill, and seems to suffer from a siege > mentality of sorts. > > srs > > Riaz K Tayob [19/11/12 07:37 +0200]: >> Except for the hullabaloo that follows developing countries >> 'censorship' and 'abuse of the internet', I would be inclined to >> unequivocally agree with you... >> >> And it is rather trite to argue that 'stoking fears' is sufficient to >> dismiss the point of the article. The point is how are public >> resources used in the 'marketplace of ideas' (to use Justice Black's >> parlance), in the face of rising use of foodstamps, fiscal cliffs, >> unemployment etc... makes the European idea of the 'right to be >> forgotten' look rather appealing methinks... >> >> >> On 2012/11/19 04:01 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> I love the rhetoric (predictable) and the (over)use of 1984 imagery >>> >>> Anyway, have you considered that "search" is enough to find public >>> posts on >>> social media, without "friending and following"? >>> >>> "stoking fears that" is precisely what this article sets out to do, >>> unfortunately >>> >>> Which might be a useful goal elsewhere, but not, definitly not, when a >>> forum has even some pretensions towards being multistakeholder in >>> nature. >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Mon Nov 19 02:33:55 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 07:33:55 +0000 Subject: [governance] Social Media Surveillance OK'd by DHS 'Privacy Office' In-Reply-To: <20121119071005.GB17668@hserus.net> References: <50A933B4.9070106@gmail.com> <20121119020144.GA11423@hserus.net> <50A9C58F.1010105@gmail.com>,<20121119071005.GB17668@hserus.net> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DAEB322@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Hi, the "right to be forgotten" can be traced very much to Viktor Mayer-Schoenberger's book "Delete". It does start with a good introduction and interesting thoughts about how after millennia of humankind working to build up and facilitate memory it is now much harder to "Forget" (delete a memory) than to "remember" (keep it) and consequences thereof. Unfortunately in the last sections the author proposes an absolutely unreachable technological standard which would give memories in files a finite lifetime after which they would self-delete. This was picked up among others in this list by Wolfgang Kleinwächter in the Sharm el Sheikh IGF. I brought it down by reminding him that it's Layer 8 that kills - that even if you could have that standard and your pictures drinking at the beach would self-erase, someone could have made a photo of the screen with them displayed and keep them forever (as happens with many other damaging pieces of information long before the invention of computers and the Internet.) The "right to be forgotten" also has some creepy implications for freedom of speech (person A may get an article about him/her deleted on its grounds, thus quashing person B's legitimate (i.e. non-slanderous) right to have written it), and may amount to rewriting history. The present balance is a strenghtened version of the so-called ARCO rights (in Spanish at least) which allows for some data-protection authority orders to delete damaging materials in some countries. Next chapter... (I can't wait to see what the next chapter of "educating Riaz" or "Riaz's personal textbook on Internet governance for free") is going to be about ;-).) Happy to provide. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Suresh Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net] Enviado el: lunes, 19 de noviembre de 2012 01:10 Hasta: Riaz K Tayob CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] Social Media Surveillance OK'd by DHS 'Privacy Office' The right to be forgotten is as utopian a right as it gets. I understand the historical context, but just because we had one adolf hitler in the past who used state census data to target "non aryan races" doesn't mean various other checks and balances don't exist now. You do have various "privacy activist" types circulating boilerplate letters demanding that their ISP not log anything at all about their online activity except for billing purposes .. and then they (and various others) get infected with a virus, which ddoses some poor guy in, say, a pacific island where connectivity is expensive and via satellite. If he complains to the ISP they're then glad to give him boilerplate that says "we don't track what our users do, because of european privacy laws. please have your national law enforcement contact our police, and our police will contact us, and we'll then start looking for where the problem is". By that time, the poor guy's network is probably long forced off the internet, it being that or he winds up paying an astronomical bill for bandwidth, ddos mitigation gear, higher server capacity etc etc. Anyway, the point they are making might - or might not - be valid. It certainly does not assume goodwill, and seems to suffer from a siege mentality of sorts. srs Riaz K Tayob [19/11/12 07:37 +0200]: >Except for the hullabaloo that follows developing countries >'censorship' and 'abuse of the internet', I would be inclined to >unequivocally agree with you... > >And it is rather trite to argue that 'stoking fears' is sufficient to >dismiss the point of the article. The point is how are public >resources used in the 'marketplace of ideas' (to use Justice Black's >parlance), in the face of rising use of foodstamps, fiscal cliffs, >unemployment etc... makes the European idea of the 'right to be >forgotten' look rather appealing methinks... > > >On 2012/11/19 04:01 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>I love the rhetoric (predictable) and the (over)use of 1984 imagery >> >>Anyway, have you considered that "search" is enough to find public >>posts on >>social media, without "friending and following"? >> >>"stoking fears that" is precisely what this article sets out to do, >>unfortunately >> >>Which might be a useful goal elsewhere, but not, definitly not, when a >>forum has even some pretensions towards being multistakeholder in nature. >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Nov 19 03:14:21 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:44:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] Social Media Surveillance OK'd by DHS 'Privacy Office' In-Reply-To: <50A9E016.7010407@gmail.com> References: <50A933B4.9070106@gmail.com> <20121119020144.GA11423@hserus.net> <50A9C58F.1010105@gmail.com> <20121119071005.GB17668@hserus.net> <50A9E016.7010407@gmail.com> Message-ID: Such reactions, and comments, should certainly be coloured by the overall context of the laws in force in the country at any given time. Democracy versus dictatorship / totalitarian government, constitutional protections for free speech and such. The rest as Alejandro has pointed out in his email. --srs (iPad) On 19-Nov-2012, at 13:00, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > There are valid reasons for questioning the goodwill of state institutions, especially on the grounds of necessity (which is why it remains contested in human rights discourse). > > Of course, as you say, it may or may not be valid, likewise one can assume or cannot assume goodwill. I prefer the liberal option myself irrespective of whether it is developing countries or developed countries... and need not fall for the rich country predilection to assume all the rich countries do is benign particularly given the intimate association of their states and corporations. Necessity is such a comprehensive argument... if we embrace the complexity, then solutions are possible... > > We can agree to disagree, > > > On 2012/11/19 09:10 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> The right to be forgotten is as utopian a right as it gets. I understand >> the historical context, but just because we had one adolf hitler in the >> past who used state census data to target "non aryan races" doesn't mean >> various other checks and balances don't exist now. >> >> You do have various "privacy activist" types circulating boilerplate >> letters demanding that their ISP not log anything at all about their online >> activity except for billing purposes .. and then they (and various others) >> get infected with a virus, which ddoses some poor guy in, say, a pacific >> island where connectivity is expensive and via satellite. >> >> If he complains to the ISP they're then glad to give him boilerplate that >> says "we don't track what our users do, because of european privacy laws. >> please have your national law enforcement contact our police, and our >> police will contact us, and we'll then start looking for where the problem >> is". >> >> By that time, the poor guy's network is probably long forced off the >> internet, it being that or he winds up paying an astronomical bill for >> bandwidth, ddos mitigation gear, higher server capacity etc etc. >> >> Anyway, the point they are making might - or might not - be valid. It >> certainly does not assume goodwill, and seems to suffer from a siege >> mentality of sorts. >> >> srs >> >> Riaz K Tayob [19/11/12 07:37 +0200]: >>> Except for the hullabaloo that follows developing countries 'censorship' and 'abuse of the internet', I would be inclined to unequivocally agree with you... >>> >>> And it is rather trite to argue that 'stoking fears' is sufficient to dismiss the point of the article. The point is how are public resources used in the 'marketplace of ideas' (to use Justice Black's parlance), in the face of rising use of foodstamps, fiscal cliffs, unemployment etc... makes the European idea of the 'right to be forgotten' look rather appealing methinks... >>> >>> >>> On 2012/11/19 04:01 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>> I love the rhetoric (predictable) and the (over)use of 1984 imagery >>>> >>>> Anyway, have you considered that "search" is enough to find public posts on >>>> social media, without "friending and following"? >>>> >>>> "stoking fears that" is precisely what this article sets out to do, >>>> unfortunately >>>> >>>> Which might be a useful goal elsewhere, but not, definitly not, when a >>>> forum has even some pretensions towards being multistakeholder in nature. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 19 04:51:37 2012 From: y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu (Yuliya Morenets) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:51:37 +0000 Subject: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Tijani, Thank you for this report. I would like just to add that cybersecurity issue was also raised, but I think you mention this when you speak about "data security". Also to mention that TaC-Together against Cybercrime attended this meeting as well. Thanks again and best regards, Yuliya Morenets TaC-Together against Cybercrime Le 9/11/2012, "tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn" a écrit: >Dear all, > >Sorry for the late report: No Internet access in the meeting rooms. > >We met with some European parliament members from various countries, and > we discussed several issues related to the internet governance such as >the Future of the IGF, IG4D, Data Security, Human Rights, Outreach, >Capacity Building, and multi-stakeholder model. Diplo foundation and >ISOC attended too. > >The IGC representatives insisted on >•Their attachment to the multi-stakeholders model >•the necessity of the European governments and parliamentarians support for the IGF sustainability >•the lack of efforts to make the Internet, and more broadly the ICT serve the development >•the importance of human rights including the freedom of expression in the internet governance >•capacity building as a mean to foster an Internet Governance culture >•the importance of the data security with the growing use of clouds > >The European parliamentarians expressed their support to all those >issues, and introduced a concept of intermediate international standards > accepted by all and easily applicable, to be between the international >general principals such as the human rights declaration and the national > laws. > >Dioplo Foundation emphasized the importance of the Governments’ commitment to support the IGF and its multi-stakeholder model > >The meeting was held in a warm and friendly ambience. > >Y.J. PARK and Tijani BEN JEMAA > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >Tijani BEN JEMAA >Executive Director >Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations >Phone: +216 70 825 231 >Mobile: +216 98 330 114 >Fax: +216 70 825 231 >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 19 06:28:16 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 12:28:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg In-Reply-To: <607BB6F4-349B-434C-930D-8CB1654CABD5@hserus.net> References: <003101cdc4cb$ef4823e0$cdd86ba0$@gmail.com> <20121117143834.GA20556@hserus.net> <006e01cdc4d6$d2c58d60$7850a820$@gmail.com> <20121118232201.0a75edfb@quill.bollow.ch> <607BB6F4-349B-434C-930D-8CB1654CABD5@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20121119122816.38f8e27c@quill.bollow.ch> I had written: > > 1. It is in the global public interest for all of the > > internationally recognized human rights to be fully implemented > > worldwide. > > > > 2. It is in the global public interest for global total greenhouse > > gas emissions to be reduced significantly below their current rates. Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > That constitutes a lowest common denominator. If all you want is > consensus only on those, and on that favourite of miss universe > contestants every year, "world peace" .. that'd have been achieved at > the first IGF itself if not at one of several multistakeholder events > before that. If we can get these *clearly in the public interest* objectives actually realized in practical reality, we'll have achieved quite a lot. It is time for those of us who care about achieving these objectives (to the extent possible) to start working together on strategies etc. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Mon Nov 19 06:57:49 2012 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 12:57:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <009201cdc64d$19547800$4bfd6800$@benjemaa@planet.tn> Hi Yuliya, Indeed, the cyber-security was included in the data security. Sorry for forgetting to mention the presence of TaC. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 Mobile: +216 41 649 605 Fax: +216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Message d'origine----- De : Yuliya Morenets [mailto:y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu] Envoyé : lundi 19 novembre 2012 10:52 À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org; tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Objet : Re: [governance] Meeting with EC/EP: short report Dear Tijani, Thank you for this report. I would like just to add that cybersecurity issue was also raised, but I think you mention this when you speak about "data security". Also to mention that TaC-Together against Cybercrime attended this meeting as well. Thanks again and best regards, Yuliya Morenets TaC-Together against Cybercrime Le 9/11/2012, "tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn" a écrit: >Dear all, > >Sorry for the late report: No Internet access in the meeting rooms. > >We met with some European parliament members from various countries, and > we discussed several issues related to the internet governance such as >the Future of the IGF, IG4D, Data Security, Human Rights, Outreach, >Capacity Building, and multi-stakeholder model. Diplo foundation and >ISOC attended too. > >The IGC representatives insisted on >•Their attachment to the multi-stakeholders model >•the necessity of the European governments and parliamentarians support for the IGF sustainability >•the lack of efforts to make the Internet, and more broadly the ICT serve the development >•the importance of human rights including the freedom of expression in the internet governance >•capacity building as a mean to foster an Internet Governance culture >•the importance of the data security with the growing use of clouds > >The European parliamentarians expressed their support to all those >issues, and introduced a concept of intermediate international standards > accepted by all and easily applicable, to be between the international >general principals such as the human rights declaration and the national > laws. > >Dioplo Foundation emphasized the importance of the Governments’ commitment to support the IGF and its multi-stakeholder model > >The meeting was held in a warm and friendly ambience. > >Y.J. PARK and Tijani BEN JEMAA > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >Tijani BEN JEMAA >Executive Director >Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations >Phone: +216 70 825 231 >Mobile: +216 98 330 114 >Fax: +216 70 825 231 >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ----- Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2629/5904 - Date: 18/11/2012 ----- Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2629/5904 - Date: 18/11/2012 ----- Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2629/5904 - Date: 18/11/2012 -------------- 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 suresh at hserus.net Mon Nov 19 07:04:58 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 17:34:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg In-Reply-To: <20121119122816.38f8e27c@quill.bollow.ch> References: <003101cdc4cb$ef4823e0$cdd86ba0$@gmail.com> <20121117143834.GA20556@hserus.net> <006e01cdc4d6$d2c58d60$7850a820$@gmail.com> <20121118232201.0a75edfb@quill.bollow.ch> <607BB6F4-349B-434C-930D-8CB1654CABD5@hserus.net> <20121119122816.38f8e27c@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <00EC4EC1-7ADC-436B-ACCF-93A2AFC66DD3@hserus.net> It is actually long past time to operationalize what consensus we do have. Operationalize as in, move something out of the realm of word docs and powerpoint into real life policy and technology that gets broadly adopted. --srs (iPad) On 19-Nov-2012, at 16:58, Norbert Bollow wrote: > I had written: >>> 1. It is in the global public interest for all of the >>> internationally recognized human rights to be fully implemented >>> worldwide. >>> >>> 2. It is in the global public interest for global total greenhouse >>> gas emissions to be reduced significantly below their current rates. > > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> That constitutes a lowest common denominator. If all you want is >> consensus only on those, and on that favourite of miss universe >> contestants every year, "world peace" .. that'd have been achieved at >> the first IGF itself if not at one of several multistakeholder events >> before that. > > If we can get these *clearly in the public interest* objectives > actually realized in practical reality, we'll have achieved quite a lot. > > It is time for those of us who care about achieving these objectives (to > the extent possible) to start working together on strategies etc. > > Greetings, > Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Nov 19 07:14:35 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 07:14:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] Social Media Surveillance OK'd by DHS 'Privacy Office' In-Reply-To: References: <50A933B4.9070106@gmail.com> <20121119020144.GA11423@hserus.net> <50A9C58F.1010105@gmail.com> <20121119071005.GB17668@hserus.net> <50A9E016.7010407@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Nov 19, 2012 3:17 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: > > Such reactions, and comments, should certainly be coloured by the overall context of the laws in force in the country at any given time. Democracy versus dictatorship / totalitarian government, constitutional protections for free speech and such. > > The rest as Alejandro has pointed out in his email. > And a Godwin upthread! Rgds, McTim > --srs (iPad) > > On 19-Nov-2012, at 13:00, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > > There are valid reasons for questioning the goodwill of state institutions, especially on the grounds of necessity (which is why it remains contested in human rights discourse). > > > > Of course, as you say, it may or may not be valid, likewise one can assume or cannot assume goodwill. I prefer the liberal option myself irrespective of whether it is developing countries or developed countries... and need not fall for the rich country predilection to assume all the rich countries do is benign particularly given the intimate association of their states and corporations. Necessity is such a comprehensive argument... if we embrace the complexity, then solutions are possible... > > > > We can agree to disagree, > > > > > > On 2012/11/19 09:10 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> The right to be forgotten is as utopian a right as it gets. I understand > >> the historical context, but just because we had one adolf hitler in the > >> past who used state census data to target "non aryan races" doesn't mean > >> various other checks and balances don't exist now. > >> > >> You do have various "privacy activist" types circulating boilerplate > >> letters demanding that their ISP not log anything at all about their online > >> activity except for billing purposes .. and then they (and various others) > >> get infected with a virus, which ddoses some poor guy in, say, a pacific > >> island where connectivity is expensive and via satellite. > >> > >> If he complains to the ISP they're then glad to give him boilerplate that > >> says "we don't track what our users do, because of european privacy laws. > >> please have your national law enforcement contact our police, and our > >> police will contact us, and we'll then start looking for where the problem > >> is". > >> > >> By that time, the poor guy's network is probably long forced off the > >> internet, it being that or he winds up paying an astronomical bill for > >> bandwidth, ddos mitigation gear, higher server capacity etc etc. > >> > >> Anyway, the point they are making might - or might not - be valid. It > >> certainly does not assume goodwill, and seems to suffer from a siege > >> mentality of sorts. > >> > >> srs > >> > >> Riaz K Tayob [19/11/12 07:37 +0200]: > >>> Except for the hullabaloo that follows developing countries 'censorship' and 'abuse of the internet', I would be inclined to unequivocally agree with you... > >>> > >>> And it is rather trite to argue that 'stoking fears' is sufficient to dismiss the point of the article. The point is how are public resources used in the 'marketplace of ideas' (to use Justice Black's parlance), in the face of rising use of foodstamps, fiscal cliffs, unemployment etc... makes the European idea of the 'right to be forgotten' look rather appealing methinks... > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2012/11/19 04:01 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >>>> I love the rhetoric (predictable) and the (over)use of 1984 imagery > >>>> > >>>> Anyway, have you considered that "search" is enough to find public posts on > >>>> social media, without "friending and following"? > >>>> > >>>> "stoking fears that" is precisely what this article sets out to do, > >>>> unfortunately > >>>> > >>>> Which might be a useful goal elsewhere, but not, definitly not, when a > >>>> forum has even some pretensions towards being multistakeholder in nature. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Nov 19 07:18:53 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 17:48:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] Social Media Surveillance OK'd by DHS 'Privacy Office' In-Reply-To: References: <50A933B4.9070106@gmail.com> <20121119020144.GA11423@hserus.net> <50A9C58F.1010105@gmail.com> <20121119071005.GB17668@hserus.net> <50A9E016.7010407@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3DA62F83-BBAE-4F79-B4C9-BD213A39537E@hserus.net> how? i mean gratuitously bringing hitler into a thread would rank as a godwin, but a thread on World War II, or a thread on the motivation behind EU privacy laws, can hardly avoid mentioning Hitler, I guess? --srs (iPad) On 19-Nov-2012, at 17:44, McTim wrote: > > On Nov 19, 2012 3:17 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: > > > > Such reactions, and comments, should certainly be coloured by the overall context of the laws in force in the country at any given time. Democracy versus dictatorship / totalitarian government, constitutional protections for free speech and such. > > > > The rest as Alejandro has pointed out in his email. > > > > And a Godwin upthread! > > Rgds, > > McTim > > > --srs (iPad) > > > > On 19-Nov-2012, at 13:00, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > > > > There are valid reasons for questioning the goodwill of state institutions, especially on the grounds of necessity (which is why it remains contested in human rights discourse). > > > > > > Of course, as you say, it may or may not be valid, likewise one can assume or cannot assume goodwill. I prefer the liberal option myself irrespective of whether it is developing countries or developed countries... and need not fall for the rich country predilection to assume all the rich countries do is benign particularly given the intimate association of their states and corporations. Necessity is such a comprehensive argument... if we embrace the complexity, then solutions are possible... > > > > > > We can agree to disagree, > > > > > > > > > On 2012/11/19 09:10 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > >> The right to be forgotten is as utopian a right as it gets. I understand > > >> the historical context, but just because we had one adolf hitler in the > > >> past who used state census data to target "non aryan races" doesn't mean > > >> various other checks and balances don't exist now. > > >> > > >> You do have various "privacy activist" types circulating boilerplate > > >> letters demanding that their ISP not log anything at all about their online > > >> activity except for billing purposes .. and then they (and various others) > > >> get infected with a virus, which ddoses some poor guy in, say, a pacific > > >> island where connectivity is expensive and via satellite. > > >> > > >> If he complains to the ISP they're then glad to give him boilerplate that > > >> says "we don't track what our users do, because of european privacy laws. > > >> please have your national law enforcement contact our police, and our > > >> police will contact us, and we'll then start looking for where the problem > > >> is". > > >> > > >> By that time, the poor guy's network is probably long forced off the > > >> internet, it being that or he winds up paying an astronomical bill for > > >> bandwidth, ddos mitigation gear, higher server capacity etc etc. > > >> > > >> Anyway, the point they are making might - or might not - be valid. It > > >> certainly does not assume goodwill, and seems to suffer from a siege > > >> mentality of sorts. > > >> > > >> srs > > >> > > >> Riaz K Tayob [19/11/12 07:37 +0200]: > > >>> Except for the hullabaloo that follows developing countries 'censorship' and 'abuse of the internet', I would be inclined to unequivocally agree with you... > > >>> > > >>> And it is rather trite to argue that 'stoking fears' is sufficient to dismiss the point of the article. The point is how are public resources used in the 'marketplace of ideas' (to use Justice Black's parlance), in the face of rising use of foodstamps, fiscal cliffs, unemployment etc... makes the European idea of the 'right to be forgotten' look rather appealing methinks... > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On 2012/11/19 04:01 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > >>>> I love the rhetoric (predictable) and the (over)use of 1984 imagery > > >>>> > > >>>> Anyway, have you considered that "search" is enough to find public posts on > > >>>> social media, without "friending and following"? > > >>>> > > >>>> "stoking fears that" is precisely what this article sets out to do, > > >>>> unfortunately > > >>>> > > >>>> Which might be a useful goal elsewhere, but not, definitly not, when a > > >>>> forum has even some pretensions towards being multistakeholder in nature. > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Mon Nov 19 10:41:22 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:41:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg In-Reply-To: <20121119122816.38f8e27c@quill.bollow.ch> References: <003101cdc4cb$ef4823e0$cdd86ba0$@gmail.com> <20121117143834.GA20556@hserus.net> <006e01cdc4d6$d2c58d60$7850a820$@gmail.com> <20121118232201.0a75edfb@quill.bollow.ch> <607BB6F4-349B-434C-930D-8CB1654CABD5@hserus.net>,<20121119122816.38f8e27c@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DAEC5BF@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Norbert, isn't that what we are already doing? What else, if not, are ICANN, ISOC, the RIRs, the NRO, the IETF, the EFF, FreedomHouse, the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Core Values, the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles, CitizenLab, EPIC, the APWG, the MAAWG, Diplo, APC, and so many others doing? Maybe I missed something? Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Norbert Bollow [nb at bollow.ch] Enviado el: lunes, 19 de noviembre de 2012 05:28 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org CC: Suresh Ramasubramanian Asunto: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg I had written: > > 1. It is in the global public interest for all of the > > internationally recognized human rights to be fully implemented > > worldwide. > > > > 2. It is in the global public interest for global total greenhouse > > gas emissions to be reduced significantly below their current rates. Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > That constitutes a lowest common denominator. If all you want is > consensus only on those, and on that favourite of miss universe > contestants every year, "world peace" .. that'd have been achieved at > the first IGF itself if not at one of several multistakeholder events > before that. If we can get these *clearly in the public interest* objectives actually realized in practical reality, we'll have achieved quite a lot. It is time for those of us who care about achieving these objectives (to the extent possible) to start working together on strategies etc. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Tue Nov 20 02:17:04 2012 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:17:04 +0700 Subject: [governance] World Association for Christian Communication opposes proposed restrictions on the Internet In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD5C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD5C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <50AB2E70.4050209@gmx.net> FYI World Association for Christian Communication opposes proposed restrictions on the Internet and calls on members to sign petition http://waccglobal.org/component/content/article/3210:the-future-of-the-internet-is-in-peril.html*/ /**//* Norbert Klein///_ _/Phnom Penh Cambodia*/ /* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 20 03:09:54 2012 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 15:09:54 +0700 Subject: Fwd: Re: [governance] World Association for Christian Communication opposes proposed restrictions on the Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50AB3AD2.1050105@gmx.net> Dear Norbert Who are the WACC? For instance in relation to the World Council of Churches? Regards C. = Good question, because there are two quite different organizations with confusingly similar names: 1) World Alliance for Christian Communication (WACC) www.wacc.org.uk/ * **2) World Association for Christian Communication**(WACC)** **http://waccglobal.org/* The World Association for Christian Communication is a professional organization, with a membership in general close or overlapping with churches in the World Council of Churches. The World Association for Christian Communication provides the following self description:* ** **Vision: Communication for all** * * **Mission** * * **The World Association for Christian Communication (WACC) is an international organization that promotes communication as a basic human right, essential to people's dignity and community. Rooted in Christian faith, WACC works with all those denied the right to communicate because of status, identity, or gender. It advocates full access to information and communication, and promotes open and diverse media. WACC strengthens networks of communicators to advance peace, understanding and justice.* Norbert Klein -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 20 03:24:44 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 17:24:44 +0900 Subject: [governance] World Association for Christian Communication opposes proposed restrictions on the Internet In-Reply-To: <50AB3AD2.1050105@gmx.net> References: <50AB3AD2.1050105@gmx.net> Message-ID: World Alliance for Christian Communication (WACC) -- were one of the prominent civil society organizations in WSIS. Very much involved with AMARC (which is the World Association of Community Broadcasters). Good people. Adam On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Norbert Klein wrote: > Dear Norbert > > Who are the WACC? For instance in relation to the World Council of > Churches? > > Regards > > C. > > = > Good question, because there are two quite different organizations with > confusingly similar names: > > 1) World Alliance for Christian Communication (WACC) > www.wacc.org.uk/ > * > **2) World Association for Christian Communication** (WACC)** > **http://waccglobal.org/* > > The World Association for Christian Communication is a professional > organization, with a membership in general close or overlapping with > churches in the World Council of Churches. > > The World Association for Christian Communication provides the following > self description:* > ** > **Vision: Communication for all** > * * > ** Mission** > * * > ** The World Association for Christian Communication (WACC) is an > international organization that promotes communication as a basic human > right, essential to people’s dignity and community. Rooted in Christian > faith, WACC works with all those denied the right to communicate because of > status, identity, or gender. It advocates full access to information and > communication, and promotes open and diverse media. WACC strengthens > networks of communicators to advance peace, understanding and justice.* > > > Norbert Klein > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 20 04:42:47 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:42:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DAEC5BF@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <003101cdc4cb$ef4823e0$cdd86ba0$@gmail.com> <20121117143834.GA20556@hserus.net> <006e01cdc4d6$d2c58d60$7850a820$@gmail.com> <20121118232201.0a75edfb@quill.bollow.ch> <607BB6F4-349B-434C-930D-8CB1654CABD5@hserus.net> <20121119122816.38f8e27c@quill.bollow.ch> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DAEC5BF@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <20121120104247.15a3dd6e@quill.bollow.ch> I had written: >> > > 1. It is in the global public interest for all of the >> > > internationally recognized human rights to be fully implemented >> > > worldwide. >> > > 2. It is in the global public interest for global total >> > > greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced significantly below their >> > > current rates. >> >> If we can get these *clearly in the public interest* objectives >> actually realized in practical reality, we'll have achieved quite a >> lot. >> >> It is time for those of us who care about achieving these objectives >> (to the extent possible) to start working together on strategies etc. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch replied: > isn't that what we are already doing? What else, if not, are ICANN, > ISOC, the RIRs, the NRO, the IETF, the EFF, FreedomHouse, the Dynamic > Coalition on Internet Core Values, the Dynamic Coalition on Internet > Rights and Principles, CitizenLab, EPIC, the APWG, the MAAWG, Diplo, > APC, and so many others doing? > > Maybe I missed something? What is missing from my perspective is: * Adequate emphasis on operationalization in the sense of, as srs has put it, "move something out of the realm of word docs and powerpoint into real life policy and technology that gets broadly adopted". * Adequate emphasis on developing (and then implementing) suitable strategies for achieving that goal of operationalization with regard to the above-mentioned objectives 1 and 2. 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 20 05:00:54 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 15:30:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg In-Reply-To: <20121120104247.15a3dd6e@quill.bollow.ch> References: <003101cdc4cb$ef4823e0$cdd86ba0$@gmail.com> <20121117143834.GA20556@hserus.net> <006e01cdc4d6$d2c58d60$7850a820$@gmail.com> <20121118232201.0a75edfb@quill.bollow.ch> <607BB6F4-349B-434C-930D-8CB1654CABD5@hserus.net> <20121119122816.38f8e27c@quill.bollow.ch> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DAEC5BF@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <20121120104247.15a3dd6e@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Some organizations (MAAWG, the RIRs / NRO, APWG, EPIC ..) have active policy + tech programs in place, Diplo also does a substantial amount of on the ground work in training .. could you please highlight specific areas where you see a gap? --srs (iPad) On 20-Nov-2012, at 15:12, Norbert Bollow wrote: > I had written: >>>>> 1. It is in the global public interest for all of the >>>>> internationally recognized human rights to be fully implemented >>>>> worldwide. >>>>> 2. It is in the global public interest for global total >>>>> greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced significantly below their >>>>> current rates. >>> >>> If we can get these *clearly in the public interest* objectives >>> actually realized in practical reality, we'll have achieved quite a >>> lot. >>> >>> It is time for those of us who care about achieving these objectives >>> (to the extent possible) to start working together on strategies etc. > > Alejandro Pisanty Baruch replied: >> isn't that what we are already doing? What else, if not, are ICANN, >> ISOC, the RIRs, the NRO, the IETF, the EFF, FreedomHouse, the Dynamic >> Coalition on Internet Core Values, the Dynamic Coalition on Internet >> Rights and Principles, CitizenLab, EPIC, the APWG, the MAAWG, Diplo, >> APC, and so many others doing? >> >> Maybe I missed something? > > What is missing from my perspective is: > > * Adequate emphasis on operationalization in the sense of, as srs has > put it, "move something out of the realm of word docs and powerpoint > into real life policy and technology that gets broadly adopted". > > * Adequate emphasis on developing (and then implementing) suitable > strategies for achieving that goal of operationalization with regard > to the above-mentioned objectives 1 and 2. > > 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 Tue Nov 20 06:14:13 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:14:13 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Social Media Surveillance OK'd by DHS 'Privacy Office' References: <50A933B4.9070106@gmail.com> <20121119020144.GA11423@hserus.net> <50A9C58F.1010105@gmail.com> <20121119071005.GB17668@hserus.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DAEB322@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD623@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi attached s a new report from ENISA which is very clear in its message to the EU and the process to redraft the EU Privacy directive. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Gesendet: Mo 19.11.2012 08:33 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian; Riaz K Tayob Betreff: RE: [governance] Social Media Surveillance OK'd by DHS 'Privacy Office' Hi, the "right to be forgotten" can be traced very much to Viktor Mayer-Schoenberger's book "Delete". It does start with a good introduction and interesting thoughts about how after millennia of humankind working to build up and facilitate memory it is now much harder to "Forget" (delete a memory) than to "remember" (keep it) and consequences thereof. Unfortunately in the last sections the author proposes an absolutely unreachable technological standard which would give memories in files a finite lifetime after which they would self-delete. This was picked up among others in this list by Wolfgang Kleinwächter in the Sharm el Sheikh IGF. I brought it down by reminding him that it's Layer 8 that kills - that even if you could have that standard and your pictures drinking at the beach would self-erase, someone could have made a photo of the screen with them displayed and keep them forever (as happens with many other damaging pieces of information long before the invention of computers and the Internet.) The "right to be forgotten" also has some creepy implications for freedom of speech (person A may get an article about him/her deleted on its grounds, thus quashing person B's legitimate (i.e. non-slanderous) right to have written it), and may amount to rewriting history. The present balance is a strenghtened version of the so-called ARCO rights (in Spanish at least) which allows for some data-protection authority orders to delete damaging materials in some countries. Next chapter... (I can't wait to see what the next chapter of "educating Riaz" or "Riaz's personal textbook on Internet governance for free") is going to be about ;-).) Happy to provide. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Suresh Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net] Enviado el: lunes, 19 de noviembre de 2012 01:10 Hasta: Riaz K Tayob CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] Social Media Surveillance OK'd by DHS 'Privacy Office' The right to be forgotten is as utopian a right as it gets. I understand the historical context, but just because we had one adolf hitler in the past who used state census data to target "non aryan races" doesn't mean various other checks and balances don't exist now. You do have various "privacy activist" types circulating boilerplate letters demanding that their ISP not log anything at all about their online activity except for billing purposes .. and then they (and various others) get infected with a virus, which ddoses some poor guy in, say, a pacific island where connectivity is expensive and via satellite. If he complains to the ISP they're then glad to give him boilerplate that says "we don't track what our users do, because of european privacy laws. please have your national law enforcement contact our police, and our police will contact us, and we'll then start looking for where the problem is". By that time, the poor guy's network is probably long forced off the internet, it being that or he winds up paying an astronomical bill for bandwidth, ddos mitigation gear, higher server capacity etc etc. Anyway, the point they are making might - or might not - be valid. It certainly does not assume goodwill, and seems to suffer from a siege mentality of sorts. srs Riaz K Tayob [19/11/12 07:37 +0200]: >Except for the hullabaloo that follows developing countries >'censorship' and 'abuse of the internet', I would be inclined to >unequivocally agree with you... > >And it is rather trite to argue that 'stoking fears' is sufficient to >dismiss the point of the article. The point is how are public >resources used in the 'marketplace of ideas' (to use Justice Black's >parlance), in the face of rising use of foodstamps, fiscal cliffs, >unemployment etc... makes the European idea of the 'right to be >forgotten' look rather appealing methinks... > > >On 2012/11/19 04:01 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>I love the rhetoric (predictable) and the (over)use of 1984 imagery >> >>Anyway, have you considered that "search" is enough to find public >>posts on >>social media, without "friending and following"? >> >>"stoking fears that" is precisely what this article sets out to do, >>unfortunately >> >>Which might be a useful goal elsewhere, but not, definitly not, when a >>forum has even some pretensions towards being multistakeholder in nature. >> > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Right to be forgotton.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 701270 bytes Desc: Right to be forgotton.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Nov 20 06:39:25 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:39:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] Need for strategic planning (was Re: Why Cell Phones Went Dead...) In-Reply-To: References: <003101cdc4cb$ef4823e0$cdd86ba0$@gmail.com> <20121117143834.GA20556@hserus.net> <006e01cdc4d6$d2c58d60$7850a820$@gmail.com> <20121118232201.0a75edfb@quill.bollow.ch> <607BB6F4-349B-434C-930D-8CB1654CABD5@hserus.net> <20121119122816.38f8e27c@quill.bollow.ch> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DAEC5BF@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <20121120104247.15a3dd6e@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20121120123925.5178064d@quill.bollow.ch> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Some organizations (MAAWG, the RIRs / NRO, APWG, EPIC ..) have active > policy + tech programs in place, Diplo also does a substantial amount > of on the ground work in training .. could you please highlight > specific areas where you see a gap? I see the gap not primarily in regard to any specific areas, but in regard to the big picture objectives, around which we in fact have broad consensus at the level of making nice-sounding speeches and the "realm of word docs and powerpoint", but nevertheless lack of effective strategic planning for translation those supposed insights into concrete effective actions. As exhibit A let me point to the recent IGF, which according to its official theme was about the goal "Sustainable Human, Economic and Social Development". But was it really about that topic? None of the sessions that I attended were truly about that goal. I organized a workshop and tried to make the conversation relevant to the objective that was supposed to be the IGF's theme. But it didn't work out since too many of my panelists turned out to be unwilling to truly engage with that. The IGF community is wonderful in many ways, but at this IGF, willingness to truly engage with the goal "Sustainable Human, Economic and Social Development" has not been one of them. In my opinion, lack of knowledge of effective tools for strategic planning in complex systemic context (with lots of self-interested actors that can be influenced in some ways, which can not be controlled) is a main cause of this shortcoming. The good news is that such tools actually exist, what I know is the "logical thinking process" tools of the Theory of Constraints. I also consider it possible that there may be other good tools that I don't know about yet. 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 20 06:52:26 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 17:22:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Need for strategic planning (was Re: Why Cell Phones Went Dead...) In-Reply-To: <20121120123925.5178064d@quill.bollow.ch> References: <003101cdc4cb$ef4823e0$cdd86ba0$@gmail.com> <20121117143834.GA20556@hserus.net> <006e01cdc4d6$d2c58d60$7850a820$@gmail.com> <20121118232201.0a75edfb@quill.bollow.ch> <607BB6F4-349B-434C-930D-8CB1654CABD5@hserus.net> <20121119122816.38f8e27c@quill.bollow.ch> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DAEC5BF@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <20121120104247.15a3dd6e@quill.bollow.ch> <20121120123925.5178064d@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <8D2927D4-3791-43AB-88CE-E0128D447275@hserus.net> The IGF was never really meant to accomplish "action" - everybody I've talked to considers that it is, to put it impolitely, a talk shop - and to put it much more politely (and accurately), a place where a rather wider variety of stakeholders can meet stakeholders from outside the circles they usually move in, and possibly find common cause on something they're working on. If you start off a conference with as vague and generic a goal as "sustainable [x], [y] and [z]" and, what is much more important, no action items for future work identified, little or no funding except for the next conference at the next exotic venue, no permanent staff / secretariat to keep the logistics moving .. what else do you expect, other than more presentations? --srs (iPad) On 20-Nov-2012, at 17:09, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> Some organizations (MAAWG, the RIRs / NRO, APWG, EPIC ..) have active >> policy + tech programs in place, Diplo also does a substantial amount >> of on the ground work in training .. could you please highlight >> specific areas where you see a gap? > > I see the gap not primarily in regard to any specific areas, but in > regard to the big picture objectives, around which we in fact have broad > consensus at the level of making nice-sounding speeches and the "realm > of word docs and powerpoint", but nevertheless lack of effective > strategic planning for translation those supposed insights into > concrete effective actions. > > As exhibit A let me point to the recent IGF, which according to its > official theme was about the goal "Sustainable Human, Economic and > Social Development". But was it really about that topic? None of the > sessions that I attended were truly about that goal. I organized a > workshop and tried to make the conversation relevant to the objective > that was supposed to be the IGF's theme. But it didn't work out since > too many of my panelists turned out to be unwilling to truly engage > with that. The IGF community is wonderful in many ways, but > at this IGF, willingness to truly engage with the goal "Sustainable > Human, Economic and Social Development" has not been one of them. > > In my opinion, lack of knowledge of effective tools for strategic > planning in complex systemic context (with lots of self-interested > actors that can be influenced in some ways, which can not be > controlled) is a main cause of this shortcoming. The good news is that > such tools actually exist, what I know is the "logical thinking > process" tools of the Theory of Constraints. I also consider it > possible that there may be other good tools that I don't know about yet. > > 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 Tue Nov 20 07:21:19 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 17:51:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: The real work starts after WCIT-12 In-Reply-To: <50AB74EC.6060506@itforchange.net> References: <50AB74EC.6060506@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50AB75BF.8010103@itforchange.net> http://www.buddeblog.com.au/frompaulsdesk/the-real-work-starts-after-wcit12/ Interesting blog on WCIT, and I agree..... The real work comes afterwards, and much of what happens at the WCIT should set up the context of, what the authors puts as, and I quote... Like it or not, this debate has brought a large number of important issues to the fore and they will need to be confronted. What the WCIT has to do upfront is untangle the various issues and clearly separate them from each other. The next step will then be to clearly define what can be solved on a national level and what needs to be addressed internationally -- and, if there are issues that need international attention, who are the best parties to address those issues. The most important issue at the WCIT will be how the international community will manage the current debate so as to move towards a manageable future. Most likely what this will mean is that the various international stakeholders will have to create a (new) platform that can be used to address these issues, and existing internet bodies such as ICANN, ISOC and IGF, as well as the UN and some of its organisations such as the ITU and others of course, will all need to be part of this. The full blog is below..... The real work starts after WCIT12 The really important part of the World Conference on IT (WCIT) is not the internet battles that have caught the interest of the press -- it is what will happen after the conference has ended. Membership of WCIT is on a per-country basis and currently 193 countries will be participating in this international event. Each country is free to make up its own delegation and these delegations can therefore represent a large variety of social, economic, business, legal, technical and other interests -- as large and as wide as each country decides its delegation will be. The responsibility for organising the WCIT rests with the ITU, which is the oldest UN organisation (1865). The current media frenzy about the internet, and the false rumours that the UN or any other organisation is going to take over its governance is just that -- a media beat-up. As in any international meeting, countries are welcome to bring their plans, proposals, opinions and views to the conference and to take the opportunity to present these to the international audience. However proposals from the USA, or Russia, or China, or the European countries, or the Arab countries are not automatically accepted simply because they are presented at the conference. That is not the case in any international conference -- and certainly not at the WCIT, which has a reputation for consensus-building. The media frenzy seems to be based on the incorrect assumption that any of the proposals that have been circulated or rumoured could be, or even will be, accepted. It is true that some of these proposals and rumours contain elements that will be unacceptable to other members of the international communities, and vested interests involved in the debate have used the well-known FUD strategy (spread fear, uncertainty and doubt) to fuel the media frenzy. On the positive side, the interest in WCIT has now moved well beyond the traditional ICT industry. It has gained an enormous amount of attention and has brought the internet governance issue to the notice of mainstream society. This, of course, is a positive development and it also indicates how important the internet has become for everybody, with non-technical people starting to take a serious interest in its future. One of the problems of the internet has been that while it has been growing into that wider context the governing bodies have not kept up with the growth of these wider interests and concerns, and there is now a range of social and economic issues, as well as the technical issues that need to be addressed. In the current debate, however, all these issues have been thrown into one pool. Like it or not, this debate has brought a large number of important issues to the fore and they will need to be confronted. What the WCIT has to do upfront is untangle the various issues and clearly separate them from each other. The next step will then be to clearly define what can be solved on a national level and what needs to be addressed internationally -- and, if there are issues that need international attention, who are the best parties to address those issues. The most important issue at the WCIT will be how the international community will manage the current debate so as to move towards a manageable future. Most likely what this will mean is that the various international stakeholders will have to create a (new) platform that can be used to address these issues, and existing internet bodies such as ICANN, ISOC and IGF, as well as the UN and some of its organisations such as the ITU and others of course, will all need to be part of this. The internet is there for all. It is an enormous social and economic enabler and should be used to advance our global society. It clearly has the potential to do this and it is the responsibility of all involved to make that happen. WCIT 12 has the enormous opportunity, as a representation of global society, to play a leadership role in guiding the future of the internet for the benefit of all. The new platform that should be the result of this needs to be truly international, independent; and it needs to be well-funded, so that it can properly address the issues at hand. It is, therefore, most unlikely that -- apart from some of the purely technical matters -- any of the more contentious issues that are being addressed in the press will be solved at WCIT. Nor should that be the case, because WCIT is probably the wrong place to address these issues. Nevertheless WCIT can be the catalyst and the facilitator to kick-start the process. Paul Budde -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 20 07:50:19 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 04:50:19 -0800 Subject: [governance] Fwd: The real work starts after WCIT-12 In-Reply-To: <50AB75BF.8010103@itforchange.net> References: <50AB74EC.6060506@itforchange.net> <50AB75BF.8010103@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20121120125019.GA14326@hserus.net> Paul Budde's piece is also on circleid, a site that sees rather more informed discussion on these issues than most other sites / lists. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121119_the_real_work_starts_after_wcit12/ This piece from Tony Rutkowski puts the ITRs in context - particularly the fact that they are optin and countries can refuse to sign on to them, sign on with caveats .. http://inetaria.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/itu-extreme-agendas-v1-2-1.pdf And do note that out of all the delegations that get taken along to Dubai, only the government representative from the delegation gets to vote on the ITRs. There are going to be plenty of panels, champagne receptions (considering it is dubai and not say riyadh), camel safaris etc to keep the other delegates feeling that their trip has been worthwhile. Agendas in these will inevitably be driven by [1] politics [2] groups that have the largest lobbying penetration in their countries Either of these shuts civil society out effectively, even when some of them are part of a national delegation. srs parminder [20/11/12 17:51 +0530]: > > >http://www.buddeblog.com.au/frompaulsdesk/the-real-work-starts-after-wcit12/ > >Interesting blog on WCIT, and I agree..... > >The real work comes afterwards, and much of what happens at the WCIT >should set up the context of, what the authors puts as, and I >quote... > > Like it or not, this debate has brought a large number of important > issues to the fore and they will need to be confronted. What the > WCIT has to do upfront is untangle the various issues and clearly > separate them from each other. The next step will then be to clearly > define what can be solved on a national level and what needs to be > addressed internationally -- and, if there are issues that need > international attention, who are the best parties to address those > issues. > > The most important issue at the WCIT will be how the international > community will manage the current debate so as to move towards a > manageable future. > > Most likely what this will mean is that the various international > stakeholders will have to create a (new) platform that can be used > to address these issues, and existing internet bodies such as ICANN, > ISOC and IGF, as well as the UN and some of its organisations such > as the ITU and others of course, will all need to be part of this. > > >The full blog is below..... > > > The real work starts after WCIT12 > > >The really important part of the World Conference on IT (WCIT) is not >the internet battles that have caught the interest of the press -- it >is what will happen after the conference has ended. > >Membership of WCIT is on a per-country basis and currently 193 >countries will be participating in this international event. Each >country is free to make up its own delegation and these delegations >can therefore represent a large variety of social, economic, >business, legal, technical and other interests -- as large and as >wide as each country decides its delegation will be. The >responsibility for organising the WCIT rests with the ITU, which is >the oldest UN organisation (1865). > >The current media frenzy about the internet, and the false rumours >that the UN or any other organisation is going to take over its >governance is just that -- a media beat-up. > >As in any international meeting, countries are welcome to bring their >plans, proposals, opinions and views to the conference and to take >the opportunity to present these to the international audience. >However proposals from the USA, or Russia, or China, or the European >countries, or the Arab countries are not automatically accepted >simply because they are presented at the conference. That is not the >case in any international conference -- and certainly not at the >WCIT, which has a reputation for consensus-building. > >The media frenzy seems to be based on the incorrect assumption that >any of the proposals that have been circulated or rumoured could be, >or even will be, accepted. It is true that some of these proposals >and rumours contain elements that will be unacceptable to other >members of the international communities, and vested interests >involved in the debate have used the well-known FUD strategy (spread >fear, uncertainty and doubt) to fuel the media frenzy. > >On the positive side, the interest in WCIT has now moved well beyond >the traditional ICT industry. It has gained an enormous amount of >attention and has brought the internet governance issue to the notice >of mainstream society. This, of course, is a positive development and >it also indicates how important the internet has become for >everybody, with non-technical people starting to take a serious >interest in its future. > >One of the problems of the internet has been that while it has been >growing into that wider context the governing bodies have not kept up >with the growth of these wider interests and concerns, and there is >now a range of social and economic issues, as well as the technical >issues that need to be addressed. In the current debate, however, all >these issues have been thrown into one pool. > >Like it or not, this debate has brought a large number of important >issues to the fore and they will need to be confronted. What the >WCIT has to do upfront is untangle the various issues and clearly >separate them from each other. The next step will then be to clearly >define what can be solved on a national level and what needs to be >addressed internationally -- and, if there are issues that need >international attention, who are the best parties to address those >issues. > >The most important issue at the WCIT will be how the international >community will manage the current debate so as to move towards a >manageable future. > >Most likely what this will mean is that the various international >stakeholders will have to create a (new) platform that can be used to >address these issues, and existing internet bodies such as ICANN, >ISOC and IGF, as well as the UN and some of its organisations such >as the ITU and others of course, will all need to be part of this. > >The internet is there for all. It is an enormous social and economic >enabler and should be used to advance our global society. It clearly >has the potential to do this and it is the responsibility of all >involved to make that happen. WCIT 12 has the enormous opportunity, >as a representation of global society, to play a leadership role in >guiding the future of the internet for the benefit of all. > >The new platform that should be the result of this needs to be truly >international, independent; and it needs to be well-funded, so that >it can properly address the issues at hand. > >It is, therefore, most unlikely that -- apart from some of the purely >technical matters -- any of the more contentious issues that are >being addressed in the press will be solved at WCIT. Nor should that >be the case, because WCIT is probably the wrong place to address >these issues. Nevertheless WCIT can be the catalyst and the >facilitator to kick-start the process. > >Paul Budde > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Nov 20 08:50:30 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:50:30 +0000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: The real work starts after WCIT-12 In-Reply-To: <20121120125019.GA14326@hserus.net> References: <50AB74EC.6060506@itforchange.net> <50AB75BF.8010103@itforchange.net> <20121120125019.GA14326@hserus.net> Message-ID: <0ToEGDKmq4qQFAcR@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <20121120125019.GA14326 at hserus.net>, at 04:50:19 on Tue, 20 Nov 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >And do note that out of all the delegations that get taken along to Dubai, >only the government representative from the delegation gets to vote on the >ITRs. I suspect many delegations have more than one government representative on them. It's one vote per member (ie per country) deciding what that will be is the job of the Head of Delegation (who for governments is going to be the most senior government representative on site). I was Head of Delegation for RIPE NCC (a Sector Member) at one ITU conference a couple of years ago. That didn't come with a vote, but did attract an awful lot of party invitations! -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Tue Nov 20 08:56:45 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:56:45 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Fwd: The real work starts after WCIT-12 In-Reply-To: <50AB75BF.8010103@itforchange.net> References: <50AB74EC.6060506@itforchange.net> <50AB75BF.8010103@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1834613273.63852.1353419805266.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e30> Thanks Parminder for this document that happens to "re- center" the debate on factual aspects and issues. The author only misses one of the main reasons for this global gathering : the need for telcos to cope with the exponential growth of IP traffic on their networks. This growth in data flows, that enrich mainly global IP based service providers, compels telcos to extend/expand their networks in both terms of space and capacity. This means a lot of capital being spent on investment in the near future. The question raised is as simple as : who will pay for it ? At some extent ITU shot a bullet in its foot when it pressed its member countries for deregulating the general (telecoms) tariffing agreement in the early nineties... But this is another debate. I do hope that the WCIT outcome will -at least- preserve the public interest that should prevail in DCs and give some oxygen to their telcos for coping with the upcoming traffic growth, mainly due to the widespread use of smartphones for a lot of applications, from which -unfortunately- only a small number actually contribute to the countries' development. Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 20/11/12 13:21 > De : "parminder" > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] Fwd: The real work starts after WCIT-12 > > > > http://www.buddeblog.com.au/frompaulsdesk/the-real-work-starts-after-wcit12/ > > Interesting blog on WCIT, and I agree..... > > The real work comes afterwards, and much of what happens at the WCIT should set up the context of, what the authors puts as, and I quote... > > Like it or not, this debate has brought a large number of important issues to the fore and they will need to be confronted. What the WCIT has to do upfront is untangle the various issues and clearly separate them from each other. The next step will then be to clearly define what can be solved on a national level and what needs to be addressed internationally – and, if there are issues that need international attention, who are the best parties to address those issues.The most important issue at the WCIT will be how the international community will manage the current debate so as to move towards a manageable future.Most likely what this will mean is that the various international stakeholders will have to create a (new) platform that can be used to address these issues, and existing internet bodies such as ICANN, ISOC and IGF, as well as the UN and some of its organisations such as the ITU and others of course, will all need to be part of this. > The full blog is below..... > The real work starts after WCIT12The really important part of the World Conference on IT (WCIT) is not the internet battles that have caught the interest of the press – it is what will happen after the conference has ended.Membership of WCIT is on a per-country basis and currently 193 countries will be participating in this international event. Each country is free to make up its own delegation and these delegations can therefore represent a large variety of social, economic, business, legal, technical and other interests – as large and as wide as each country decides its delegation will be. The responsibility for organising the WCIT rests with the ITU, which is the oldest UN organisation (1865).The current media frenzy about the internet, and the false rumours that the UN or any other organisation is going to take over its governance is just that – a media beat-up.As in any international meeting, countries are welcome to bring their plans, proposals, opinions and views to the conference and to take the opportunity to present these to the international audience. However proposals from the USA, or Russia, or China, or the European countries, or the Arab countries are not automatically accepted simply because they are presented at the conference. That is not the case in any international conference – and certainly not at the WCIT, which has a reputation for consensus-building.The media frenzy seems to be based on the incorrect assumption that any of the proposals that have been circulated or rumoured could be, or even will be, accepted. It is true that some of these proposals and rumours contain elements that will be unacceptable to other members of the international communities, and vested interests involved in the debate have used the well-known FUD strategy (spread fear, uncertainty and doubt) to fuel the media frenzy.On the positive side, the interest in WCIT has now moved well beyond the traditional ICT industry. It has gained an enormous amount of attention and has brought the internet governance issue to the notice of mainstream society. This, of course, is a positive development and it also indicates how important the internet has become for everybody, with non-technical people starting to take a serious interest in its future.One of the problems of the internet has been that while it has been growing into that wider context the governing bodies have not kept up with the growth of these wider interests and concerns, and there is now a range of social and economic issues, as well as the technical issues that need to be addressed. In the current debate, however, all these issues have been thrown into one pool.Like it or not, this debate has brought a large number of important issues to the fore and they will need to be confronted. What the WCIT has to do upfront is untangle the various issues and clearly separate them from each other. The next step will then be to clearly define what can be solved on a national level and what needs to be addressed internationally – and, if there are issues that need international attention, who are the best parties to address those issues.The most important issue at the WCIT will be how the international community will manage the current debate so as to move towards a manageable future.Most likely what this will mean is that the various international stakeholders will have to create a (new) platform that can be used to address these issues, and existing internet bodies such as ICANN, ISOC and IGF, as well as the UN and some of its organisations such as the ITU and others of course, will all need to be part of this.The internet is there for all. It is an enormous social and economic enabler and should be used to advance our global society. It clearly has the potential to do this and it is the responsibility of all involved to make that happen. WCIT 12 has the enormous opportunity, as a representation of global society, to play a leadership role in guiding the future of the internet for the benefit of all.The new platform that should be the result of this needs to be truly international, independent; and it needs to be well-funded, so that it can properly address the issues at hand.It is, therefore, most unlikely that – apart from some of the purely technical matters – any of the more contentious issues that are being addressed in the press will be solved at WCIT. Nor should that be the case, because WCIT is probably the wrong place to address these issues. Nevertheless WCIT can be the catalyst and the facilitator to kick-start the process.Paul Budde > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 20 09:09:26 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:39:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: The real work starts after WCIT-12 In-Reply-To: <0ToEGDKmq4qQFAcR@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <50AB74EC.6060506@itforchange.net> <50AB75BF.8010103@itforchange.net> <20121120125019.GA14326@hserus.net> <0ToEGDKmq4qQFAcR@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <61DDF02F-DB8B-4936-9200-7FD4B9CF6C44@hserus.net> Yes, that goes without saying, I thought :) And yes, party invites and quality of said invites are directly proportional to the delegation pecking order --srs (iPad) On 20-Nov-2012, at 19:20, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <20121120125019.GA14326 at hserus.net>, at 04:50:19 on Tue, 20 Nov 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >> And do note that out of all the delegations that get taken along to Dubai, >> only the government representative from the delegation gets to vote on the >> ITRs. > > I suspect many delegations have more than one government representative on them. It's one vote per member (ie per country) deciding what that will be is the job of the Head of Delegation (who for governments is going to be the most senior government representative on site). > > I was Head of Delegation for RIPE NCC (a Sector Member) at one ITU conference a couple of years ago. That didn't come with a vote, but did attract an awful lot of party invitations! > -- > 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 fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Tue Nov 20 11:43:55 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 18:43:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: The real work starts after WCIT-12 In-Reply-To: <50AB75BF.8010103@itforchange.net> References: <50AB74EC.6060506@itforchange.net> <50AB75BF.8010103@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Thank you Parminder. This is one of the most balanced pieces I have read about the WCIT ever since the debate erupted earlier this year. Even if the outcomes do not go in favor of the MS approach, I believe it will go a long way before it is fully implemented (lots of lobbying and conspiracy theories will go along the lines). Fahd On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:21 PM, parminder wrote: > > > > http://www.buddeblog.com.au/frompaulsdesk/the-real-work-starts-after-wcit12/ > > Interesting blog on WCIT, and I agree..... > > The real work comes afterwards, and much of what happens at the WCIT > should set up the context of, what the authors puts as, and I quote... > > Like it or not, this debate has brought a large number of important > issues to the fore and they will need to be confronted. What the WCIT has > to do upfront is untangle the various issues and clearly separate them from > each other. The next step will then be to clearly define what can be solved > on a national level and what needs to be addressed internationally – and, > if there are issues that need international attention, who are the best > parties to address those issues. > > The most important issue at the WCIT will be how the international > community will manage the current debate so as to move towards a manageable > future. > > Most likely what this will mean is that the various international > stakeholders will have to create a (new) platform that can be used to > address these issues, and existing internet bodies such as ICANN, ISOC and > IGF, as well as the UN and some of its organisations such as the ITU and > others of course, will all need to be part of this. > > > The full blog is below..... > The real work starts after WCIT12 > > The really important part of the World Conference on IT (WCIT) is not the > internet battles that have caught the interest of the press – it is what > will happen after the conference has ended. > > Membership of WCIT is on a per-country basis and currently 193 countries > will be participating in this international event. Each country is free to > make up its own delegation and these delegations can therefore represent a > large variety of social, economic, business, legal, technical and other > interests – as large and as wide as each country decides its delegation > will be. The responsibility for organising the WCIT rests with the ITU, > which is the oldest UN organisation (1865). > > The current media frenzy about the internet, and the false rumours that > the UN or any other organisation is going to take over its governance is > just that – a media beat-up. > > As in any international meeting, countries are welcome to bring their > plans, proposals, opinions and views to the conference and to take the > opportunity to present these to the international audience. However > proposals from the USA, or Russia, or China, or the European countries, or > the Arab countries are not automatically accepted simply because they are > presented at the conference. That is not the case in any international > conference – and certainly not at the WCIT, which has a reputation for > consensus-building. > > The media frenzy seems to be based on the incorrect assumption that any of > the proposals that have been circulated or rumoured could be, or even will > be, accepted. It is true that some of these proposals and rumours contain > elements that will be unacceptable to other members of the international > communities, and vested interests involved in the debate have used the > well-known FUD strategy (spread fear, uncertainty and doubt) to fuel the > media frenzy. > > On the positive side, the interest in WCIT has now moved well beyond the > traditional ICT industry. It has gained an enormous amount of attention and > has brought the internet governance issue to the notice of mainstream > society. This, of course, is a positive development and it also indicates > how important the internet has become for everybody, with non-technical > people starting to take a serious interest in its future. > > One of the problems of the internet has been that while it has been > growing into that wider context the governing bodies have not kept up with > the growth of these wider interests and concerns, and there is now a range > of social and economic issues, as well as the technical issues that need to > be addressed. In the current debate, however, all these issues have been > thrown into one pool. > > Like it or not, this debate has brought a large number of important issues > to the fore and they will need to be confronted. What the WCIT has to do > upfront is untangle the various issues and clearly separate them from each > other. The next step will then be to clearly define what can be solved on a > national level and what needs to be addressed internationally – and, if > there are issues that need international attention, who are the best > parties to address those issues. > > The most important issue at the WCIT will be how the international > community will manage the current debate so as to move towards a manageable > future. > > Most likely what this will mean is that the various international > stakeholders will have to create a (new) platform that can be used to > address these issues, and existing internet bodies such as ICANN, ISOC and > IGF, as well as the UN and some of its organisations such as the ITU and > others of course, will all need to be part of this. > > The internet is there for all. It is an enormous social and economic > enabler and should be used to advance our global society. It clearly has > the potential to do this and it is the responsibility of all involved to > make that happen. WCIT 12 has the enormous opportunity, as a representation > of global society, to play a leadership role in guiding the future of the > internet for the benefit of all. > > The new platform that should be the result of this needs to be truly > international, independent; and it needs to be well-funded, so that it can > properly address the issues at hand. > > It is, therefore, most unlikely that – apart from some of the purely > technical matters – any of the more contentious issues that are being > addressed in the press will be solved at WCIT. Nor should that be the case, > because WCIT is probably the wrong place to address these issues. > Nevertheless WCIT can be the catalyst and the facilitator to kick-start the > process. > > Paul Budde > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Tue Nov 20 14:47:31 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 21:47:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] 4G Tests Reveal Patchy Urban Coverage Message-ID: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20408514 It seems that the roll-out of 4G services in the UK has not been up to the expectations as the study shows that 40.2% of test locations have access to 4G services. Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Tue Nov 20 14:49:24 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 21:49:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN Net Address Endings to Face Government Objections Message-ID: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20407906 Kurt Pritz's resignations last week, and now this is sending the New gTLD program to unknown destinations. I wonder if common sense or lobbying by the big guns will prevail in the end. Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Nov 20 18:17:22 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 04:17:22 +0500 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website Message-ID: Just saw Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website https://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/ https://www.google.com/intl/fr/takeaction/ https://www.google.com/intl/es/takeaction/ https://www.google.com/intl/ar/takeaction/ https://www.google.com/intl/zh-CN/takeaction/ https://www.google.com/intl/pt-BR/takeaction/ https://www.google.com/intl/ru/takeaction/ (thanks to a colleague for sharing!) -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Nov 20 18:27:34 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 12:27:34 +1300 Subject: [governance] 4G Tests Reveal Patchy Urban Coverage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Fahd, Have you seen the latest IDI Report? Kind Regards, Sala On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20408514 > > It seems that the roll-out of 4G services in the UK has not been up to the > expectations as the study shows that 40.2% of test locations have access to > 4G services. > > Fahd > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 20 19:00:06 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 05:30:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] ICANN Net Address Endings to Face Government Objections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2DCCBF5B-3024-462C-9F65-E900DD8C1817@hserus.net> Sorry? GAC is part and parcel of the icann process. --srs (iPad) On 21-Nov-2012, at 1:19, "Fahd A. Batayneh" wrote: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20407906 > > Kurt Pritz's resignations last week, and now this is sending the New gTLD program to unknown destinations. I wonder if common sense or lobbying by the big guns will prevail in the end. > > Fahd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Wed Nov 21 00:50:26 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 07:50:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN Net Address Endings to Face Government Objections In-Reply-To: <2DCCBF5B-3024-462C-9F65-E900DD8C1817@hserus.net> References: <2DCCBF5B-3024-462C-9F65-E900DD8C1817@hserus.net> Message-ID: I would never disagree, but let us go back into history and specifically to the ICANN San Francisco meeting when .xxx was approved against the advise of the GAC. While the GAC made a statementpart of which was "THERE IS NO ACTIVE SUPPORT OF THE GAC FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF THE DOT XXX TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN", the board never listened. It was circulated that the board approved .xxx against the advise of the GAC to push the New gTLD program forward. Statistics state that 4 of the industry's biggest players have a say - in total - more than 80% of the New gTLD applications. If the GAC opposes to several applications for each, will they agree and give those applications easily? After all, they are the same players who invest heavily in setting up posh booths at ICANN meetings. So who will prevail, GAC advise or the big guns? In general, this is where ICANN has been failing; i.e. working in the best public interest. While some saw .xxx as yet another TLD, many rejected it for various reasons. Fahd On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 2:00 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Sorry? GAC is part and parcel of the icann process. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 21-Nov-2012, at 1:19, "Fahd A. Batayneh" > wrote: > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20407906 > > Kurt Pritz's resignations last week, and now this is sending the New gTLD > program to unknown destinations. I wonder if common sense or lobbying by > the big guns will prevail in the end. > > Fahd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 21 02:17:58 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:17:58 -0800 Subject: [governance] ICANN Net Address Endings to Face Government Objections In-Reply-To: References: <2DCCBF5B-3024-462C-9F65-E900DD8C1817@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20121121071758.GA25195@hserus.net> ICANN has a new CEO and a lot more determination to listen to all stakeholders since then Let us keep an open mind for now? Fahd A. Batayneh [21/11/12 07:50 +0200]: >I would never disagree, but let us go back into history and specifically to >the ICANN San Francisco meeting when .xxx was approved against the advise >of the GAC. While the GAC made a >statementpart >of which was "THERE IS NO ACTIVE SUPPORT OF THE GAC FOR THE >INTRODUCTION OF THE DOT XXX TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN", the board never listened. It >was circulated that the board approved .xxx against the advise of the GAC >to push the New gTLD program forward. > >Statistics state that 4 of the industry's biggest players have a say - in >total - more than 80% of the New gTLD applications. If the GAC opposes to >several applications for each, will they agree and give those applications >easily? After all, they are the same players who invest heavily in setting >up posh booths at ICANN meetings. > >So who will prevail, GAC advise or the big guns? > >In general, this is where ICANN has been failing; i.e. working in the best >public interest. While some saw .xxx as yet another TLD, many rejected it >for various reasons. > >Fahd > >On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 2:00 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >wrote: > >> Sorry? GAC is part and parcel of the icann process. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 21-Nov-2012, at 1:19, "Fahd A. Batayneh" >> wrote: >> >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20407906 >> >> Kurt Pritz's resignations last week, and now this is sending the New gTLD >> program to unknown destinations. I wonder if common sense or lobbying by >> the big guns will prevail in the end. >> >> Fahd >> >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 21 02:19:46 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 12:19:46 +0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Webcast Information for event Toward a New Generation of Development Goals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: UN Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:00 AM Subject: Webcast Information for event Toward a New Generation of Development Goals To: fouadbajwa at gmail.com Dear Colleagues, Please see the below reminder for the event "Toward a New Generation of Development Goals" organized by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung and Club de Madrid, and co-sponsored by the Ford Foundation and the UN-Missions of Mexico, Peru, and France, to take place this Monday, 26 November. The RSVP list for this event has now closed. We encourage you to participate online, and to spread the word amongst your networks. The event will be webcast live from 9:30am to 5:40 pm EST on http://www.worldwewant2015.org/ and http://webtv.un.org/. We encourage you to contribute comments and questions on Twitter using the hashtags #NewDevGoals and #post2015, on the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Facebook page, and on the World We Want web platform. We look forward to your participation! Best regards, UN ----------------------- Dear Colleagues, You are cordially invited to a day of informal discussions on the post-2015 development agenda organized by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung and Club de Madrid, and co-sponsored by the Ford Foundation and the UN-Missions of Mexico, Peru and France. "Toward a New Generation of Development Goals" Monday November 26, 2012, 9:30 am – 5:40 pm United Nations, New York, NLB Conference Room 1 The purpose of this day of informal discussions and question and answer sessions is to bring together key participants in the relevant stakeholder groups – in civil society, the UN system and among political decision-makers – to discuss what is needed in order to move toward a new generation of development goals. The day’s discussions will focus on what is needed to: 1) determine the guiding principles and values for a joint MDG/SDG agenda, 2) define the core concepts and main elements of a new development paradigm, and 3) ensure coherence in bringing the different processes together. The meeting will be open to all Member States, UN Secretariat and accredited members of civil society and the press. Confirmed speakers include: UN-DSG Jan Eliasson, former President of Peru Alejandro Toledo, members of the SG’s High-Level Panelists on post-2015—Patricia Espinosa, Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Betty Maina, CEO of Kenya’s Association of Manufacturers, and John Podesta, Chair of Center for American Progress—as well as Beyond 2015 Executive Board Co-Chair Mwangi Waituru and Executive Secretary of the SG’s High-Level Panel Homi Kharas. The programme for the day’s events is available here [http://www.fes-globalization.org/new_york/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Programme-NewGenerationDevelopmentGoals-final_11.16.pdf]. Best regards, UN -------------------- This email was sent to : fouadbajwa -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Wed Nov 21 02:24:47 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:24:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN Net Address Endings to Face Government Objections In-Reply-To: <20121121071758.GA25195@hserus.net> References: <2DCCBF5B-3024-462C-9F65-E900DD8C1817@hserus.net> <20121121071758.GA25195@hserus.net> Message-ID: Well, this is the good part though, and I hope it is as promising as it sounds. Fahd On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > ICANN has a new CEO and a lot more determination to listen to all > stakeholders since then > > Let us keep an open mind for now? > > Fahd A. Batayneh [21/11/12 07:50 +0200]: > >> I would never disagree, but let us go back into history and specifically >> to >> the ICANN San Francisco meeting when .xxx was approved against the advise >> of the GAC. While the GAC made a >> statement >> >part >> >> of which was "THERE IS NO ACTIVE SUPPORT OF THE GAC FOR THE >> INTRODUCTION OF THE DOT XXX TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN", the board never listened. >> It >> was circulated that the board approved .xxx against the advise of the GAC >> to push the New gTLD program forward. >> >> Statistics state that 4 of the industry's biggest players have a say - in >> total - more than 80% of the New gTLD applications. If the GAC opposes to >> several applications for each, will they agree and give those applications >> easily? After all, they are the same players who invest heavily in setting >> up posh booths at ICANN meetings. >> >> So who will prevail, GAC advise or the big guns? >> >> In general, this is where ICANN has been failing; i.e. working in the best >> public interest. While some saw .xxx as yet another TLD, many rejected it >> for various reasons. >> >> Fahd >> >> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 2:00 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> wrote: >> >> Sorry? GAC is part and parcel of the icann process. >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> On 21-Nov-2012, at 1:19, "Fahd A. Batayneh" >>> wrote: >>> >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/**technology-20407906 >>> >>> Kurt Pritz's resignations last week, and now this is sending the New gTLD >>> program to unknown destinations. I wonder if common sense or lobbying by >>> the big guns will prevail in the end. >>> >>> Fahd >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 21 02:45:17 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:45:17 -0800 Subject: [governance] ICANN Net Address Endings to Face Government Objections In-Reply-To: References: <2DCCBF5B-3024-462C-9F65-E900DD8C1817@hserus.net> <20121121071758.GA25195@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20121121074517.GA25408@hserus.net> Note - https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Early+Warnings Various objections filed by gac (thanks to kenny huang whose fb feed this appeared on) Among them is this very interesting statement from the African Union Commission, explicitly objecting to dotconnectafrica's .africa bid. https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/22938690/Africa-AUC-42560.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1353382039000 Hot off the presses, issued yesterday Now let me annoy gideon rop and friends by posting this on circleid, where they've been saying that dotconnectafrica getting .africa is my worst nightmare (actually no, my worst nightmare is after i watched the blair witch project) Fahd A. Batayneh [21/11/12 09:24 +0200]: >Well, this is the good part though, and I hope it is as promising as it >sounds. > >Fahd > >On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >wrote: > >> ICANN has a new CEO and a lot more determination to listen to all >> stakeholders since then >> >> Let us keep an open mind for now? >> >> Fahd A. Batayneh [21/11/12 07:50 +0200]: >> >>> I would never disagree, but let us go back into history and specifically >>> to >>> the ICANN San Francisco meeting when .xxx was approved against the advise >>> of the GAC. While the GAC made a >>> statement >>> >part >>> >>> of which was "THERE IS NO ACTIVE SUPPORT OF THE GAC FOR THE >>> INTRODUCTION OF THE DOT XXX TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN", the board never listened. >>> It >>> was circulated that the board approved .xxx against the advise of the GAC >>> to push the New gTLD program forward. >>> >>> Statistics state that 4 of the industry's biggest players have a say - in >>> total - more than 80% of the New gTLD applications. If the GAC opposes to >>> several applications for each, will they agree and give those applications >>> easily? After all, they are the same players who invest heavily in setting >>> up posh booths at ICANN meetings. >>> >>> So who will prevail, GAC advise or the big guns? >>> >>> In general, this is where ICANN has been failing; i.e. working in the best >>> public interest. While some saw .xxx as yet another TLD, many rejected it >>> for various reasons. >>> >>> Fahd >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 2:00 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >>> wrote: >>> >>> Sorry? GAC is part and parcel of the icann process. >>>> >>>> --srs (iPad) >>>> >>>> On 21-Nov-2012, at 1:19, "Fahd A. Batayneh" >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/**technology-20407906 >>>> >>>> Kurt Pritz's resignations last week, and now this is sending the New gTLD >>>> program to unknown destinations. I wonder if common sense or lobbying by >>>> the big guns will prevail in the end. >>>> >>>> Fahd >>>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 21 02:49:54 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 13:19:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50AC87A2.7050407@itforchange.net> From Google's sign-on campaign “A free and open world depends on a free and open Internet. Governments alone, working behind closed doors, should not direct its future. The billions of people around the globe who use the Internet should have a voice.” https://www.google.com/takeaction/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=112012freeandopen#make-your-voice-heard Dear Google; Yes, the world indeed needs an open Internet, for which reason it is rather awful to note that you, meaning, Google; 1) Sold the entire net neutrality campaign down the drain in the US, by first assuming its leadership and then entering into a self-serving agreement with Verizon, whereby the main means of accessing the Internet in the future - mobiles - are exempted from net neutrality provisions. 2) Have recently entered into exclusive arrangements with telecos to provide Gmail, Google + and Google Search for free in some developing countries (Philippines) , and as a special low cost package exclusively of a few Internet services (and not the full, public Internet) in others (India), which makes a mockery of an open and net neutral Internet. 3) Tweak your search results, which is increasingly the main way of accessing locations on the Internet, in non-transparent ways, with increasing evidence that this is done in a manner that merely serves your own commercial interests and goes against consumer/ public interest, and for which reasons Google is currently subject to regulatory investigations in the US and EU. ( There are hundreds of other outrages, big and small, including the fact that today I suddenly see my default browser getting set for "Chrome' when I prefer and have always used Mozilla Firefox and never asked for the change of default.) I cannot see anything other than effective regulation of the Internet to be able to check such excesses by Internet companies that are deeply compromising the openness of the Internet (sticking here to only to the subject of openness of the Internet, used in above appeal by Google). So, lets be honest, it is not about people versus ITU, not even, Google versus ITU, or even Google versus content regulation; it is Google versus any regulation of the Internet space so that Google, and similarly positioned dominant players, can have a free run over the economic, social and political resources of the world. It is very important to wage the needed struggles to keep Internet's content free from undue statist controls. But one needs to be careful about whom one chooses as partners, nay, leaders of the campaign. Remember, the lessons from the net neutrality campaign in the US which was sold cheap by those who assumed its leadership. Also, have no doubt whatsoever that ACTAs and PIPAs will come back in new forms, accommodating the interests of the big Internet companies that led the opposition in the first round. (Anyone wanting to take a bet on this! :) ) And. when the second round happens, since 'our leaders' would have crossed over, there wouldnt be much fight left to give. For sure, make opportunistic, tactical, alliances, but civil society needs to be careful not to abandon leadership of public interest causes to players who cannot but become turncoat and, well, betray, - sooner or later getting into bed with whoever is economically and politically powerful around to help their business prosper. Such is the structural logic of big business. Let them stick to what they do best - organise productive forces of the world. Leave public interest causes to public interest players - civil society and governments. However, if the sentiment is simply overflowing, maybe just donate some money to such causes, in an arms- lenght /hands-off approach vis a vis managing the precise activities involved. I simply dont fancy corporate-led 'public interest' campaigns. One was stuck by the number of Google organised panels at the Baku IGF, where they openly took part and gave their policy pitch. As a participant from Pakistan said at a workshop ' I find a Google representative at every panel that I am at'. Such brash presence at policy forums and taking strong policy positions by corporates is a relatively new game, and to my mind not a welcome thing for our democracies. I keep hoping that civil society would give this phenomenon a deeper thought and analysis, rather than just riding the bandwagon. parminder On Wednesday 21 November 2012 04:47 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Just saw Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website > > https://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/ > https://www.google.com/intl/fr/takeaction/ > https://www.google.com/intl/es/takeaction/ > https://www.google.com/intl/ar/takeaction/ > https://www.google.com/intl/zh-CN/takeaction/ > https://www.google.com/intl/pt-BR/takeaction/ > https://www.google.com/intl/ru/takeaction/ > > (thanks to a colleague for sharing!) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 21 02:50:43 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:50:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN Net Address Endings to Face Government Objections In-Reply-To: <20121121071758.GA25195@hserus.net> References: <2DCCBF5B-3024-462C-9F65-E900DD8C1817@hserus.net> <20121121071758.GA25195@hserus.net> Message-ID: <50AC87D3.7030701@gmail.com> perhaps this raises the paradox of participation... which can equally be a case for NON-participation in GAC than participation... If at first you don't succeed... try, and try again seems to be the mantra perish the thought that ICANN is not as even handed as its fan club would like to think...???? On 2012/11/21 09:17 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > ICANN has a new CEO and a lot more determination to listen to all > stakeholders since then > > Let us keep an open mind for now? > > Fahd A. Batayneh [21/11/12 07:50 +0200]: >> I would never disagree, but let us go back into history and >> specifically to >> the ICANN San Francisco meeting when .xxx was approved against the >> advise >> of the GAC. While the GAC made a >> statementpart >> of which was "THERE IS NO ACTIVE SUPPORT OF THE GAC FOR THE >> INTRODUCTION OF THE DOT XXX TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN", the board never >> listened. It >> was circulated that the board approved .xxx against the advise of the >> GAC >> to push the New gTLD program forward. >> >> Statistics state that 4 of the industry's biggest players have a say >> - in >> total - more than 80% of the New gTLD applications. If the GAC >> opposes to >> several applications for each, will they agree and give those >> applications >> easily? After all, they are the same players who invest heavily in >> setting >> up posh booths at ICANN meetings. >> >> So who will prevail, GAC advise or the big guns? >> >> In general, this is where ICANN has been failing; i.e. working in the >> best >> public interest. While some saw .xxx as yet another TLD, many >> rejected it >> for various reasons. >> >> Fahd >> >> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 2:00 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> wrote: >> >>> Sorry? GAC is part and parcel of the icann process. >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> On 21-Nov-2012, at 1:19, "Fahd A. Batayneh" >>> wrote: >>> >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20407906 >>> >>> Kurt Pritz's resignations last week, and now this is sending the New >>> gTLD >>> program to unknown destinations. I wonder if common sense or >>> lobbying by >>> the big guns will prevail in the end. >>> >>> Fahd >>> >>> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 21 02:54:21 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:54:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: <50AC87A2.7050407@itforchange.net> References: <50AC87A2.7050407@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50AC88AD.5070304@gmail.com> Are you crazy Parminder? Rule no. 1 The "free market" is always right Rule no. 2 If not, consult rule number 1. Rule no. 3 If you feel let down by rule no. 1 consult rule no. 2 Apologies if this seems self-referential... but that is how it IS On 2012/11/21 09:49 AM, parminder wrote: > > From Google's sign-on campaign > > “A free and open world depends on a free and open > Internet. Governments alone, working behind closed doors, > should not direct its future. The billions of people > around the globe who use the Internet should have a voice.” > > > https://www.google.com/takeaction/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=112012freeandopen#make-your-voice-heard > > > > Dear Google; Yes, the world indeed needs an open Internet, for which > reason it is rather awful to note that you, meaning, Google; > > 1) Sold the entire net neutrality campaign down the drain in the US, > by first assuming its leadership and then entering into a self-serving > agreement with Verizon, whereby the main means of accessing the > Internet in the future - mobiles - are exempted from net neutrality > provisions. > > 2) Have recently entered into exclusive arrangements with telecos to > provide Gmail, Google + and Google Search for free in some developing > countries (Philippines) , and as a special low cost package > exclusively of a few Internet services (and not the full, public > Internet) in others (India), which makes a mockery of an open and net > neutral Internet. > > 3) Tweak your search results, which is increasingly the main way of > accessing locations on the Internet, in non-transparent ways, with > increasing evidence that this is done in a manner that merely serves > your own commercial interests and goes against consumer/ public > interest, and for which reasons Google is currently subject to > regulatory investigations in the US and EU. > > ( There are hundreds of other outrages, big and small, including the > fact that today I suddenly see my default browser getting set for > "Chrome' when I prefer and have always used Mozilla Firefox and never > asked for the change of default.) > > I cannot see anything other than effective regulation of the Internet > to be able to check such excesses by Internet companies that are > deeply compromising the openness of the Internet (sticking here to > only to the subject of openness of the Internet, used in above appeal > by Google). > > So, lets be honest, it is not about people versus ITU, not even, > Google versus ITU, or even Google versus content regulation; it is > Google versus any regulation of the Internet space so that Google, and > similarly positioned dominant players, can have a free run over the > economic, social and political resources of the world. > > It is very important to wage the needed struggles to keep Internet's > content free from undue statist controls. But one needs to be careful > about whom one chooses as partners, nay, leaders of the campaign. > Remember, the lessons from the net neutrality campaign in the US which > was sold cheap by those who assumed its leadership. Also, have no > doubt whatsoever that ACTAs and PIPAs will come back in new forms, > accommodating the interests of the big Internet companies that led the > opposition in the first round. (Anyone wanting to take a bet on this! > :) ) And. when the second round happens, since 'our leaders' would > have crossed over, there wouldnt be much fight left to give. > > For sure, make opportunistic, tactical, alliances, but civil society > needs to be careful not to abandon leadership of public interest > causes to players who cannot but become turncoat and, well, betray, - > sooner or later getting into bed with whoever is economically and > politically powerful around to help their business prosper. Such is > the structural logic of big business. Let them stick to what they do > best - organise productive forces of the world. Leave public interest > causes to public interest players - civil society and governments. > However, if the sentiment is simply overflowing, maybe just donate > some money to such causes, in an arms- lenght /hands-off approach vis > a vis managing the precise activities involved. I simply dont fancy > corporate-led 'public interest' campaigns. > > One was stuck by the number of Google organised panels at the Baku > IGF, where they openly took part and gave their policy pitch. As a > participant from Pakistan said at a workshop ' I find a Google > representative at every panel that I am at'. Such brash presence at > policy forums and taking strong policy positions by corporates is a > relatively new game, and to my mind not a welcome thing for our > democracies. I keep hoping that civil society would give this > phenomenon a deeper thought and analysis, rather than just riding the > bandwagon. > > parminder > > On Wednesday 21 November 2012 04:47 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> Just saw Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website >> >> https://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/ >> https://www.google.com/intl/fr/takeaction/ >> https://www.google.com/intl/es/takeaction/ >> https://www.google.com/intl/ar/takeaction/ >> https://www.google.com/intl/zh-CN/takeaction/ >> https://www.google.com/intl/pt-BR/takeaction/ >> https://www.google.com/intl/ru/takeaction/ >> >> (thanks to a colleague for sharing!) >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 21 03:13:27 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:13:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Need for strategic planning (was Re: Why Cell Phones Went Dead...) In-Reply-To: <8D2927D4-3791-43AB-88CE-E0128D447275@hserus.net> References: <003101cdc4cb$ef4823e0$cdd86ba0$@gmail.com> <20121117143834.GA20556@hserus.net> <006e01cdc4d6$d2c58d60$7850a820$@gmail.com> <20121118232201.0a75edfb@quill.bollow.ch> <607BB6F4-349B-434C-930D-8CB1654CABD5@hserus.net> <20121119122816.38f8e27c@quill.bollow.ch> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DAEC5BF@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <20121120104247.15a3dd6e@quill.bollow.ch> <20121120123925.5178064d@quill.bollow.ch> <8D2927D4-3791-43AB-88CE-E0128D447275@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20121121091327.76ecf905@quill.bollow.ch> Suresh Ramasubramanian : > If you start off a conference with as vague and generic a goal as > "sustainable [x], [y] and [z]" and, what is much more important, no > action items for future work identified, little or no funding except > for the next conference at the next exotic venue, no permanent > staff / secretariat to keep the logistics moving .. what else do you > expect, other than more presentations? I's say that it's plausible to expect people to talk about what they're thinking and doing anyway (independently of the IGF), with specific emphasis on the aspects which are most related to the IGF theme. Now I have observed a near-total lack of engagement with the big-picture global-public-interest objective that constituted the official IGF theme. I interpret that as an indication of widespread (among the entire community of IGF participants) overall lack of strategic thinking on achieving the big-picture objectives that are clearly in the global public interest. 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 Nov 21 03:24:39 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 13:54:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: <50AC87A2.7050407@itforchange.net> References: <50AC87A2.7050407@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50AC8FC7.4080707@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 21 November 2012 01:19 PM, parminder wrote: > snip > Dear Google; Yes, the world indeed needs an open Internet, for which > reason it is rather awful to note that you, meaning, Google; > > 1) Sold the entire net neutrality campaign down the drain in the US, > by first assuming its leadership and then entering into a self-serving > agreement with Verizon, whereby the main means of accessing the > Internet in the future - mobiles - are exempted from net neutrality > provisions. > > 2) Have recently entered into exclusive arrangements with telecos to > provide Gmail, Google + and Google Search for free in some developing > countries (Philippines) , and as a special low cost package > exclusively of a few Internet services (and not the full, public > Internet) in others (India), which makes a mockery of an open and net > neutral Internet. BTW, is it a mere coincidence these new mobile based non-net-neutral services seem to have something to do with the betraying compromise that Google made that is mentioned in point 1 above? > > 3) Tweak your search results, which is increasingly the main way of > accessing locations on the Internet, in non-transparent ways, with > increasing evidence that this is done in a manner that merely serves > your own commercial interests and goes against consumer/ public > interest, and for which reasons Google is currently subject to > regulatory investigations in the US and EU. > > ( There are hundreds of other outrages, big and small, including the > fact that today I suddenly see my default browser getting set for > "Chrome' when I prefer and have always used Mozilla Firefox and never > asked for the change of default.) > > I cannot see anything other than effective regulation of the Internet > to be able to check such excesses by Internet companies that are > deeply compromising the openness of the Internet (sticking here to > only to the subject of openness of the Internet, used in above appeal > by Google). > > So, lets be honest, it is not about people versus ITU, not even, > Google versus ITU, or even Google versus content regulation; it is > Google versus any regulation of the Internet space so that Google, and > similarly positioned dominant players, can have a free run over the > economic, social and political resources of the world. > > It is very important to wage the needed struggles to keep Internet's > content free from undue statist controls. But one needs to be careful > about whom one chooses as partners, nay, leaders of the campaign. > Remember, the lessons from the net neutrality campaign in the US which > was sold cheap by those who assumed its leadership. Also, have no > doubt whatsoever that ACTAs and PIPAs will come back in new forms, > accommodating the interests of the big Internet companies that led the > opposition in the first round. (Anyone wanting to take a bet on this! > :) ) And. when the second round happens, since 'our leaders' would > have crossed over, there wouldnt be much fight left to give. > > For sure, make opportunistic, tactical, alliances, but civil society > needs to be careful not to abandon leadership of public interest > causes to players who cannot but become turncoat and, well, betray, - > sooner or later getting into bed with whoever is economically and > politically powerful around to help their business prosper. Such is > the structural logic of big business. Let them stick to what they do > best - organise productive forces of the world. Leave public interest > causes to public interest players - civil society and governments. > However, if the sentiment is simply overflowing, maybe just donate > some money to such causes, in an arms- lenght /hands-off approach vis > a vis managing the precise activities involved. I simply dont fancy > corporate-led 'public interest' campaigns. > > One was stuck by the number of Google organised panels at the Baku > IGF, where they openly took part and gave their policy pitch. As a > participant from Pakistan said at a workshop ' I find a Google > representative at every panel that I am at'. Such brash presence at > policy forums and taking strong policy positions by corporates is a > relatively new game, and to my mind not a welcome thing for our > democracies. I keep hoping that civil society would give this > phenomenon a deeper thought and analysis, rather than just riding the > bandwagon. > > parminder > > On Wednesday 21 November 2012 04:47 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> Just saw Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website >> >> https://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/ >> https://www.google.com/intl/fr/takeaction/ >> https://www.google.com/intl/es/takeaction/ >> https://www.google.com/intl/ar/takeaction/ >> https://www.google.com/intl/zh-CN/takeaction/ >> https://www.google.com/intl/pt-BR/takeaction/ >> https://www.google.com/intl/ru/takeaction/ >> >> (thanks to a colleague for sharing!) >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 21 03:37:58 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 00:37:58 -0800 Subject: [governance] ICANN Net Address Endings to Face Government Objections In-Reply-To: <50AC87D3.7030701@gmail.com> References: <2DCCBF5B-3024-462C-9F65-E900DD8C1817@hserus.net> <20121121071758.GA25195@hserus.net> <50AC87D3.7030701@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20121121083758.GA25733@hserus.net> Any stakeholder group is characterized by participation and non participation .. which groups participate, which groups are entirely unaware of it, which groups prefer to stay away and criticize it from outside .. Riaz K Tayob [21/11/12 09:50 +0200]: > >perhaps this raises the paradox of participation... which can equally >be a case for NON-participation in GAC than participation... > >If at first you don't succeed... try, and try again seems to be the mantra > >perish the thought that ICANN is not as even handed as its fan club >would like to think...???? > > > >On 2012/11/21 09:17 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>ICANN has a new CEO and a lot more determination to listen to all >>stakeholders since then >> >>Let us keep an open mind for now? >> >>Fahd A. Batayneh [21/11/12 07:50 +0200]: >>>I would never disagree, but let us go back into history and >>>specifically to >>>the ICANN San Francisco meeting when .xxx was approved against >>>the advise >>>of the GAC. While the GAC made a >>>statementpart >>>of which was "THERE IS NO ACTIVE SUPPORT OF THE GAC FOR THE >>>INTRODUCTION OF THE DOT XXX TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN", the board never >>>listened. It >>>was circulated that the board approved .xxx against the advise of >>>the GAC >>>to push the New gTLD program forward. >>> >>>Statistics state that 4 of the industry's biggest players have a >>>say - in >>>total - more than 80% of the New gTLD applications. If the GAC >>>opposes to >>>several applications for each, will they agree and give those >>>applications >>>easily? After all, they are the same players who invest heavily >>>in setting >>>up posh booths at ICANN meetings. >>> >>>So who will prevail, GAC advise or the big guns? >>> >>>In general, this is where ICANN has been failing; i.e. working in >>>the best >>>public interest. While some saw .xxx as yet another TLD, many >>>rejected it >>>for various reasons. >>> >>>Fahd >>> >>>On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 2:00 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >>>wrote: >>> >>>>Sorry? GAC is part and parcel of the icann process. >>>> >>>>--srs (iPad) >>>> >>>>On 21-Nov-2012, at 1:19, "Fahd A. Batayneh" >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20407906 >>>> >>>>Kurt Pritz's resignations last week, and now this is sending >>>>the New gTLD >>>>program to unknown destinations. I wonder if common sense or >>>>lobbying by >>>>the big guns will prevail in the end. >>>> >>>>Fahd >>>> >>>> >> > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 21 03:40:24 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 00:40:24 -0800 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: <50AC88AD.5070304@gmail.com> References: <50AC87A2.7050407@itforchange.net> <50AC88AD.5070304@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20121121084024.GB25733@hserus.net> I fail to see how google selling email, collaboration etc services to telcos has anything to do with the free and open internet here. Remember something - even if google sells something to the telcos, the users are the telco's users, and the law that's followed will be the law of whichever country those users are in, and the telco does business in. And as for asking whether parminder is crazy .. well, I will confess that I don't quite have to ask myself that question at all. Riaz K Tayob [21/11/12 09:54 +0200]: >Are you crazy Parminder? > >Rule no. 1 The "free market" is always right > >Rule no. 2 If not, consult rule number 1. > >Rule no. 3 If you feel let down by rule no. 1 consult rule no. 2 > >Apologies if this seems self-referential... but that is how it IS > > > >On 2012/11/21 09:49 AM, parminder wrote: >> >> From Google's sign-on campaign >> >> “A free and open world depends on a free and open >> Internet. Governments alone, working behind closed doors, >> should not direct its future. The billions of people >> around the globe who use the Internet should have a voice.” >> >> >> https://www.google.com/takeaction/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=112012freeandopen#make-your-voice-heard >> >> >> >>Dear Google; Yes, the world indeed needs an open Internet, for >>which reason it is rather awful to note that you, meaning, Google; >> >>1) Sold the entire net neutrality campaign down the drain in the >>US, by first assuming its leadership and then entering into a >>self-serving agreement with Verizon, whereby the main means of >>accessing the Internet in the future - mobiles - are exempted from >>net neutrality provisions. >> >>2) Have recently entered into exclusive arrangements with telecos >>to provide Gmail, Google + and Google Search for free in some >>developing countries (Philippines) , and as a special low cost >>package exclusively of a few Internet services (and not the full, >>public Internet) in others (India), which makes a mockery of an >>open and net neutral Internet. >> >>3) Tweak your search results, which is increasingly the main way of >>accessing locations on the Internet, in non-transparent ways, with >>increasing evidence that this is done in a manner that merely >>serves your own commercial interests and goes against consumer/ >>public interest, and for which reasons Google is currently subject >>to regulatory investigations in the US and EU. >> >>( There are hundreds of other outrages, big and small, including >>the fact that today I suddenly see my default browser getting set >>for "Chrome' when I prefer and have always used Mozilla Firefox and >>never asked for the change of default.) >> >>I cannot see anything other than effective regulation of the >>Internet to be able to check such excesses by Internet companies >>that are deeply compromising the openness of the Internet (sticking >>here to only to the subject of openness of the Internet, used in >>above appeal by Google). >> >>So, lets be honest, it is not about people versus ITU, not even, >>Google versus ITU, or even Google versus content regulation; it is >>Google versus any regulation of the Internet space so that Google, >>and similarly positioned dominant players, can have a free run over >>the economic, social and political resources of the world. >> >>It is very important to wage the needed struggles to keep >>Internet's content free from undue statist controls. But one needs >>to be careful about whom one chooses as partners, nay, leaders of >>the campaign. Remember, the lessons from the net neutrality >>campaign in the US which was sold cheap by those who assumed its >>leadership. Also, have no doubt whatsoever that ACTAs and PIPAs >>will come back in new forms, accommodating the interests of the big >>Internet companies that led the opposition in the first round. >>(Anyone wanting to take a bet on this! :) ) And. when the second >>round happens, since 'our leaders' would have crossed over, there >>wouldnt be much fight left to give. >> >>For sure, make opportunistic, tactical, alliances, but civil >>society needs to be careful not to abandon leadership of public >>interest causes to players who cannot but become turncoat and, >>well, betray, - sooner or later getting into bed with whoever is >>economically and politically powerful around to help their business >>prosper. Such is the structural logic of big business. Let them >>stick to what they do best - organise productive forces of the >>world. Leave public interest causes to public interest players - >>civil society and governments. However, if the sentiment is simply >>overflowing, maybe just donate some money to such causes, in an >>arms- lenght /hands-off approach vis a vis managing the precise >>activities involved. I simply dont fancy corporate-led 'public >>interest' campaigns. >> >>One was stuck by the number of Google organised panels at the Baku >>IGF, where they openly took part and gave their policy pitch. As a >>participant from Pakistan said at a workshop ' I find a Google >>representative at every panel that I am at'. Such brash presence at >>policy forums and taking strong policy positions by corporates is a >>relatively new game, and to my mind not a welcome thing for our >>democracies. I keep hoping that civil society would give this >>phenomenon a deeper thought and analysis, rather than just riding >>the bandwagon. >> >>parminder >> >>On Wednesday 21 November 2012 04:47 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>>Just saw Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website >>> >>>https://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/ >>>https://www.google.com/intl/fr/takeaction/ >>>https://www.google.com/intl/es/takeaction/ >>>https://www.google.com/intl/ar/takeaction/ >>>https://www.google.com/intl/zh-CN/takeaction/ >>>https://www.google.com/intl/pt-BR/takeaction/ >>>https://www.google.com/intl/ru/takeaction/ >>> >>>(thanks to a colleague for sharing!) >>> >> > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 21 03:42:33 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 00:42:33 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Need for strategic planning (was Re: Why Cell Phones Went Dead...) In-Reply-To: <20121121091327.76ecf905@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20121118232201.0a75edfb@quill.bollow.ch> <607BB6F4-349B-434C-930D-8CB1654CABD5@hserus.net> <20121119122816.38f8e27c@quill.bollow.ch> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DAEC5BF@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <20121120104247.15a3dd6e@quill.bollow.ch> <20121120123925.5178064d@quill.bollow.ch> <8D2927D4-3791-43AB-88CE-E0128D447275@hserus.net> <20121121091327.76ecf905@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20121121084233.GC25733@hserus.net> The trouble with big picture thinking is that it also requires coordinated strategy, funding to research and maintain the big picture, forge links with different stakeholders etc. If that's missing, it is simply about 20 more emails on this list spent discussing this issue. Norbert Bollow [21/11/12 09:13 +0100]: >Suresh Ramasubramanian : > >> If you start off a conference with as vague and generic a goal as >> "sustainable [x], [y] and [z]" and, what is much more important, no >> action items for future work identified, little or no funding except >> for the next conference at the next exotic venue, no permanent >> staff / secretariat to keep the logistics moving .. what else do you >> expect, other than more presentations? > >I's say that it's plausible to expect people to talk about what they're >thinking and doing anyway (independently of the IGF), with specific >emphasis on the aspects which are most related to the IGF theme. > >Now I have observed a near-total lack of engagement with the big-picture >global-public-interest objective that constituted the official IGF >theme. > >I interpret that as an indication of widespread (among the entire >community of IGF participants) overall lack of strategic thinking on >achieving the big-picture objectives that are clearly in the global >public interest. > >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 jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Nov 21 03:45:20 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 16:45:20 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Need for strategic planning (was Re: Why Cell Phones Went Dead...) In-Reply-To: <20121121091327.76ecf905@quill.bollow.ch> References: <003101cdc4cb$ef4823e0$cdd86ba0$@gmail.com> <20121117143834.GA20556@hserus.net> <006e01cdc4d6$d2c58d60$7850a820$@gmail.com> <20121118232201.0a75edfb@quill.bollow.ch> <607BB6F4-349B-434C-930D-8CB1654CABD5@hserus.net> <20121119122816.38f8e27c@quill.bollow.ch> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DAEC5BF@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <20121120104247.15a3dd6e@quill.bollow.ch> <20121120123925.5178064d@quill.bollow.ch> <8D2927D4-3791-43AB-88CE-E0128D447275@hserus.net> <20121121091327.76ecf905@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <50AC94A0.70607@ciroap.org> On 21/11/12 16:13, Norbert Bollow wrote: > I's say that it's plausible to expect people to talk about what they're > thinking and doing anyway (independently of the IGF), with specific > emphasis on the aspects which are most related to the IGF theme. > > Now I have observed a near-total lack of engagement with the big-picture > global-public-interest objective that constituted the official IGF > theme. > > I interpret that as an indication of widespread (among the entire > community of IGF participants) overall lack of strategic thinking on > achieving the big-picture objectives that are clearly in the global > public interest. Put another way, those who don't want the IGF (or the ITU, or some new body to operationalise enhanced cooperation) to be developing globally applicable public policy principles for the Internet, should not thereby deny the /need/ to develop such principles in certain areas, and the fact that it is not only possible to do so, but indeed it already happens (in ICANN, the Human Rights Council, etc). I would love for the technical community, in particular, to admit (as WGIG found 8 years ago) that there /are/ globally applicable public policy principles that need developing, besides those that they themselves do or could develop already. It is then only a short step to accepting that more appropriate multi-stakeholder structures and processes are needed to support the development of such policies in areas where institutional gaps exist. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* 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 *Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:* http://consint.info/RightsMission @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 21 03:47:14 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 00:47:14 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Need for strategic planning (was Re: Why Cell Phones Went Dead...) In-Reply-To: <50AC94A0.70607@ciroap.org> References: <20121118232201.0a75edfb@quill.bollow.ch> <607BB6F4-349B-434C-930D-8CB1654CABD5@hserus.net> <20121119122816.38f8e27c@quill.bollow.ch> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DAEC5BF@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <20121120104247.15a3dd6e@quill.bollow.ch> <20121120123925.5178064d@quill.bollow.ch> <8D2927D4-3791-43AB-88CE-E0128D447275@hserus.net> <20121121091327.76ecf905@quill.bollow.ch> <50AC94A0.70607@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20121121084714.GE25733@hserus.net> So Jeremy - I am sure these common grounds exist. The question is how to operationalize them. Jeremy Malcolm [21/11/12 16:45 +0800]: >On 21/11/12 16:13, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> I's say that it's plausible to expect people to talk about what they're >> thinking and doing anyway (independently of the IGF), with specific >> emphasis on the aspects which are most related to the IGF theme. >> >> Now I have observed a near-total lack of engagement with the big-picture >> global-public-interest objective that constituted the official IGF >> theme. >> >> I interpret that as an indication of widespread (among the entire >> community of IGF participants) overall lack of strategic thinking on >> achieving the big-picture objectives that are clearly in the global >> public interest. > >Put another way, those who don't want the IGF (or the ITU, or some new >body to operationalise enhanced cooperation) to be developing globally >applicable public policy principles for the Internet, should not thereby >deny the /need/ to develop such principles in certain areas, and the >fact that it is not only possible to do so, but indeed it already >happens (in ICANN, the Human Rights Council, etc). I would love for the >technical community, in particular, to admit (as WGIG found 8 years ago) >that there /are/ globally applicable public policy principles that need >developing, besides those that they themselves do or could develop >already. It is then only a short step to accepting that more >appropriate multi-stakeholder structures and processes are needed to >support the development of such policies in areas where institutional >gaps exist. > >-- > >*Dr Jeremy Malcolm >Senior Policy Officer >Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >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 > >*Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:* >http://consint.info/RightsMission > >@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | >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 nb at bollow.ch Wed Nov 21 04:12:35 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:12:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Need for strategic planning (was Re: Why Cell Phones Went Dead...) In-Reply-To: <20121121084233.GC25733@hserus.net> References: <20121118232201.0a75edfb@quill.bollow.ch> <607BB6F4-349B-434C-930D-8CB1654CABD5@hserus.net> <20121119122816.38f8e27c@quill.bollow.ch> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DAEC5BF@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <20121120104247.15a3dd6e@quill.bollow.ch> <20121120123925.5178064d@quill.bollow.ch> <8D2927D4-3791-43AB-88CE-E0128D447275@hserus.net> <20121121091327.76ecf905@quill.bollow.ch> <20121121084233.GC25733@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20121121101235.601eb3d1@quill.bollow.ch> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > The trouble with big picture thinking is that it also requires > coordinated strategy, funding to research and maintain the big > picture, forge links with different stakeholders etc. > > If that's missing, it is simply about 20 more emails on this list > spent discussing this issue. This sounds to me as if you'd want to discourage anyone who is not a well-established and well-funded organization from even trying to engage in a discourse on the operationalization of big picture objectives. Is this understanding of your words correct? I would assert that big picture thinking, with as much multistakeholder input as can reasonably be obtained, is necessary before it is possible to identify the key strategic objectives for achieving the big global public interest goals, and then build alliances around those objectives, and then coordinate strategy within those alliances (there's no point in trying to "coordinate strategy" with those who don't agree with your objective), and then request whatever funding is necessary to implement those strategies. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Nov 21 04:36:30 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:36:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: <20121121084024.GB25733@hserus.net> References: <50AC87A2.7050407@itforchange.net> <50AC88AD.5070304@gmail.com> <20121121084024.GB25733@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20121121103630.69164efa@quill.bollow.ch> Parminder wrote: > >>2) Have recently entered into exclusive arrangements with telecos > >>to provide Gmail, Google + and Google Search for free in some > >>developing countries (Philippines) , and as a special low cost > >>package exclusively of a few Internet services (and not the full, > >>public Internet) in others (India), which makes a mockery of an > >>open and net neutral Internet. Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I fail to see how google selling email, collaboration etc services to > telcos has anything to do with the free and open internet here. You may need to read up on the very significant body of literature that exists about the effects of this kind of partnerships. > And as for asking whether parminder is crazy .. well, I will confess > that I don't quite have to ask myself that question at all. Please let's refrain from any kind of ridicule and ad hominem attacks. Having a constructive discussion between people with very different viewpoints is challenging enough already in the absence of directing unpleasant, ridiculing words at anyone. Such ridicule is particularly problematic when it is used to attack someone who has a viewpoint that a large number of other participants find difficult to understand. 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed Nov 21 05:00:20 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 12:00:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN Net Address Endings to Face Government Objections In-Reply-To: <20121121083758.GA25733@hserus.net> References: <2DCCBF5B-3024-462C-9F65-E900DD8C1817@hserus.net> <20121121071758.GA25195@hserus.net> <50AC87D3.7030701@gmail.com> <20121121083758.GA25733@hserus.net> Message-ID: <50ACA634.50806@gmail.com> Ahh, but it suffices not to finish there there is the issue of legitimacy, not merely effectiveness... On 2012/11/21 10:37 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Any stakeholder group is characterized by participation and non > participation .. which groups participate, which groups are entirely > unaware of it, which groups prefer to stay away and criticize it from > outside .. > > Riaz K Tayob [21/11/12 09:50 +0200]: >> >> perhaps this raises the paradox of participation... which can equally >> be a case for NON-participation in GAC than participation... >> >> If at first you don't succeed... try, and try again seems to be the >> mantra >> >> perish the thought that ICANN is not as even handed as its fan club >> would like to think...???? >> >> >> >> On 2012/11/21 09:17 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> ICANN has a new CEO and a lot more determination to listen to all >>> stakeholders since then >>> >>> Let us keep an open mind for now? >>> >>> Fahd A. Batayneh [21/11/12 07:50 +0200]: >>>> I would never disagree, but let us go back into history and >>>> specifically to >>>> the ICANN San Francisco meeting when .xxx was approved against the >>>> advise >>>> of the GAC. While the GAC made a >>>> statementpart >>>> >>>> of which was "THERE IS NO ACTIVE SUPPORT OF THE GAC FOR THE >>>> INTRODUCTION OF THE DOT XXX TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN", the board never >>>> listened. It >>>> was circulated that the board approved .xxx against the advise of >>>> the GAC >>>> to push the New gTLD program forward. >>>> >>>> Statistics state that 4 of the industry's biggest players have a >>>> say - in >>>> total - more than 80% of the New gTLD applications. If the GAC >>>> opposes to >>>> several applications for each, will they agree and give those >>>> applications >>>> easily? After all, they are the same players who invest heavily in >>>> setting >>>> up posh booths at ICANN meetings. >>>> >>>> So who will prevail, GAC advise or the big guns? >>>> >>>> In general, this is where ICANN has been failing; i.e. working in >>>> the best >>>> public interest. While some saw .xxx as yet another TLD, many >>>> rejected it >>>> for various reasons. >>>> >>>> Fahd >>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 2:00 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sorry? GAC is part and parcel of the icann process. >>>>> >>>>> --srs (iPad) >>>>> >>>>> On 21-Nov-2012, at 1:19, "Fahd A. Batayneh" >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20407906 >>>>> >>>>> Kurt Pritz's resignations last week, and now this is sending the >>>>> New gTLD >>>>> program to unknown destinations. I wonder if common sense or >>>>> lobbying by >>>>> the big guns will prevail in the end. >>>>> >>>>> Fahd >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed Nov 21 05:01:50 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 12:01:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] Senate bill, quietly rewritten, allows feds to read e-mail without warrants In-Reply-To: <50ACA349.3070209@mail.ngo.za> References: <50ACA349.3070209@mail.ngo.za> Message-ID: <50ACA68E.4050602@gmail.com> *Senate bill, quietly rewritten, allows feds to read e-mail without warrants* 20 Nov 2012 A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans' e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law. CNET has learned that Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans' e-mail, is scheduled for next week. Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant . It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 21 05:08:04 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 02:08:04 -0800 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: <20121121103630.69164efa@quill.bollow.ch> References: <50AC87A2.7050407@itforchange.net> <50AC88AD.5070304@gmail.com> <20121121084024.GB25733@hserus.net> <20121121103630.69164efa@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20121121100804.GA26226@hserus.net> Norbert Bollow [21/11/12 10:36 +0100]: >> I fail to see how google selling email, collaboration etc services to >> telcos has anything to do with the free and open internet here. > >You may need to read up on the very significant body of literature that >exists about the effects of this kind of partnerships. I haven't seen significant papers in this area, but am glad to be corrected. I do come from a background where my workplace (and my previous workplace) have been large mail hosting shops that hosted mail for everything from small businesses, ngos and universities to ISPs and free webmail providers. So - please do tell me just what effect outsourcing your mail hosting has, from a governance standpoint. I might be able to provide a counterpoint or two. For the record, I've never worked for google, or outsourced any services to google that I know of. So maybe that's a gap in my knowledge of this issue. >Please let's refrain from any kind of ridicule and ad hominem attacks. > >Having a constructive discussion between people with very different >viewpoints is challenging enough already in the absence of directing >unpleasant, ridiculing words at anyone. Such ridicule is particularly >problematic when it is used to attack someone who has a viewpoint that >a large number of other participants find difficult to understand. See.. what I find difficult to understand is a persistent failure by it4change to do anything other than play politics. I am on a large mailing list that discusses internet issues in India - india-gii, run by Arun Mehta (who has an enviable track record in ICT access for the disabled, and in online privacy), and by Vickram Crishna (another name that might be familiar in a similar context). A few years back, we had it4change "participating" in india-gii solely to use it as a place to send their press releases, after which they'd absolutely not bother to join in any discussion on the list that followed. After a few requests to actually engage and participate rather than use the list as a sort of online notice board, we haven't seen them post any further press releases, but nor have we seen them participate there. So, right now, when Parminder posts his usual mix of politics and policy, I do rebut some of it. This last post was far too outré for me to do anything except agree with the other poster's question. srs -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 21 05:09:40 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 02:09:40 -0800 Subject: [governance] ICANN Net Address Endings to Face Government Objections In-Reply-To: <50ACA634.50806@gmail.com> References: <2DCCBF5B-3024-462C-9F65-E900DD8C1817@hserus.net> <20121121071758.GA25195@hserus.net> <50AC87D3.7030701@gmail.com> <20121121083758.GA25733@hserus.net> <50ACA634.50806@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20121121100940.GB26226@hserus.net> Riaz K Tayob [21/11/12 12:00 +0200]: >Ahh, but it suffices not to finish there > >there is the issue of legitimacy, not merely effectiveness... Do you have a viable alternative that is legitimate and multistakeholder? At least with icann you have a multistakeholder structure though there are some elements seriously wrong with ICANN as we can both agree. But for want of a better alternative, and given that the existing structure we have is easier to fix than to uproot and supplant .. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 21 05:13:19 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 02:13:19 -0800 Subject: [governance] Senate bill, quietly rewritten, allows feds to read e-mail without warrants In-Reply-To: <50ACA68E.4050602@gmail.com> References: <50ACA349.3070209@mail.ngo.za> <50ACA68E.4050602@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20121121101319.GC26226@hserus.net> Senator Leahy denies declan's interpretation .. http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/268929-leahy-denies-supporting-bill-to-allow-warrantless-email-searches And yes, I think Declan might have got his facts a bit mixed up. The ACLU seems to agree with this interpretation (that Sen. Leahy doesn't support this). The nearest wording available that matches what Declan posted about is actually proposed by Sen. Chuck Grassley, a republican. Riaz K Tayob [21/11/12 12:01 +0200]: > >*Senate bill, quietly rewritten, allows feds to read e-mail without >warrants* 20 >Nov 2012 > >A Senate proposal touted as >protecting Americans' e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, >giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess >under current law. CNET has learned that Patrick Leahy, the >influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, >has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law >enforcement concerns. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes >warrantless access >to Americans' >e-mail, is scheduled for >next week. Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies >-- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal >Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs >files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a >search warrant . >It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in >some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without >notifying either the owner or a judge. > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 21 05:18:11 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 02:18:11 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Need for strategic planning (was Re: Why Cell Phones Went Dead...) In-Reply-To: <20121121101235.601eb3d1@quill.bollow.ch> References: <607BB6F4-349B-434C-930D-8CB1654CABD5@hserus.net> <20121119122816.38f8e27c@quill.bollow.ch> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DAEC5BF@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <20121120104247.15a3dd6e@quill.bollow.ch> <20121120123925.5178064d@quill.bollow.ch> <8D2927D4-3791-43AB-88CE-E0128D447275@hserus.net> <20121121091327.76ecf905@quill.bollow.ch> <20121121084233.GC25733@hserus.net> <20121121101235.601eb3d1@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20121121101811.GD26226@hserus.net> Norbert Bollow [21/11/12 10:12 +0100]: >This sounds to me as if you'd want to discourage anyone who is not a >well-established and well-funded organization from even trying to >engage in a discourse on the operationalization of big picture >objectives. Let us put it this way. I don't have a penny of funding. My employer does not think a conference travel budget is in any way necessary for me to do my job. Yet you see me here, but not, say, in Baku. >Is this understanding of your words correct? Would you like to revise your understanding based on my statement above? :) For the record, no. If an organization or person engages in a discourse, they need to be sufficiently informed about it before they do so, if they intend the points they make to be taken seriously. >public interest goals, and then build alliances around those objectives, >and then coordinate strategy within those alliances (there's no point in >trying to "coordinate strategy" with those who don't agree with your >objective), and then request whatever funding is necessary to implement >those strategies. You'll find that it is a bit of a chicken and egg situation here. You need funding to identify goals, meet with lots of organizations, gain consensus etc. And most of what you achieve will be from people who have a common membership of multiple organizations. Sure you need to coordinate strategy even with those that may not agree 100% with you, it is called consensus building. srs -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 21 05:23:57 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 02:23:57 -0800 Subject: [governance] Senate bill, quietly rewritten, allows feds to read e-mail without warrants In-Reply-To: <20121121101319.GC26226@hserus.net> References: <50ACA349.3070209@mail.ngo.za> <50ACA68E.4050602@gmail.com> <20121121101319.GC26226@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20121121102357.GA26452@hserus.net> Followup article from declan .. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552687-38/leahy-scuttles-his-warrantless-e-mail-surveillance-bill/ Well, got to see what this is. Suresh Ramasubramanian [21/11/12 02:13 -0800]: >Senator Leahy denies declan's interpretation .. > >http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/268929-leahy-denies-supporting-bill-to-allow-warrantless-email-searches > >And yes, I think Declan might have got his facts a bit mixed up. > >The ACLU seems to agree with this interpretation (that Sen. Leahy doesn't >support this). The nearest wording available that matches what Declan >posted about is actually proposed by Sen. Chuck Grassley, a republican. > >Riaz K Tayob [21/11/12 12:01 +0200]: >> >>*Senate bill, quietly rewritten, allows feds to read e-mail without >>warrants* 20 >>Nov 2012 >> >>A Senate proposal touted as >>protecting Americans' e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, >>giving government agencies more surveillance power than they >>possess under current law. CNET has learned that Patrick Leahy, the >>influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, >>has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law >>enforcement concerns. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes >>warrantless access >>to Americans' >>e-mail, is scheduled for >>next week. Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies >>-- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal >>Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google >>Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages >>without a search warrant . >>It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in >>some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts >>without notifying either the owner or a judge. >> >> >> >> >> > >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your 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 Wed Nov 21 05:57:05 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 11:57:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] WCIT Russia References: <50ACA349.3070209@mail.ngo.za> <50ACA68E.4050602@gmail.com> <20121121101319.GC26226@hserus.net> <20121121102357.GA26452@hserus.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD631@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi WCIT friends, here are some excerpts from the proposal, table by the Russian Federation: Preamble: The additions to the ITRs proposed below are aimed at formulating an approach that views the Internet as a new global telecommunication infrastructure, and also as a part of the national telecommunication infrastructure of each Member State, and, accordingly, at ensuring that Internet numbering, naming, addressing and identification resources are considered an international resource. Article 2, Definitions Internet: An international conglomeration of interconnected telecommunication networks which provides for the interaction of connected information systems and their users, by carrying their traffic using a single system of numbering, naming, addressing, identification, protocols and procedures that is defined by Internet Standards. (IETF RFC 2418, taking into account the terms and definitions in the ITU Constitution and Convention and the WSIS (Geneva 2003 - Tunis 2005) outcome documents). Internet traffic: Traffic generated by interacting information systems connected to the telecommunication networks that constitute the Internet. Internet access: The ability to interact through the exchange of Internet traffic with any information systems connected to the telecommunication networks that constitute the Internet. Basic Internet infrastructure: Telecommunication facilities and information systems which are vitally important for ensuring integrity, reliable operation and security of the Internet. National Internet segment: Telecommunication networks or parts thereof which are located within the territory of the respective State and used to carry Internet traffic and/or provide Internet access. New Article 3?: Internet 3A.1 Internet governance shall be effected through the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. (§ 34 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, WSIS, Geneva 2003 - Tunis 2005). 3A.2 Member States shall have equal rights to manage the Internet, including in regard to the allotment, assignment and reclamation of Internet numbering, naming, addressing and identification resources and to support for the operation and development of basic Internet infrastructure. (§§ 38, 52 and 53 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, WSIS, Geneva 2003 - Tunis 2005). 3A.3 Member States shall have the sovereign right to establish and implement public policy, including international policy, on matters of Internet governance, and to regulate the national Internet segment, as well as the activities within their territory of operating agencies providing Internet access or carrying Internet traffic. (Preamble to the ITU Constitution and §§ 35a, 58, 64, 65, 68 and 69 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, WSIS, Geneva 2003 - Tunis 2005). 3A.4 Member States should endeavour to establish policies aimed at meeting public requirements with respect to Internet access and use, and at assisting, including through international cooperation, administrations and operating agencies in supporting the operation and development of the Internet. (Article 33 of the ITU Constitution and §§ 31, 37, 49 and 50 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, WSIS, Geneva 2003 - Tunis 2005). 3A.5 Member States should ensure that administrations and operating agencies cooperate in ensuring the integrity, reliable operation and security of the national Internet segment, direct relations for the carrying of Internet traffic and the basic Internet infrastructure. (Article 38 of the ITU Constitution, §§ 39-41, 44 and 45 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, WSIS, Geneva 2003 - Tunis 2005). See below a good example how the multistakeholder model does (doesn´t) work in Russia, published by the Economist. Internet censorship in Russia Lurk no more Nov 16th 2012, 18:26 by J.Y. | MOSCOW ON NOVEMBER 11th Russian internet-users began to notice that Lurkmore, a sometimes funny, often vulgar website with a cult following, was no longer accessible. Lurkmore > (pictured) is a user-generated encyclopedia, a Russian-language wiki Wikipedia focusing on obscure internet jokes and memes, or what its co-founder, Dmitry Homak, calls "the kind of stuff said by the characters on SouthPark". Although no one had officially told Mr Homak anything, it soon became clear that the site had fallen into the Russian government's "Single Register" of web content to be banned under a law passed by the Duma in June. The law > came into force on November 1st. It requires Roskomnadzor, the state's media monitoring agency, to maintain a list of content to be banned in three categories: child pornography, instructions or propaganda for drug use, and material promoting suicide. The law also allows for a site or page to be blocked in accordance with any court order: a vague, potentially wide-ranging clause that has given rise to worries over censorship, given the frequent politicisation of the Russian judicial system. The register itself is not public, but any user can check to see if a particular web page or site is blocked through a state-run portal > .. So far, more than 180 sites have been added to the list, the government says-though that number will surely grow, as various state agencies and local courts make their own additions, and internet users submit potentially offensive material. Lurkmore ended up on the list for its entry on "dudka," which means "penny whistle," or in its slang usage, a bong or some other pipe for smoking marijuana. For the first two weeks of November, few people paid attention to the implementation of the blacklist or which sites had ended up there. But the case of Lurkmore drew immediate attention on the Russian-language internet-itself a rapidly growing community of around 50m users, representing an online market that will soon overtake Germany's. However lowbrow its humour or marginal its popularity, Lurkmore was the kind of generally innocuous, admirably irreverent site whose troubles now seem a harbinger of online censorship to come. The lack of transparency in the blocking process raises further questions. As Irina Levova of the Russian Association for Electronic Communications notes, Lurkmore appears to have been blocked by IP address, a technique that has two obvious drawbacks: first, offending sites can simply change IP, as Lurkmore itself did, to avoid the ban; and two, such an approach risks blocking access to dozens if not hundreds of other, unrelated sites that may share the same IP. For Ms Levova, Lurkmore is "vivid example" of the many drawbacks of the new law. Both before and after its passage, Ms Levova and colleagues visited the Duma, the Ministry of Communication, and Vyacheslav Volodin, the chief of staff to President Vladimir Putin. They offered their technical advice, suggesting tweaks to the wording of the law and its implementation, so as to be less of a burden on internet companies and less of a disruption for users. "We were ready for dialogue," Ms Levova says, "but nobody listened to us." In the end, Ms Levova says, the suggestions of experts were "ignored" and the law came into force with little thought as to how it would be carried out. According to research > published by Andrei Soldatov and Irina Borogan, two experts on the Russian security services who have studied internet controls in Russia, the only way internet service providers (ISPs) can comply with the new law is through "deep packet inspection," or DPI. With DPI, ISPs can filter internet traffic into separate streams, making it easier to block particular services, such as Skype, or pages, such as a certain Facebook group. DPI provides the technical backbone for internet filtering and control in China and Iran, among other countries. Yet Mr Soldatov notes that two factors keep Russia from having a Chinese-style firewall-at least for now. The first is that the law does not block or criminalise the use of proxy browsers that mask what sites a user visits and keep browsing anonymous. But Russia may be headed in this direction: a September article > in Izvestia said the Duma will soon add amendments to the internet law banning such services, including the popular service Tor, which masks online activity. Second, Mr Soldatov says is that Russia has not outlawed the use of secure browsing protocols, https, used by Facebook, Gmail, and other sites with sensitive personal data. But he says that some ISPs have already been approached by Russian security agencies and told to prepare for such a possibility. All this is expensive and unwieldy. In a rush to pass the law and with little time or enthusiasm to listen to outside experts, the Duma did not allocate any additional funding or personnel for maintaining the internet blacklist. Deputies "thought it would work on its own somehow", says Ms Levova. For its part, Roskomnodzor is not particularly enthusiastic about having to update the register twice a day, a chore for which it received no new staff. Meanwhile, experts have put the cost for ISPs at implementing the new law at $10 billion. Their reason for resisting the law is more financial than political or moral. But relief may be coming: a Duma deputy from the pro-Kremlin United Russia party, Robert Schlegel, has suggested that the government will pick up their costs for installing and maintaining DPI. All of this has the IT industry in Moscow worried; it's hard to make business plans and raise investment when it's unclear how the internet will function in the coming months and years. Moves toward internet filtering send a contradictory signal at a time when the Russian government has made technological innovation an economic priority. As a manager in a Western technology company says, the new law makes the environment for foreign investment in the Russian technology sector "more tense and less transparent". Best wishes 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 pouzin at well.com Wed Nov 21 07:55:56 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 13:55:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: <50AC8FC7.4080707@itforchange.net> References: <50AC87A2.7050407@itforchange.net> <50AC8FC7.4080707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi all, Google is now champion for arrogance and disinformation. They believe they reached a State statute whereby they can dictate other States what they have to do. Actually this not so different from the US gov attitude. Google's dominance of the advertising market is in no way a guarantee of quality and neutrality. They just leverage their dominance for promoting their own business. And they conflate their particular interests with grand ideologies as free information for all. Let's assume that drugs are free for all. Then the web would be swamped with ads for drugs, seminars praising benefits of using drugs, training sessions for acquiring drug consumption art, testimonies from drug users telling how it changed their life for the good, mass campaign vilifying institutions or governments requesting drug control, and so on. Just because the drug maffia has enough resources for controlling a free market. And the saying is "the market is right". As expected, the simple association of information and drug will immediately raise fury. It's just taboo. Like associating Google interests with freedom of information. There was a time when the US gov would resist and break excessive and abusive dominance in certain market segments, like oil, bank, telecom. Now it's the opposite. Excessive market dominance is good for US world dominance, as long as the dominant firms are based in the US. Then where are check and balance mechanisms ? Let's not be fooled by Google stylish propaganda. The real issues in WCIT 2012 have nothing to do with internet censorship, and Google knows it too well. The issues are finding a more equitable balance between stakeholders interests and profits. Parminder's observations are entirely relevant. The most dangerous threats to information freedom are US lead secretly negotiated treaties by multi-national lobbies, SOPA, ACTA, etc. More are coming, still secret, basically a rehash of those that failed, TPP, CleanIT, .. watch out. Cheers, Louis - - - On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Wednesday 21 November 2012 01:19 PM, parminder wrote: > > snip > > > Dear Google; Yes, the world indeed needs an open Internet, for which > reason it is rather awful to note that you, meaning, Google; > > 1) Sold the entire net neutrality campaign down the drain in the US, by > first assuming its leadership and then entering into a self-serving > agreement with Verizon, whereby the main means of accessing the Internet in > the future - mobiles - are exempted from net neutrality provisions. > > 2) Have recently entered into exclusive arrangements with telecos to > provide Gmail, Google + and Google Search for free in some developing > countries (Philippines) , and as a special low cost package exclusively of > a few Internet services (and not the full, public Internet) in others > (India), which makes a mockery of an open and net neutral Internet. > > > BTW, is it a mere coincidence these new mobile based non-net-neutral > services seem to have something to do with the betraying compromise that > Google made that is mentioned in point 1 above? > > > 3) Tweak your search results, which is increasingly the main way of > accessing locations on the Internet, in non-transparent ways, with > increasing evidence that this is done in a manner that merely serves your > own commercial interests and goes against consumer/ public interest, and > for which reasons Google is currently subject to regulatory investigations > in the US and EU. > > ( There are hundreds of other outrages, big and small, including the fact > that today I suddenly see my default browser getting set for "Chrome' > when I prefer and have always used Mozilla Firefox and never asked for the change > of default.) > > I cannot see anything other than effective regulation of the Internet to > be able to check such excesses by Internet companies that are deeply > compromising the openness of the Internet (sticking here to only to the > subject of openness of the Internet, used in above appeal by Google). > > So, lets be honest, it is not about people versus ITU, not even, Google > versus ITU, or even Google versus content regulation; it is Google versus > any regulation of the Internet space so that Google, and similarly > positioned dominant players, can have a free run over the economic, social > and political resources of the world. > > It is very important to wage the needed struggles to keep Internet's > content free from undue statist controls. But one needs to be careful about > whom one chooses as partners, nay, leaders of the campaign. Remember, the > lessons from the net neutrality campaign in the US which was sold cheap by > those who assumed its leadership. Also, have no doubt whatsoever that ACTAs > and PIPAs will come back in new forms, accommodating the interests of the > big Internet companies that led the opposition in the first round. (Anyone > wanting to take a bet on this! :) ) And. when the second round happens, > since 'our leaders' would have crossed over, there wouldnt be much fight > left to give. > > For sure, make opportunistic, tactical, alliances, but civil society needs > to be careful not to abandon leadership of public interest causes to > players who cannot but become turncoat and, well, betray, - sooner or later > getting into bed with whoever is economically and politically powerful > around to help their business prosper. Such is the structural logic of big > business. Let them stick to what they do best - organise productive forces > of the world. Leave public interest causes to public interest players - > civil society and governments. However, if the sentiment is simply > overflowing, maybe just donate some money to such causes, in an arms- > lenght /hands-off approach vis a vis managing the precise activities > involved. I simply dont fancy corporate-led 'public interest' campaigns. > > One was stuck by the number of Google organised panels at the Baku IGF, > where they openly took part and gave their policy pitch. As a participant > from Pakistan said at a workshop ' I find a Google representative at every > panel that I am at'. Such brash presence at policy forums and taking strong > policy positions by corporates is a relatively new game, and to my mind not > a welcome thing for our democracies. I keep hoping that civil society would > give this phenomenon a deeper thought and analysis, rather than just riding > the bandwagon. > > 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 21 08:04:26 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 05:04:26 -0800 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: <50AC87A2.7050407@itforchange.net> <50AC8FC7.4080707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20121121130426.GA27537@hserus.net> Louis Pouzin (well) [21/11/12 13:55 +0100]: >Parminder's observations are entirely relevant. The most dangerous threats >to information freedom are US lead secretly negotiated treaties by >multi-national lobbies, SOPA, ACTA, etc. More are coming, still secret, >basically a rehash of those that failed, TPP, CleanIT, .. watch out. How, monsieur, is a secretly negotiated treaty where no other stakeholder group has the vote, supposed to supplant all these, and this presumed corporate backdoor secret handshake treaty everybody keeps hearing about? -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 21 09:25:30 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 19:55:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: <20121121084024.GB25733@hserus.net> References: <50AC87A2.7050407@itforchange.net> <50AC88AD.5070304@gmail.com> <20121121084024.GB25733@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Nov 21, 2012 2:10 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: > > I fail to see how google selling email, collaboration etc services to > telcos has anything to do with the free and open internet here. > > Remember something - even if google sells something to the telcos, the > users are the telco's users, and the law that's followed will be the law of > whichever country those users are in, and the telco does business in. > > And as for asking whether parminder is crazy .. well, I will confess that I > don't quite have to ask myself that question at all. That is too emphatic an assertion. I would not agree with the idea that Parminder is crazy. Parminder is sane, intelligent, calculative and his responses to any thing said or done for the good of the Internet is strategically constructed, sometimes incoherently, this again with a calculated purpose. It requires a person of Parminder's distorted intelligence to come with a response to something so good as Google's campaign to preserve the free and open Internet. His strategy: "Don't find fault with the ideas expressed in the Google campaign (because you can't). Find fault with Google (it is easier, and definitely distracts attention away from the arguments presented to the arguer, Google)". This is 'argumentum ad hominem' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Parminder is quite intelligent, but his liver, brain and heart are contaminated by a misplaced passion for the ITU. Sivasubramanian M. > > Riaz K Tayob [21/11/12 09:54 +0200]: > >> Are you crazy Parminder? >> >> Rule no. 1 The "free market" is always right >> >> Rule no. 2 If not, consult rule number 1. >> >> Rule no. 3 If you feel let down by rule no. 1 consult rule no. 2 >> >> Apologies if this seems self-referential... but that is how it IS >> >> >> >> On 2012/11/21 09:49 AM, parminder wrote: >>> >>> >>> From Google's sign-on campaign >>> >>> “A free and open world depends on a free and open >>> Internet. Governments alone, working behind closed doors, >>> should not direct its future. The billions of people >>> around the globe who use the Internet should have a voice.” >>> >>> >>> https://www.google.com/takeaction/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=112012freeandopen#make-your-voice-heard >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Google; Yes, the world indeed needs an open Internet, for which reason it is rather awful to note that you, meaning, Google; >>> >>> 1) Sold the entire net neutrality campaign down the drain in the US, by first assuming its leadership and then entering into a self-serving agreement with Verizon, whereby the main means of accessing the Internet in the future - mobiles - are exempted from net neutrality provisions. >>> >>> 2) Have recently entered into exclusive arrangements with telecos to provide Gmail, Google + and Google Search for free in some developing countries (Philippines) , and as a special low cost package exclusively of a few Internet services (and not the full, public Internet) in others (India), which makes a mockery of an open and net neutral Internet. >>> >>> 3) Tweak your search results, which is increasingly the main way of accessing locations on the Internet, in non-transparent ways, with increasing evidence that this is done in a manner that merely serves your own commercial interests and goes against consumer/ public interest, and for which reasons Google is currently subject to regulatory investigations in the US and EU. >>> >>> ( There are hundreds of other outrages, big and small, including the fact that today I suddenly see my default browser getting set for "Chrome' when I prefer and have always used Mozilla Firefox and never asked for the change of default.) >>> >>> I cannot see anything other than effective regulation of the Internet to be able to check such excesses by Internet companies that are deeply compromising the openness of the Internet (sticking here to only to the subject of openness of the Internet, used in above appeal by Google). >>> >>> So, lets be honest, it is not about people versus ITU, not even, Google versus ITU, or even Google versus content regulation; it is Google versus any regulation of the Internet space so that Google, and similarly positioned dominant players, can have a free run over the economic, social and political resources of the world. >>> >>> It is very important to wage the needed struggles to keep Internet's content free from undue statist controls. But one needs to be careful about whom one chooses as partners, nay, leaders of the campaign. Remember, the lessons from the net neutrality campaign in the US which was sold cheap by those who assumed its leadership. Also, have no doubt whatsoever that ACTAs and PIPAs will come back in new forms, accommodating the interests of the big Internet companies that led the opposition in the first round. (Anyone wanting to take a bet on this! :) ) And. when the second round happens, since 'our leaders' would have crossed over, there wouldnt be much fight left to give. >>> >>> For sure, make opportunistic, tactical, alliances, but civil society needs to be careful not to abandon leadership of public interest causes to players who cannot but become turncoat and, well, betray, - sooner or later getting into bed with whoever is economically and politically powerful around to help their business prosper. Such is the structural logic of big business. Let them stick to what they do best - organise productive forces of the world. Leave public interest causes to public interest players - civil society and governments. However, if the sentiment is simply overflowing, maybe just donate some money to such causes, in an arms- lenght /hands-off approach vis a vis managing the precise activities involved. I simply dont fancy corporate-led 'public interest' campaigns. >>> >>> One was stuck by the number of Google organised panels at the Baku IGF, where they openly took part and gave their policy pitch. As a participant from Pakistan said at a workshop ' I find a Google representative at every panel that I am at'. Such brash presence at policy forums and taking strong policy positions by corporates is a relatively new game, and to my mind not a welcome thing for our democracies. I keep hoping that civil society would give this phenomenon a deeper thought and analysis, rather than just riding the bandwagon. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> On Wednesday 21 November 2012 04:47 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>>> >>>> Just saw Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website >>>> >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/ >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/fr/takeaction/ >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/es/takeaction/ >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/ar/takeaction/ >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/zh-CN/takeaction/ >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/pt-BR/takeaction/ >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/ru/takeaction/ >>>> >>>> (thanks to a colleague for sharing!) >>>> >>> >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 21 09:28:35 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 06:28:35 -0800 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: <50AC87A2.7050407@itforchange.net> <50AC88AD.5070304@gmail.com> <20121121084024.GB25733@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20121121142835.GA28319@hserus.net> Sivasubramanian M [21/11/12 19:55 +0530]: >Parminder is quite intelligent, but his liver, brain and heart are >contaminated by a misplaced passion for the ITU. for a change, i agree with 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 andrea at digitalpolicy.it Wed Nov 21 10:06:50 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 16:06:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: <50AC87A2.7050407@itforchange.net> <50AC88AD.5070304@gmail.com> <20121121084024.GB25733@hserus.net> Message-ID: I do not often intervene in this mailing list, although I follow it with great attention. But I must say that independently from any substantive opinion one might have on Google, the ITU, WCIT or anything else, I find the tone of recent emails concerning the mental state and/or other personal characteristics of people extremely distasteful and very unhelpful to foster dialogue, which I thought was one of the main objectives of the the multi-stakeholder model. Civil society's main strength lies in its diversity. In my view such diversity should be nurtured. I never believed in fake notions of "consensus", nor am I shy to express my or the European Commission's disagreement when need be; but one can do so, even quite strongly, focusing on the substance rather than other elements. Best, Andrea On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > On Nov 21, 2012 2:10 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > wrote: > > > > I fail to see how google selling email, collaboration etc services to > > telcos has anything to do with the free and open internet here. > > > > Remember something - even if google sells something to the telcos, the > > users are the telco's users, and the law that's followed will be the law > of > > whichever country those users are in, and the telco does business in. > > > > And as for asking whether parminder is crazy .. well, I will confess > that I > > don't quite have to ask myself that question at all. > > That is too emphatic an assertion. I would not agree with the idea that > Parminder is crazy. Parminder is sane, intelligent, calculative and his > responses to any thing said or done for the good of the Internet is > strategically constructed, sometimes incoherently, this again with a > calculated purpose. > > It requires a person of Parminder's distorted intelligence to come with a > response to something so good as Google's campaign to preserve the free and > open Internet. > > His strategy: "Don't find fault with the ideas expressed in the Google > campaign (because you can't). Find fault with Google (it is easier, and > definitely distracts attention away from the arguments presented to the > arguer, Google)". This is 'argumentum ad hominem' > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem > > Parminder is quite intelligent, but his liver, brain and heart are > contaminated by a misplaced passion for the ITU. > > Sivasubramanian M. > > > > > Riaz K Tayob [21/11/12 09:54 +0200]: > > > >> Are you crazy Parminder? > >> > >> Rule no. 1 The "free market" is always right > >> > >> Rule no. 2 If not, consult rule number 1. > >> > >> Rule no. 3 If you feel let down by rule no. 1 consult rule no. 2 > >> > >> Apologies if this seems self-referential... but that is how it IS > >> > >> > >> > >> On 2012/11/21 09:49 AM, parminder wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> From Google's sign-on campaign > >>> > >>> “A free and open world depends on a free and open > >>> Internet. Governments alone, working behind closed doors, > >>> should not direct its future. The billions of people > >>> around the globe who use the Internet should have a voice.” > >>> > >>> > >>> > https://www.google.com/takeaction/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=112012freeandopen#make-your-voice-heard > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Dear Google; Yes, the world indeed needs an open Internet, for which > reason it is rather awful to note that you, meaning, Google; > >>> > >>> 1) Sold the entire net neutrality campaign down the drain in the US, > by first assuming its leadership and then entering into a self-serving > agreement with Verizon, whereby the main means of accessing the Internet in > the future - mobiles - are exempted from net neutrality provisions. > >>> > >>> 2) Have recently entered into exclusive arrangements with telecos to > provide Gmail, Google + and Google Search for free in some developing > countries (Philippines) , and as a special low cost package exclusively of > a few Internet services (and not the full, public Internet) in others > (India), which makes a mockery of an open and net neutral Internet. > >>> > >>> 3) Tweak your search results, which is increasingly the main way of > accessing locations on the Internet, in non-transparent ways, with > increasing evidence that this is done in a manner that merely serves your > own commercial interests and goes against consumer/ public interest, and > for which reasons Google is currently subject to regulatory investigations > in the US and EU. > >>> > >>> ( There are hundreds of other outrages, big and small, including the > fact that today I suddenly see my default browser getting set for "Chrome' > when I prefer and have always used Mozilla Firefox and never asked for the > change of default.) > >>> > >>> I cannot see anything other than effective regulation of the Internet > to be able to check such excesses by Internet companies that are deeply > compromising the openness of the Internet (sticking here to only to the > subject of openness of the Internet, used in above appeal by Google). > >>> > >>> So, lets be honest, it is not about people versus ITU, not even, > Google versus ITU, or even Google versus content regulation; it is Google > versus any regulation of the Internet space so that Google, and similarly > positioned dominant players, can have a free run over the economic, social > and political resources of the world. > >>> > >>> It is very important to wage the needed struggles to keep Internet's > content free from undue statist controls. But one needs to be careful about > whom one chooses as partners, nay, leaders of the campaign. Remember, the > lessons from the net neutrality campaign in the US which was sold cheap by > those who assumed its leadership. Also, have no doubt whatsoever that ACTAs > and PIPAs will come back in new forms, accommodating the interests of the > big Internet companies that led the opposition in the first round. (Anyone > wanting to take a bet on this! :) ) And. when the second round happens, > since 'our leaders' would have crossed over, there wouldnt be much fight > left to give. > >>> > >>> For sure, make opportunistic, tactical, alliances, but civil society > needs to be careful not to abandon leadership of public interest causes to > players who cannot but become turncoat and, well, betray, - sooner or later > getting into bed with whoever is economically and politically powerful > around to help their business prosper. Such is the structural logic of big > business. Let them stick to what they do best - organise productive forces > of the world. Leave public interest causes to public interest players - > civil society and governments. However, if the sentiment is simply > overflowing, maybe just donate some money to such causes, in an arms- > lenght /hands-off approach vis a vis managing the precise activities > involved. I simply dont fancy corporate-led 'public interest' campaigns. > >>> > >>> One was stuck by the number of Google organised panels at the Baku > IGF, where they openly took part and gave their policy pitch. As a > participant from Pakistan said at a workshop ' I find a Google > representative at every panel that I am at'. Such brash presence at policy > forums and taking strong policy positions by corporates is a relatively new > game, and to my mind not a welcome thing for our democracies. I keep hoping > that civil society would give this phenomenon a deeper thought and > analysis, rather than just riding the bandwagon. > >>> > >>> parminder > >>> > >>> On Wednesday 21 November 2012 04:47 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Just saw Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website > >>>> > >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/ > >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/fr/takeaction/ > >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/es/takeaction/ > >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/ar/takeaction/ > >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/zh-CN/takeaction/ > >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/pt-BR/takeaction/ > >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/ru/takeaction/ > >>>> > >>>> (thanks to a colleague for sharing!) > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Wed Nov 21 10:09:14 2012 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:09:14 +0300 Subject: [governance] Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change Request Made by DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa In-Reply-To: <2BCBD1E3-E4F4-4D67-9AEF-D3F63F841378@hserus.net> References: <20121107081316.GA28721@hserus.net> <20121108083558.GA22514@hserus.net> <2BCBD1E3-E4F4-4D67-9AEF-D3F63F841378@hserus.net> Message-ID: Today, the national governments that constitute ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) for the first time publicly voiced their concerns over specific new Top-Level Domain (TLD) applications in the form of Early Warnings. More than 240 individual GAC Early Warnings were issued in relation to 200 new TLD applications which account for 162 unique strings. DotConnectAfrica’s application for .africa received 17 Early Warnings. UniForum SA’s application for .africa received no Early Warnings. http://www.ariservices.com/blog/first-insights-from-the-gac-early-warnings-on-new-top-level-domains/ On 9 November 2012 02:43, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Volumes are definitely key. Especially to offset the rather high startup > costs of a new tld > > --srs (iPad) > > On 09-Nov-2012, at 1:31, "Fahd A. Batayneh" > wrote: > > From my discussions with a couple of TLD applicants, some have set > success-numbers such as "if I manage to secure xyz,000 registrations at the > cost of ab dollars per domain name, I have fulfilled my cause". That - as > you said - mainly comes from good marketing. > > Fahd > On Nov 8, 2012 11:36 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > wrote: > >> Success in terms of numbers? It depends on how much their marketing skills >> match their skills in high decibel politicking. Convincing companies with >> .eg, .ng, .za etc domains to get themselves .africa in addition / as a >> substitute may or may not be easy. They could certainly learn from >> .asia's >> experience I'd say. >> >> Fahd A. Batayneh [08/11/12 09:17 +0200]: >> >>> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >>> wrote: >>> >>> (snip) >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Even the TLD by itself has little or no relevance in the larger scheme >>>> of >>>> things, any more than say .museum has for museums the world over, or its >>>> geographic predecessor .asia has had for Asia (moderately, but not too >>>> popular) >>>> >>>> >>> I agree. In fact, around 1% of the domain names registered at a global >>> level originate from Africa (or at least have African addresses tied to >>> them). >>> >>> So this all boils down to how the folks at .africa define the success of >>> the TLD in terms of numbers. >>> >>> Fahd >>> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva For Business Development Transworld Computer Channels Cel: 0722402248 twitter.com/lordmwesh www.transworldAfrica.com | Fluent in computing kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Nov 21 10:22:27 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 13:22:27 -0200 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: <50AC87A2.7050407@itforchange.net> References: <50AC87A2.7050407@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50ACF1B3.1060606@cafonso.ca> Parm, good points, certainly, reviewing the "imperfections" of certain convenient positions by the big players. We should note that the telcos' juggernaut just wants a (large, of course) piece of the pie of the business held by the likes of Google. They are not worried about who coordinates IP and DNS worldwide (and they of course have sizable representation in the RIRs for what matters to them) -- it seems the only "enemies" of the current IP/DNS governance schema are a small bunch of governments. The telcos only want the same "freedom" to profit from packet traffic (and its embedded information) as the application/content providers do. If this means running mercilessly over net neutrality, responsibility of intermediaries and so on, well, so be it. So this is also a "fight of titans" open to all kinds of big money compromises which we ought to be aware of in defense of the principles we care for. In other words: treat certain big "allies" like you were stepping on (sometimes rotten) eggs. :) frt rgds --c.a. On 11/21/2012 05:49 AM, parminder wrote: > From Google's sign-on campaign > > “A free and open world depends on a free and open Internet. > Governments alone, working behind closed doors, should not > direct its future. The billions of people around the globe > who use the Internet should have a voice.” > > > > https://www.google.com/takeaction/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=112012freeandopen#make-your-voice-heard > > > > > Dear Google; Yes, the world indeed needs an open Internet, for which > reason it is rather awful to note that you, meaning, Google; > > 1) Sold the entire net neutrality campaign down the drain in the US, by > first assuming its leadership and then entering into a self-serving > agreement with Verizon, whereby the main means of accessing the Internet > in the future - mobiles - are exempted from net neutrality provisions. > > 2) Have recently entered into exclusive arrangements with telecos to > provide Gmail, Google + and Google Search for free in some developing > countries (Philippines) , and as a special low cost package exclusively > of a few Internet services (and not the full, public Internet) in others > (India), which makes a mockery of an open and net neutral Internet. > > 3) Tweak your search results, which is increasingly the main way of > accessing locations on the Internet, in non-transparent ways, with > increasing evidence that this is done in a manner that merely serves > your own commercial interests and goes against consumer/ public > interest, and for which reasons Google is currently subject to > regulatory investigations in the US and EU. > > ( There are hundreds of other outrages, big and small, including the > fact that today I suddenly see my default browser getting set for > "Chrome' when I prefer and have always used Mozilla Firefox and never > asked for the change of default.) > > I cannot see anything other than effective regulation of the Internet to > be able to check such excesses by Internet companies that are deeply > compromising the openness of the Internet (sticking here to only to the > subject of openness of the Internet, used in above appeal by Google). > > So, lets be honest, it is not about people versus ITU, not even, Google > versus ITU, or even Google versus content regulation; it is Google > versus any regulation of the Internet space so that Google, and > similarly positioned dominant players, can have a free run over the > economic, social and political resources of the world. > > It is very important to wage the needed struggles to keep Internet's > content free from undue statist controls. But one needs to be careful > about whom one chooses as partners, nay, leaders of the campaign. > Remember, the lessons from the net neutrality campaign in the US which > was sold cheap by those who assumed its leadership. Also, have no doubt > whatsoever that ACTAs and PIPAs will come back in new forms, > accommodating the interests of the big Internet companies that led the > opposition in the first round. (Anyone wanting to take a bet on this! :) > ) And. when the second round happens, since 'our leaders' would have > crossed over, there wouldnt be much fight left to give. > > For sure, make opportunistic, tactical, alliances, but civil society > needs to be careful not to abandon leadership of public interest causes > to players who cannot but become turncoat and, well, betray, - sooner or > later getting into bed with whoever is economically and politically > powerful around to help their business prosper. Such is the structural > logic of big business. Let them stick to what they do best - organise > productive forces of the world. Leave public interest causes to public > interest players - civil society and governments. However, if the > sentiment is simply overflowing, maybe just donate some money to such > causes, in an arms- lenght /hands-off approach vis a vis managing the > precise activities involved. I simply dont fancy corporate-led 'public > interest' campaigns. > > One was stuck by the number of Google organised panels at the Baku IGF, > where they openly took part and gave their policy pitch. As a > participant from Pakistan said at a workshop ' I find a Google > representative at every panel that I am at'. Such brash presence at > policy forums and taking strong policy positions by corporates is a > relatively new game, and to my mind not a welcome thing for our > democracies. I keep hoping that civil society would give this phenomenon > a deeper thought and analysis, rather than just riding the bandwagon. > > parminder > > On Wednesday 21 November 2012 04:47 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> Just saw Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website >> >> https://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/ >> https://www.google.com/intl/fr/takeaction/ >> https://www.google.com/intl/es/takeaction/ >> https://www.google.com/intl/ar/takeaction/ >> https://www.google.com/intl/zh-CN/takeaction/ >> https://www.google.com/intl/pt-BR/takeaction/ >> https://www.google.com/intl/ru/takeaction/ >> >> (thanks to a colleague for sharing!) >> > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 21 10:59:28 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 07:59:28 -0800 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: <50AC87A2.7050407@itforchange.net> <50AC88AD.5070304@gmail.com> <20121121084024.GB25733@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20121121155928.GA29738@hserus.net> I would not normally do it except that we have, so far, a tendency to engage in polemic and ad hominem rather than address something based on facts, which tends to provoke a like reaction. Andrea Glorioso [21/11/12 16:06 +0100]: >I do not often intervene in this mailing list, although I follow it with >great attention. > >But I must say that independently from any substantive opinion one might >have on Google, the ITU, WCIT or anything else, I find the tone of recent >emails concerning the mental state and/or other personal characteristics of >people extremely distasteful and very unhelpful to foster dialogue, which I >thought was one of the main objectives of the the multi-stakeholder model. > >Civil society's main strength lies in its diversity. In my view such >diversity should be nurtured. I never believed in fake notions of >"consensus", nor am I shy to express my or the European Commission's >disagreement when need be; but one can do so, even quite strongly, focusing >on the substance rather than other elements. > >Best, > >Andrea > >On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > >> On Nov 21, 2012 2:10 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" >> wrote: >> > >> > I fail to see how google selling email, collaboration etc services to >> > telcos has anything to do with the free and open internet here. >> > >> > Remember something - even if google sells something to the telcos, the >> > users are the telco's users, and the law that's followed will be the law >> of >> > whichever country those users are in, and the telco does business in. >> > >> > And as for asking whether parminder is crazy .. well, I will confess >> that I >> > don't quite have to ask myself that question at all. >> >> That is too emphatic an assertion. I would not agree with the idea that >> Parminder is crazy. Parminder is sane, intelligent, calculative and his >> responses to any thing said or done for the good of the Internet is >> strategically constructed, sometimes incoherently, this again with a >> calculated purpose. >> >> It requires a person of Parminder's distorted intelligence to come with a >> response to something so good as Google's campaign to preserve the free and >> open Internet. >> >> His strategy: "Don't find fault with the ideas expressed in the Google >> campaign (because you can't). Find fault with Google (it is easier, and >> definitely distracts attention away from the arguments presented to the >> arguer, Google)". This is 'argumentum ad hominem' >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem >> >> Parminder is quite intelligent, but his liver, brain and heart are >> contaminated by a misplaced passion for the ITU. >> >> Sivasubramanian M. >> >> > >> > Riaz K Tayob [21/11/12 09:54 +0200]: >> > >> >> Are you crazy Parminder? >> >> >> >> Rule no. 1 The "free market" is always right >> >> >> >> Rule no. 2 If not, consult rule number 1. >> >> >> >> Rule no. 3 If you feel let down by rule no. 1 consult rule no. 2 >> >> >> >> Apologies if this seems self-referential... but that is how it IS >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2012/11/21 09:49 AM, parminder wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> From Google's sign-on campaign >> >>> >> >>> “A free and open world depends on a free and open >> >>> Internet. Governments alone, working behind closed doors, >> >>> should not direct its future. The billions of people >> >>> around the globe who use the Internet should have a voice.” >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> https://www.google.com/takeaction/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=112012freeandopen#make-your-voice-heard >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Dear Google; Yes, the world indeed needs an open Internet, for which >> reason it is rather awful to note that you, meaning, Google; >> >>> >> >>> 1) Sold the entire net neutrality campaign down the drain in the US, >> by first assuming its leadership and then entering into a self-serving >> agreement with Verizon, whereby the main means of accessing the Internet in >> the future - mobiles - are exempted from net neutrality provisions. >> >>> >> >>> 2) Have recently entered into exclusive arrangements with telecos to >> provide Gmail, Google + and Google Search for free in some developing >> countries (Philippines) , and as a special low cost package exclusively of >> a few Internet services (and not the full, public Internet) in others >> (India), which makes a mockery of an open and net neutral Internet. >> >>> >> >>> 3) Tweak your search results, which is increasingly the main way of >> accessing locations on the Internet, in non-transparent ways, with >> increasing evidence that this is done in a manner that merely serves your >> own commercial interests and goes against consumer/ public interest, and >> for which reasons Google is currently subject to regulatory investigations >> in the US and EU. >> >>> >> >>> ( There are hundreds of other outrages, big and small, including the >> fact that today I suddenly see my default browser getting set for "Chrome' >> when I prefer and have always used Mozilla Firefox and never asked for the >> change of default.) >> >>> >> >>> I cannot see anything other than effective regulation of the Internet >> to be able to check such excesses by Internet companies that are deeply >> compromising the openness of the Internet (sticking here to only to the >> subject of openness of the Internet, used in above appeal by Google). >> >>> >> >>> So, lets be honest, it is not about people versus ITU, not even, >> Google versus ITU, or even Google versus content regulation; it is Google >> versus any regulation of the Internet space so that Google, and similarly >> positioned dominant players, can have a free run over the economic, social >> and political resources of the world. >> >>> >> >>> It is very important to wage the needed struggles to keep Internet's >> content free from undue statist controls. But one needs to be careful about >> whom one chooses as partners, nay, leaders of the campaign. Remember, the >> lessons from the net neutrality campaign in the US which was sold cheap by >> those who assumed its leadership. Also, have no doubt whatsoever that ACTAs >> and PIPAs will come back in new forms, accommodating the interests of the >> big Internet companies that led the opposition in the first round. (Anyone >> wanting to take a bet on this! :) ) And. when the second round happens, >> since 'our leaders' would have crossed over, there wouldnt be much fight >> left to give. >> >>> >> >>> For sure, make opportunistic, tactical, alliances, but civil society >> needs to be careful not to abandon leadership of public interest causes to >> players who cannot but become turncoat and, well, betray, - sooner or later >> getting into bed with whoever is economically and politically powerful >> around to help their business prosper. Such is the structural logic of big >> business. Let them stick to what they do best - organise productive forces >> of the world. Leave public interest causes to public interest players - >> civil society and governments. However, if the sentiment is simply >> overflowing, maybe just donate some money to such causes, in an arms- >> lenght /hands-off approach vis a vis managing the precise activities >> involved. I simply dont fancy corporate-led 'public interest' campaigns. >> >>> >> >>> One was stuck by the number of Google organised panels at the Baku >> IGF, where they openly took part and gave their policy pitch. As a >> participant from Pakistan said at a workshop ' I find a Google >> representative at every panel that I am at'. Such brash presence at policy >> forums and taking strong policy positions by corporates is a relatively new >> game, and to my mind not a welcome thing for our democracies. I keep hoping >> that civil society would give this phenomenon a deeper thought and >> analysis, rather than just riding the bandwagon. >> >>> >> >>> parminder >> >>> >> >>> On Wednesday 21 November 2012 04:47 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Just saw Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website >> >>>> >> >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/ >> >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/fr/takeaction/ >> >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/es/takeaction/ >> >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/ar/takeaction/ >> >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/zh-CN/takeaction/ >> >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/pt-BR/takeaction/ >> >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/ru/takeaction/ >> >>>> >> >>>> (thanks to a colleague for sharing!) >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Nov 21 11:12:18 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 21:42:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: <50AC87A2.7050407@itforchange.net> <50AC88AD.5070304@gmail.com> <20121121084024.GB25733@hserus.net> Message-ID: Dear Andrea Glorioso, I am sorry if I have contributed to your impression of a personal attack on this participant. I was rather trying to say that this participant was responding to Google's campaign with an attack on Google instead of on the argument. I was actually saying that this participant is NOT 'crazy', a term used by other participants, perhaps informally, lightly. Whatever I said on the participant's calculated purpose might not please be seen as a personal attack. However I wish I hadn't used the phrase 'distorted intelligence', but even this was said in light vain, a Smiley was missing. I often strongly disagree with this participant, but my responses have not been intended to be attack on the person, certainly not in a distasteful manner. However I will be careful to double check on the tone of on my exchanges with this participant in particular, as what is said here rather lightly does not seem to appear light in print. Thank you. Sivasubramanian M On Nov 21, 2012 8:37 PM, "Andrea Glorioso" wrote: > I do not often intervene in this mailing list, although I follow it with > great attention. > > But I must say that independently from any substantive opinion one might > have on Google, the ITU, WCIT or anything else, I find the tone of recent > emails concerning the mental state and/or other personal characteristics of > people extremely distasteful and very unhelpful to foster dialogue, which I > thought was one of the main objectives of the the multi-stakeholder model. > > Civil society's main strength lies in its diversity. In my view such > diversity should be nurtured. I never believed in fake notions of > "consensus", nor am I shy to express my or the European Commission's > disagreement when need be; but one can do so, even quite strongly, focusing > on the substance rather than other elements. > > Best, > > Andrea > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > >> On Nov 21, 2012 2:10 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" >> wrote: >> > >> > I fail to see how google selling email, collaboration etc services to >> > telcos has anything to do with the free and open internet here. >> > >> > Remember something - even if google sells something to the telcos, the >> > users are the telco's users, and the law that's followed will be the >> law of >> > whichever country those users are in, and the telco does business in. >> > >> > And as for asking whether parminder is crazy .. well, I will confess >> that I >> > don't quite have to ask myself that question at all. >> >> That is too emphatic an assertion. I would not agree with the idea that >> Parminder is crazy. Parminder is sane, intelligent, calculative and his >> responses to any thing said or done for the good of the Internet is >> strategically constructed, sometimes incoherently, this again with a >> calculated purpose. >> >> It requires a person of Parminder's distorted intelligence to come with a >> response to something so good as Google's campaign to preserve the free and >> open Internet. >> >> His strategy: "Don't find fault with the ideas expressed in the Google >> campaign (because you can't). Find fault with Google (it is easier, and >> definitely distracts attention away from the arguments presented to the >> arguer, Google)". This is 'argumentum ad hominem' >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem >> >> Parminder is quite intelligent, but his liver, brain and heart are >> contaminated by a misplaced passion for the ITU. >> >> Sivasubramanian M. >> >> > >> > Riaz K Tayob [21/11/12 09:54 +0200]: >> > >> >> Are you crazy Parminder? >> >> >> >> Rule no. 1 The "free market" is always right >> >> >> >> Rule no. 2 If not, consult rule number 1. >> >> >> >> Rule no. 3 If you feel let down by rule no. 1 consult rule no. 2 >> >> >> >> Apologies if this seems self-referential... but that is how it IS >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2012/11/21 09:49 AM, parminder wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> From Google's sign-on campaign >> >>> >> >>> “A free and open world depends on a free and open >> >>> Internet. Governments alone, working behind closed doors, >> >>> should not direct its future. The billions of people >> >>> around the globe who use the Internet should have a voice.” >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> https://www.google.com/takeaction/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=112012freeandopen#make-your-voice-heard >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Dear Google; Yes, the world indeed needs an open Internet, for which >> reason it is rather awful to note that you, meaning, Google; >> >>> >> >>> 1) Sold the entire net neutrality campaign down the drain in the US, >> by first assuming its leadership and then entering into a self-serving >> agreement with Verizon, whereby the main means of accessing the Internet in >> the future - mobiles - are exempted from net neutrality provisions. >> >>> >> >>> 2) Have recently entered into exclusive arrangements with telecos to >> provide Gmail, Google + and Google Search for free in some developing >> countries (Philippines) , and as a special low cost package exclusively of >> a few Internet services (and not the full, public Internet) in others >> (India), which makes a mockery of an open and net neutral Internet. >> >>> >> >>> 3) Tweak your search results, which is increasingly the main way of >> accessing locations on the Internet, in non-transparent ways, with >> increasing evidence that this is done in a manner that merely serves your >> own commercial interests and goes against consumer/ public interest, and >> for which reasons Google is currently subject to regulatory investigations >> in the US and EU. >> >>> >> >>> ( There are hundreds of other outrages, big and small, including the >> fact that today I suddenly see my default browser getting set for "Chrome' >> when I prefer and have always used Mozilla Firefox and never asked for the >> change of default.) >> >>> >> >>> I cannot see anything other than effective regulation of the Internet >> to be able to check such excesses by Internet companies that are deeply >> compromising the openness of the Internet (sticking here to only to the >> subject of openness of the Internet, used in above appeal by Google). >> >>> >> >>> So, lets be honest, it is not about people versus ITU, not even, >> Google versus ITU, or even Google versus content regulation; it is Google >> versus any regulation of the Internet space so that Google, and similarly >> positioned dominant players, can have a free run over the economic, social >> and political resources of the world. >> >>> >> >>> It is very important to wage the needed struggles to keep Internet's >> content free from undue statist controls. But one needs to be careful about >> whom one chooses as partners, nay, leaders of the campaign. Remember, the >> lessons from the net neutrality campaign in the US which was sold cheap by >> those who assumed its leadership. Also, have no doubt whatsoever that ACTAs >> and PIPAs will come back in new forms, accommodating the interests of the >> big Internet companies that led the opposition in the first round. (Anyone >> wanting to take a bet on this! :) ) And. when the second round happens, >> since 'our leaders' would have crossed over, there wouldnt be much fight >> left to give. >> >>> >> >>> For sure, make opportunistic, tactical, alliances, but civil society >> needs to be careful not to abandon leadership of public interest causes to >> players who cannot but become turncoat and, well, betray, - sooner or later >> getting into bed with whoever is economically and politically powerful >> around to help their business prosper. Such is the structural logic of big >> business. Let them stick to what they do best - organise productive forces >> of the world. Leave public interest causes to public interest players - >> civil society and governments. However, if the sentiment is simply >> overflowing, maybe just donate some money to such causes, in an arms- >> lenght /hands-off approach vis a vis managing the precise activities >> involved. I simply dont fancy corporate-led 'public interest' campaigns. >> >>> >> >>> One was stuck by the number of Google organised panels at the Baku >> IGF, where they openly took part and gave their policy pitch. As a >> participant from Pakistan said at a workshop ' I find a Google >> representative at every panel that I am at'. Such brash presence at policy >> forums and taking strong policy positions by corporates is a relatively new >> game, and to my mind not a welcome thing for our democracies. I keep hoping >> that civil society would give this phenomenon a deeper thought and >> analysis, rather than just riding the bandwagon. >> >>> >> >>> parminder >> >>> >> >>> On Wednesday 21 November 2012 04:47 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Just saw Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website >> >>>> >> >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/ >> >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/fr/takeaction/ >> >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/es/takeaction/ >> >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/ar/takeaction/ >> >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/zh-CN/takeaction/ >> >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/pt-BR/takeaction/ >> >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/ru/takeaction/ >> >>>> >> >>>> (thanks to a colleague for sharing!) >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 21 11:47:11 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 08:47:11 -0800 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: <50AC87A2.7050407@itforchange.net> <50AC88AD.5070304@gmail.com> <20121121084024.GB25733@hserus.net> Message-ID: <051901cdc807$dae2b7f0$90a827d0$@gmail.com> FWIW, it is probably good to point out that Riaz` original comments on Parminder`s post were meant ironically (and supportively. Which suggests Internet Communicativity Rule #2* Irony doesn`t translate well on the (multilingual/multicultural) Internet. *Internet Communicativity Rule #1, there are no Communicativity Rules on the Internet.Whatever you say in whatever language will always be misinterpreted by someone somewhere. :) (including this message, see rule #2. Best, M From: sama.digitalpolicy at gmail.com [mailto:sama.digitalpolicy at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Andrea Glorioso Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 7:07 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website I do not often intervene in this mailing list, although I follow it with great attention. But I must say that independently from any substantive opinion one might have on Google, the ITU, WCIT or anything else, I find the tone of recent emails concerning the mental state and/or other personal characteristics of people extremely distasteful and very unhelpful to foster dialogue, which I thought was one of the main objectives of the the multi-stakeholder model. Civil society's main strength lies in its diversity. In my view such diversity should be nurtured. I never believed in fake notions of "consensus", nor am I shy to express my or the European Commission's disagreement when need be; but one can do so, even quite strongly, focusing on the substance rather than other elements. Best, Andrea On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: On Nov 21, 2012 2:10 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: > > I fail to see how google selling email, collaboration etc services to > telcos has anything to do with the free and open internet here. > > Remember something - even if google sells something to the telcos, the > users are the telco's users, and the law that's followed will be the law of > whichever country those users are in, and the telco does business in. > > And as for asking whether parminder is crazy .. well, I will confess that I > don't quite have to ask myself that question at all. That is too emphatic an assertion. I would not agree with the idea that Parminder is crazy. Parminder is sane, intelligent, calculative and his responses to any thing said or done for the good of the Internet is strategically constructed, sometimes incoherently, this again with a calculated purpose. It requires a person of Parminder's distorted intelligence to come with a response to something so good as Google's campaign to preserve the free and open Internet. His strategy: "Don't find fault with the ideas expressed in the Google campaign (because you can't). Find fault with Google (it is easier, and definitely distracts attention away from the arguments presented to the arguer, Google)". This is 'argumentum ad hominem' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Parminder is quite intelligent, but his liver, brain and heart are contaminated by a misplaced passion for the ITU. Sivasubramanian M. > > Riaz K Tayob [21/11/12 09:54 +0200]: > >> Are you crazy Parminder? >> >> Rule no. 1 The "free market" is always right >> >> Rule no. 2 If not, consult rule number 1. >> >> Rule no. 3 If you feel let down by rule no. 1 consult rule no. 2 >> >> Apologies if this seems self-referential... but that is how it IS >> >> >> >> On 2012/11/21 09:49 AM, parminder wrote: >>> >>> >>> From Google's sign-on campaign >>> >>> "A free and open world depends on a free and open >>> Internet. Governments alone, working behind closed doors, >>> should not direct its future. The billions of people >>> around the globe who use the Internet should have a voice." >>> >>> >>> https://www.google.com/takeaction/?utm_source=google &utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=112012freeandopen#make-your-voice-heard >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Google; Yes, the world indeed needs an open Internet, for which reason it is rather awful to note that you, meaning, Google; >>> >>> 1) Sold the entire net neutrality campaign down the drain in the US, by first assuming its leadership and then entering into a self-serving agreement with Verizon, whereby the main means of accessing the Internet in the future - mobiles - are exempted from net neutrality provisions. >>> >>> 2) Have recently entered into exclusive arrangements with telecos to provide Gmail, Google + and Google Search for free in some developing countries (Philippines) , and as a special low cost package exclusively of a few Internet services (and not the full, public Internet) in others (India), which makes a mockery of an open and net neutral Internet. >>> >>> 3) Tweak your search results, which is increasingly the main way of accessing locations on the Internet, in non-transparent ways, with increasing evidence that this is done in a manner that merely serves your own commercial interests and goes against consumer/ public interest, and for which reasons Google is currently subject to regulatory investigations in the US and EU. >>> >>> ( There are hundreds of other outrages, big and small, including the fact that today I suddenly see my default browser getting set for "Chrome' when I prefer and have always used Mozilla Firefox and never asked for the change of default.) >>> >>> I cannot see anything other than effective regulation of the Internet to be able to check such excesses by Internet companies that are deeply compromising the openness of the Internet (sticking here to only to the subject of openness of the Internet, used in above appeal by Google). >>> >>> So, lets be honest, it is not about people versus ITU, not even, Google versus ITU, or even Google versus content regulation; it is Google versus any regulation of the Internet space so that Google, and similarly positioned dominant players, can have a free run over the economic, social and political resources of the world. >>> >>> It is very important to wage the needed struggles to keep Internet's content free from undue statist controls. But one needs to be careful about whom one chooses as partners, nay, leaders of the campaign. Remember, the lessons from the net neutrality campaign in the US which was sold cheap by those who assumed its leadership. Also, have no doubt whatsoever that ACTAs and PIPAs will come back in new forms, accommodating the interests of the big Internet companies that led the opposition in the first round. (Anyone wanting to take a bet on this! :) ) And. when the second round happens, since 'our leaders' would have crossed over, there wouldnt be much fight left to give. >>> >>> For sure, make opportunistic, tactical, alliances, but civil society needs to be careful not to abandon leadership of public interest causes to players who cannot but become turncoat and, well, betray, - sooner or later getting into bed with whoever is economically and politically powerful around to help their business prosper. Such is the structural logic of big business. Let them stick to what they do best - organise productive forces of the world. Leave public interest causes to public interest players - civil society and governments. However, if the sentiment is simply overflowing, maybe just donate some money to such causes, in an arms- lenght /hands-off approach vis a vis managing the precise activities involved. I simply dont fancy corporate-led 'public interest' campaigns. >>> >>> One was stuck by the number of Google organised panels at the Baku IGF, where they openly took part and gave their policy pitch. As a participant from Pakistan said at a workshop ' I find a Google representative at every panel that I am at'. Such brash presence at policy forums and taking strong policy positions by corporates is a relatively new game, and to my mind not a welcome thing for our democracies. I keep hoping that civil society would give this phenomenon a deeper thought and analysis, rather than just riding the bandwagon. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> On Wednesday 21 November 2012 04:47 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>>> >>>> Just saw Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website >>>> >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/ >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/fr/takeaction/ >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/es/takeaction/ >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/ar/takeaction/ >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/zh-CN/takeaction/ >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/pt-BR/takeaction/ >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/ru/takeaction/ >>>> >>>> (thanks to a colleague for sharing!) >>>> >>> >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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 eiriarte at alfa-redi.org Wed Nov 21 12:14:56 2012 From: eiriarte at alfa-redi.org (Erick Iriarte Ahon) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 12:14:56 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [derecho-informatico] Gobiernos presentan lista temprana de oposiciones a newgtlds - ver .amazon y patagonia References: Message-ID: Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > De: Erick Iriarte Ahon > Fecha: 21 de noviembre de 2012 10:14:51 GMT-05:00 > Para: ciberderecho at gruposyahoo.com.ar > Asunto: Fwd: [derecho-informatico] Gobiernos presentan lista temprana de oposiciones a newgtlds - ver .amazon y patagonia > > FYI > > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > >> De: "Erick Iriarte Ahon" >> Fecha: 21 de noviembre de 2012 07:34:47 GMT-05:00 >> Para: "Foro de Derecho Informático." >> Cc: "Foro de Derecho Informático." , "Peru Digital: Espacio de Dialogo para un Peru Digital" >> Asunto: [derecho-informatico] Gobiernos presentan lista temprana de oposiciones a newgtlds - ver .amazon y patagonia >> Responder a: "Foro de Derecho Informático." >> >> >> El listado completo de las oposiciones de miembros del GAC: >> https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Early+Warnings >> >> En la region se han presentado tres oposiciones contra dos extensiones nuevas: >> >> Escrito de Peru y Brazil contra el .amazon: >> https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/22938690/Amazon-BR-PE-58086.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1353452622000 >> >> Escrito de Argentina contra el .patagonia: >> https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/22938690/Patagonia-AR-78254.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1353465809069 >> >> Escrto de Chile contra el .patagonia: >> https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/22938690/Patagonia-Chile-78254.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1353451977000 >> >> Saludos >> >> Erick >> >> >> __________ >> You are receiving this message because you're a member of the community Foro de Derecho Informático.. >> >> A reply to this message will be sent to all members of Foro de Derecho Informático.. >> To reply to sender, send a message to eiriarte at alfa-redi.org. >> To unsubscribe, send an email to leave.derecho-informatico at dgroups.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Nov 21 12:11:23 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 06:11:23 +1300 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: <50AC87A2.7050407@itforchange.net> <50AC88AD.5070304@gmail.com> <20121121084024.GB25733@hserus.net> Message-ID: > Parminder is quite intelligent, but his liver, brain and heart are > contaminated by a misplaced passion for the ITU. > > Sivasubramanian M. > > Siva, it is a practice for those subscribed to the IGC to conduct the > debates and dialogue around the issues and not on personalised attacks. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 21 12:17:38 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:17:38 -0800 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: <50AC87A2.7050407@itforchange.net> <50AC88AD.5070304@gmail.com> <20121121084024.GB25733@hserus.net> Message-ID: Sala, On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > Parminder is quite intelligent, but his liver, brain and heart are >> contaminated by a misplaced passion for the ITU. >> >> Sivasubramanian M. >> >> Siva, it is a practice for those subscribed to the IGC to conduct the >> debates and dialogue around the issues and not on personalised attacks. >> > You arrived late to the game. In fact, there was a lot of mud-slinging in the early to middle years of this list (not that I am encouraging same mind you). ;-) -- 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 eiriarte at alfa-redi.org Wed Nov 21 12:36:03 2012 From: eiriarte at alfa-redi.org (Erick Iriarte Ahon) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 12:36:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fwd=3A_=5Bderecho-informatico=5D_Gobi?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ernos_de_Per=FA_y_Brasil_rechazan_registro_del_TLD_=27=2Ea?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?mazon=27_por_parte_de_la_compa=F1=EDa_Amazon?= References: <003a01cdc80b$c600d070$52027150$@iriartelaw.com> Message-ID: <78BC5A4C-8966-4663-8785-0BDB90CD7925@alfa-redi.org> Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > De: "avasquez at iriartelaw.com" > Fecha: 21 de noviembre de 2012 12:15:51 GMT-05:00 > Para: "Foro de Derecho Informático." > Asunto: [derecho-informatico] Gobiernos de Perú y Brasil rechazan registro del TLD '.amazon' por parte de la compañía Amazon > Responder a: "Foro de Derecho Informático." > > Versión online en http://www.iriartelaw.com/rechazo-peru-brasil-tld-amazon > > > Buscando salvaguardar los intereses de la región amazónica > > Gobiernos de Perú y Brasil rechazan registro del TLD ‘.amazon’ por parte de la compañía Amazon > > La concesión de derechos exclusivos del TLD ‘.amazon’ a la compañía estadounidense de comercio electrónico, Amazon.com, “impide el uso de este dominio para fines de interés público relacionados con la protección, promoción y sensibilización en temas relacionados con el bioma amazónico”, asegura el GAC en un documento compartido con la opinión pública el pasado 20 de noviembre. > > La alerta también denota la preocupación de esta entidad ante la posibilidad del uso comercial de este dominio ya que el mismo coincide con parte del nombre, en Inglés, del "Tratado de Cooperación Amazónica"; una organización internacional que coordina iniciativas en el marco del Tratado de Cooperación Amazónica, el cual fue firmado en julio de 1978 por Bolivia, Brasil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Perú, Surinam y Venezuela. > > Debido a que la región amazónica constituye una parte importante del territorio de los mencionados países y a su valor como maravilla natural del mundo, los gobiernos de Perú y Brasil –apoyados por los otros países pertenecientes a la Amazonía- rechazan el registro del TLD ‘.amazon’ para fines alejados al su original acepción en inglés o castellano. > > Si usted tiene preguntas o necesita alguna aclaración sobre el GAC Early Warning, ICANN le recomienda enviar su alerta temprana al correo gacearlywarning at gac.icann.org. > > Lee el documento original aquí y el listado completo de las oposiciones de los miembros del GAC en este enlace. > > -- > Angela Vásquez Oliver > Responsable de Comunicaciones y Coordinadora de I+D+i > Iriarte & Asociados > Dirección: Miró Quesada 191, of. 510, Lima 01, Perú > Telefax: (+511) 4270383 > > Please, before printing think of our environment, a leaf can make a difference in a forest. > Por favor, antes de imprimir piense en nuestro medio ambiente. Una hoja puede hacer la diferencia en un bosque. > > Statement of Confidentiality > > The contents of this e-mail message and its attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) hereof. In addition, this e-mail transmission may be confidential and it may be subject to privilege protecting communications between attorneys or solicitors and their clients. If you are not the named addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are directed not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this e-mail. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive privilege or confidentiality. If you have received this transmission in error, please alert the sender by reply e-mail; we also request that you immediately delete this message and its attachments, if any. > > Declaracion de Confidencialidad > > El contenido de este mensaje de correo electronico y de sus archivos adjuntos esta(n) dirigido(s) exclusivamente a el(los) destinatario(s) del mismo. Adicionalmente, este mensaje y su contenido pueden ser privilegiados y estar cubiertos por la reserva profesional entre abogado y cliente. Si usted no es el destinatario indicado, o si este mensaje le ha sido enviado por error, queda advertido en el sentido de no leer, divulgar, reproducir, distribuir, diseminar o utilizar este mensaje en forma alguna. La entrega de este mensaje a cualquier persona diferente del(de los) destinatario(s) a quien(es) se ha dirigido no constituye una renuncia de privilegios o confidencialidad. > Si usted recibe este mensaje por error, por favor advierta al remitente mediante correo de respuesta; adicionalmente le solicitamos que inmediatamente proceda a suprimir este mensaje y sus archivos adjuntos, si los hubiere. > > You are receiving this message because you are a member of the community Foro de Derecho Informático.. > > A reply to this message will be sent to all members of Foro de Derecho Informático.. > > Reply to sender | 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 Guru at ITforChange.net Wed Nov 21 12:21:52 2012 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 22:51:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: <50AC87A2.7050407@itforchange.net> <50AC8FC7.4080707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50AD0DB0.9040907@ITforChange.net> http://truth-out.org/news/item/12676-how-google-is-helping-the-gas-lobby-support-fracking On Wednesday 21 November 2012 06:25 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Hi all, > > Google is now champion for arrogance and disinformation. They believe > they reached a State statute whereby they can dictate other States > what they have to do. Actually this not so different from the US gov > attitude. > > Google's dominance of the advertising market is in no way a guarantee > of quality and neutrality. They just leverage their dominance for > promoting their own business. And they conflate their particular > interests with grand ideologies as free information for all. > > Let's assume that drugs are free for all. Then the web would be > swamped with ads for drugs, seminars praising benefits of using drugs, > training sessions for acquiring drug consumption art, testimonies from > drug users telling how it changed their life for the good, mass > campaign vilifying institutions or governments requesting drug > control, and so on. Just because the drug maffia has enough resources > for controlling a free market. And the saying is "the market is right". > > As expected, the simple association of information and drug will > immediately raise fury. It's just taboo. Like associating Google > interests with freedom of information. > > There was a time when the US gov would resist and break excessive and > abusive dominance in certain market segments, like oil, bank, telecom. > Now it's the opposite. Excessive market dominance is good for US world > dominance, as long as the dominant firms are based in the US. Then > where are check and balance mechanisms ? > > Let's not be fooled by Google stylish propaganda. The real issues in > WCIT 2012 have nothing to do with internet censorship, and Google > knows it too well. The issues are finding a more equitable balance > between stakeholders interests and profits. > > Parminder's observations are entirely relevant. The most dangerous > threats to information freedom are US lead secretly negotiated > treaties by multi-national lobbies, SOPA, ACTA, etc. More are coming, > still secret, basically a rehash of those that failed, TPP, CleanIT, > .. watch out. > > Cheers, Louis > - - - > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, parminder > wrote: > > > On Wednesday 21 November 2012 01:19 PM, parminder wrote: >> snip > >> Dear Google; Yes, the world indeed needs an open Internet, for >> which reason it is rather awful to note that you, meaning, Google; >> >> 1) Sold the entire net neutrality campaign down the drain in the >> US, by first assuming its leadership and then entering into a >> self-serving agreement with Verizon, whereby the main means of >> accessing the Internet in the future - mobiles - are exempted >> from net neutrality provisions. >> >> 2) Have recently entered into exclusive arrangements with telecos >> to provide Gmail, Google + and Google Search for free in some >> developing countries (Philippines) , and as a special low cost >> package exclusively of a few Internet services (and not the full, >> public Internet) in others (India), which makes a mockery of an >> open and net neutral Internet. > > BTW, is it a mere coincidence these new mobile based > non-net-neutral services seem to have something to do with the > betraying compromise that Google made that is mentioned in point 1 > above? > >> >> 3) Tweak your search results, which is increasingly the main way >> of accessing locations on the Internet, in non-transparent ways, >> with increasing evidence that this is done in a manner that >> merely serves your own commercial interests and goes against >> consumer/ public interest, and for which reasons Google is >> currently subject to regulatory investigations in the US and EU. >> >> ( There are hundreds of other outrages, big and small, including >> the fact that today I suddenly see my default browser getting >> set for "Chrome' when I prefer and have always used Mozilla >> Firefox and never asked for the change of default.) >> >> I cannot see anything other than effective regulation of the >> Internet to be able to check such excesses by Internet companies >> that are deeply compromising the openness of the Internet >> (sticking here to only to the subject of openness of the >> Internet, used in above appeal by Google). >> >> So, lets be honest, it is not about people versus ITU, not even, >> Google versus ITU, or even Google versus content regulation; it >> is Google versus any regulation of the Internet space so that >> Google, and similarly positioned dominant players, can have a >> free run over the economic, social and political resources of the >> world. >> >> It is very important to wage the needed struggles to keep >> Internet's content free from undue statist controls. But one >> needs to be careful about whom one chooses as partners, nay, >> leaders of the campaign. Remember, the lessons from the net >> neutrality campaign in the US which was sold cheap by those who >> assumed its leadership. Also, have no doubt whatsoever that ACTAs >> and PIPAs will come back in new forms, accommodating the >> interests of the big Internet companies that led the opposition >> in the first round. (Anyone wanting to take a bet on this! :) ) >> And. when the second round happens, since 'our leaders' would >> have crossed over, there wouldnt be much fight left to give. >> >> For sure, make opportunistic, tactical, alliances, but civil >> society needs to be careful not to abandon leadership of public >> interest causes to players who cannot but become turncoat and, >> well, betray, - sooner or later getting into bed with whoever is >> economically and politically powerful around to help their >> business prosper. Such is the structural logic of big business. >> Let them stick to what they do best - organise productive forces >> of the world. Leave public interest causes to public interest >> players - civil society and governments. However, if the >> sentiment is simply overflowing, maybe just donate some money to >> such causes, in an arms- lenght /hands-off approach vis a vis >> managing the precise activities involved. I simply dont fancy >> corporate-led 'public interest' campaigns. >> >> One was stuck by the number of Google organised panels at the >> Baku IGF, where they openly took part and gave their policy >> pitch. As a participant from Pakistan said at a workshop ' I find >> a Google representative at every panel that I am at'. Such brash >> presence at policy forums and taking strong policy positions by >> corporates is a relatively new game, and to my mind not a welcome >> thing for our democracies. I keep hoping that civil society would >> give this phenomenon a deeper thought and analysis, rather than >> just riding the bandwagon. >> >> 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Nov 21 12:22:54 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 06:22:54 +1300 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: <50AC87A2.7050407@itforchange.net> <50AC88AD.5070304@gmail.com> <20121121084024.GB25733@hserus.net> Message-ID: Siva/ Suresh, The attack on Parminder was uncalled for distasteful and in violation of the spirit of multi-stakeholderism. This is a warning to you and to others on the list who may think of venturing into personal attacks. We have to learn to engage in debate without resorting to personal attacks. Sala Tamanikaiwaimaro *(Co-Coordinator of the IGC)* On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > Dear Andrea Glorioso, > > I am sorry if I have contributed to your impression of a personal attack > on this participant. > > I was rather trying to say that this participant was responding to > Google's campaign with an attack on Google instead of on the argument. > > I was actually saying that this participant is NOT 'crazy', a term used by > other participants, perhaps informally, lightly. > > Whatever I said on the participant's calculated purpose might not please > be seen as a personal attack. However I wish I hadn't used the phrase > 'distorted intelligence', but even this was said in light vain, a Smiley > was missing. > > I often strongly disagree with this participant, but my responses have not > been intended to be attack on the person, certainly not in a distasteful > manner. > > However I will be careful to double check on the tone of on my exchanges > with this participant in particular, as what is said here rather lightly > does not seem to appear light in print. > > Thank you. > Sivasubramanian M > On Nov 21, 2012 8:37 PM, "Andrea Glorioso" > wrote: > >> I do not often intervene in this mailing list, although I follow it with >> great attention. >> >> But I must say that independently from any substantive opinion one might >> have on Google, the ITU, WCIT or anything else, I find the tone of recent >> emails concerning the mental state and/or other personal characteristics of >> people extremely distasteful and very unhelpful to foster dialogue, which I >> thought was one of the main objectives of the the multi-stakeholder model. >> >> Civil society's main strength lies in its diversity. In my view such >> diversity should be nurtured. I never believed in fake notions of >> "consensus", nor am I shy to express my or the European Commission's >> disagreement when need be; but one can do so, even quite strongly, focusing >> on the substance rather than other elements. >> >> Best, >> >> Andrea >> >> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: >> >>> On Nov 21, 2012 2:10 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > I fail to see how google selling email, collaboration etc services to >>> > telcos has anything to do with the free and open internet here. >>> > >>> > Remember something - even if google sells something to the telcos, the >>> > users are the telco's users, and the law that's followed will be the >>> law of >>> > whichever country those users are in, and the telco does business in. >>> > >>> > And as for asking whether parminder is crazy .. well, I will confess >>> that I >>> > don't quite have to ask myself that question at all. >>> >>> That is too emphatic an assertion. I would not agree with the idea that >>> Parminder is crazy. Parminder is sane, intelligent, calculative and his >>> responses to any thing said or done for the good of the Internet is >>> strategically constructed, sometimes incoherently, this again with a >>> calculated purpose. >>> >>> It requires a person of Parminder's distorted intelligence to come with >>> a response to something so good as Google's campaign to preserve the free >>> and open Internet. >>> >>> His strategy: "Don't find fault with the ideas expressed in the Google >>> campaign (because you can't). Find fault with Google (it is easier, and >>> definitely distracts attention away from the arguments presented to the >>> arguer, Google)". This is 'argumentum ad hominem' >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem >>> >>> Parminder is quite intelligent, but his liver, brain and heart are >>> contaminated by a misplaced passion for the ITU. >>> >>> Sivasubramanian M. >>> >>> > >>> > Riaz K Tayob [21/11/12 09:54 +0200]: >>> > >>> >> Are you crazy Parminder? >>> >> >>> >> Rule no. 1 The "free market" is always right >>> >> >>> >> Rule no. 2 If not, consult rule number 1. >>> >> >>> >> Rule no. 3 If you feel let down by rule no. 1 consult rule no. 2 >>> >> >>> >> Apologies if this seems self-referential... but that is how it IS >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On 2012/11/21 09:49 AM, parminder wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From Google's sign-on campaign >>> >>> >>> >>> “A free and open world depends on a free and open >>> >>> Internet. Governments alone, working behind closed doors, >>> >>> should not direct its future. The billions of people >>> >>> around the globe who use the Internet should have a >>> voice.” >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> https://www.google.com/takeaction/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=112012freeandopen#make-your-voice-heard >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Google; Yes, the world indeed needs an open Internet, for which >>> reason it is rather awful to note that you, meaning, Google; >>> >>> >>> >>> 1) Sold the entire net neutrality campaign down the drain in the US, >>> by first assuming its leadership and then entering into a self-serving >>> agreement with Verizon, whereby the main means of accessing the Internet in >>> the future - mobiles - are exempted from net neutrality provisions. >>> >>> >>> >>> 2) Have recently entered into exclusive arrangements with telecos to >>> provide Gmail, Google + and Google Search for free in some developing >>> countries (Philippines) , and as a special low cost package exclusively of >>> a few Internet services (and not the full, public Internet) in others >>> (India), which makes a mockery of an open and net neutral Internet. >>> >>> >>> >>> 3) Tweak your search results, which is increasingly the main way of >>> accessing locations on the Internet, in non-transparent ways, with >>> increasing evidence that this is done in a manner that merely serves your >>> own commercial interests and goes against consumer/ public interest, and >>> for which reasons Google is currently subject to regulatory investigations >>> in the US and EU. >>> >>> >>> >>> ( There are hundreds of other outrages, big and small, including the >>> fact that today I suddenly see my default browser getting set for "Chrome' >>> when I prefer and have always used Mozilla Firefox and never asked for the >>> change of default.) >>> >>> >>> >>> I cannot see anything other than effective regulation of the >>> Internet to be able to check such excesses by Internet companies that are >>> deeply compromising the openness of the Internet (sticking here to only to >>> the subject of openness of the Internet, used in above appeal by Google). >>> >>> >>> >>> So, lets be honest, it is not about people versus ITU, not even, >>> Google versus ITU, or even Google versus content regulation; it is Google >>> versus any regulation of the Internet space so that Google, and similarly >>> positioned dominant players, can have a free run over the economic, social >>> and political resources of the world. >>> >>> >>> >>> It is very important to wage the needed struggles to keep Internet's >>> content free from undue statist controls. But one needs to be careful about >>> whom one chooses as partners, nay, leaders of the campaign. Remember, the >>> lessons from the net neutrality campaign in the US which was sold cheap by >>> those who assumed its leadership. Also, have no doubt whatsoever that ACTAs >>> and PIPAs will come back in new forms, accommodating the interests of the >>> big Internet companies that led the opposition in the first round. (Anyone >>> wanting to take a bet on this! :) ) And. when the second round happens, >>> since 'our leaders' would have crossed over, there wouldnt be much fight >>> left to give. >>> >>> >>> >>> For sure, make opportunistic, tactical, alliances, but civil society >>> needs to be careful not to abandon leadership of public interest causes to >>> players who cannot but become turncoat and, well, betray, - sooner or later >>> getting into bed with whoever is economically and politically powerful >>> around to help their business prosper. Such is the structural logic of big >>> business. Let them stick to what they do best - organise productive forces >>> of the world. Leave public interest causes to public interest players - >>> civil society and governments. However, if the sentiment is simply >>> overflowing, maybe just donate some money to such causes, in an arms- >>> lenght /hands-off approach vis a vis managing the precise activities >>> involved. I simply dont fancy corporate-led 'public interest' campaigns. >>> >>> >>> >>> One was stuck by the number of Google organised panels at the Baku >>> IGF, where they openly took part and gave their policy pitch. As a >>> participant from Pakistan said at a workshop ' I find a Google >>> representative at every panel that I am at'. Such brash presence at policy >>> forums and taking strong policy positions by corporates is a relatively new >>> game, and to my mind not a welcome thing for our democracies. I keep hoping >>> that civil society would give this phenomenon a deeper thought and >>> analysis, rather than just riding the bandwagon. >>> >>> >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday 21 November 2012 04:47 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Just saw Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website >>> >>>> >>> >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/ >>> >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/fr/takeaction/ >>> >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/es/takeaction/ >>> >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/ar/takeaction/ >>> >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/zh-CN/takeaction/ >>> >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/pt-BR/takeaction/ >>> >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/ru/takeaction/ >>> >>>> >>> >>>> (thanks to a colleague for sharing!) >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> > >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >> >>> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >> >>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> > >>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> > >>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Nov 21 12:30:02 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:30:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: <20121121100804.GA26226@hserus.net> References: <50AC87A2.7050407@itforchange.net> <50AC88AD.5070304@gmail.com> <20121121084024.GB25733@hserus.net> <20121121103630.69164efa@quill.bollow.ch> <20121121100804.GA26226@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20121121183002.77f0e446@quill.bollow.ch> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Norbert Bollow [21/11/12 10:36 +0100]: > >> I fail to see how google selling email, collaboration etc services > >> to telcos has anything to do with the free and open internet here. > > > >You may need to read up on the very significant body of literature > >that exists about the effects of this kind of partnerships. > > I haven't seen significant papers in this area, but am glad to be > corrected. > > I do come from a background where my workplace (and my previous > workplace) have been large mail hosting shops that hosted mail for > everything from small businesses, ngos and universities to ISPs and > free webmail providers. So - please do tell me just what effect > outsourcing your mail hosting has, from a governance standpoint. I > might be able to provide a counterpoint or two. I don't know about any literature on this specific type of deal that would describe how there's a significant difference between that "email, collaboration etc services" deal with a company with Google's technical and market power muscle as opposed to outsourcing just email to the kind of company that you describe. But there's a significant body of literature on antitrust concerns in general, and it's easy to find. Also there is literature on price discrimination, which goes very much to the heart of Parminder's point as I understand it. I would propose that a good starting point on that topic is this paper: A. M. Odlyzko: The evolution of price discrimination in transportation and its implications for the Internet, Review of Network Economics, vol. 3, no. 3, September 2004, pp. 323-346. http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/rne33.pdf Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Nov 21 13:00:50 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 19:00:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Need for strategic planning (was Re: Why Cell Phones Went Dead...) In-Reply-To: <20121121101811.GD26226@hserus.net> References: <607BB6F4-349B-434C-930D-8CB1654CABD5@hserus.net> <20121119122816.38f8e27c@quill.bollow.ch> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DAEC5BF@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <20121120104247.15a3dd6e@quill.bollow.ch> <20121120123925.5178064d@quill.bollow.ch> <8D2927D4-3791-43AB-88CE-E0128D447275@hserus.net> <20121121091327.76ecf905@quill.bollow.ch> <20121121084233.GC25733@hserus.net> <20121121101235.601eb3d1@quill.bollow.ch> <20121121101811.GD26226@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20121121190050.60c0d39a@quill.bollow.ch> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Norbert Bollow [21/11/12 10:12 +0100]: > >public interest goals, and then build alliances around those > >objectives, and then coordinate strategy within those alliances > >(there's no point in trying to "coordinate strategy" with those who > >don't agree with your objective), and then request whatever funding > >is necessary to implement those strategies. > > You'll find that it is a bit of a chicken and egg situation here. You > need funding to identify goals, meet with lots of organizations, gain > consensus etc. You have a valid point that building a strong and international alliance requires the steps "meet with lots of organizations" and "gain consensus" (with those who have a reasonable degree of agreement with the objectives that have been identified), which probably require getting some funding (much less than for implementation work of any significance, but still some funding will be needed). But I think that thanks to the Internet, the "identify goals" step can nowadays be done even in the absence of any significant funding. (As mentioned before, I'm talking about a serious logical thinking process --with multistakeholder input-- aimed at determining an appropriate set of key objectives that would further the important big picture public interest goals.) And I do think that getting funding will be much less impossible if at the time of requesting funding, one is already able to describe the objectives clearly, together with good arguments why specifically these objectives are particularly important, as opposed to saying "um we require funding to figure out what our objectives should be". 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 Wed Nov 21 13:36:06 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 03:36:06 +0900 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: <20121121183002.77f0e446@quill.bollow.ch> References: <50AC87A2.7050407@itforchange.net> <50AC88AD.5070304@gmail.com> <20121121084024.GB25733@hserus.net> <20121121103630.69164efa@quill.bollow.ch> <20121121100804.GA26226@hserus.net> <20121121183002.77f0e446@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Google attacks UN net conference On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 2:30 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > Norbert Bollow [21/11/12 10:36 +0100]: > > >> I fail to see how google selling email, collaboration etc services > > >> to telcos has anything to do with the free and open internet here. > > > > > >You may need to read up on the very significant body of literature > > >that exists about the effects of this kind of partnerships. > > > > I haven't seen significant papers in this area, but am glad to be > > corrected. > > > > I do come from a background where my workplace (and my previous > > workplace) have been large mail hosting shops that hosted mail for > > everything from small businesses, ngos and universities to ISPs and > > free webmail providers. So - please do tell me just what effect > > outsourcing your mail hosting has, from a governance standpoint. I > > might be able to provide a counterpoint or two. > > I don't know about any literature on this specific type of deal > that would describe how there's a significant difference between > that "email, collaboration etc services" deal with a company with > Google's technical and market power muscle as opposed to outsourcing > just email to the kind of company that you describe. > > But there's a significant body of literature on antitrust concerns in > general, and it's easy to find. Also there is literature on price > discrimination, which goes very much to the heart of Parminder's point > as I understand it. I would propose that a good starting point on that > topic is this paper: > > A. M. Odlyzko: The evolution of price discrimination in transportation > and its implications for the Internet, Review of Network Economics, > vol. 3, no. 3, September 2004, pp. 323-346. > http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/rne33.pdf > > 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Nov 21 13:44:46 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:44:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) In-Reply-To: <661ADF76-F3DE-4694-8E1C-E2DD2696FC5D@farber.net> References: <50ACEBD0.5050708@netmagic.com>,<661ADF76-F3DE-4694-8E1C-E2DD2696FC5D@farber.net> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16C6A4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> The attachment is perhaps of interest to some, re WCIT, from old pal, and ex-FCC, ex-ITU, and ex-Verisigner Tony Rutkowski. ; ) Lee ________________________________________ From: David Farber [dave at farber.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:21 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: Any chance Date: November 21, 2012 9:57:20 AM EST To: "DAVID J. FARBER" Reply-To: trutkowski at netmagic.com Hi Dave, Does this do it for you? It should be popular. :-) For noting, I ran the secretariat for the last WCIT, and helped the Secretary-General at the time develop and negotiate the provisions in his hometown of Melbourne. I also led the ITU-T cybersecurity standards group over the past four years. The turf is all too familiar. cheers, tony -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ITU Gone Wild.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 66451 bytes Desc: ITU Gone Wild.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.txt URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Nov 21 14:26:09 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 11:26:09 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16C6A4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <50ACEBD0.5050708@netmagic.com>,<661ADF76-F3DE-4694-8E1C-E2DD2696FC5D@farber.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16C6A4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <063b01cdc81e$1ad89cb0$5089d610$@gmail.com> Hmmm... Cowboys and ``Indians``... I like a good shoot-em-up especially when the good guys are all wearing white hats and the bad guys, black ones... Makes figuring out who to root for so much easier :) M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 10:45 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) The attachment is perhaps of interest to some, re WCIT, from old pal, and ex-FCC, ex-ITU, and ex-Verisigner Tony Rutkowski. ; ) Lee ________________________________________ From: David Farber [dave at farber.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:21 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: Any chance Date: November 21, 2012 9:57:20 AM EST To: "DAVID J. FARBER" Reply-To: trutkowski at netmagic.com Hi Dave, Does this do it for you? It should be popular. :-) For noting, I ran the secretariat for the last WCIT, and helped the Secretary-General at the time develop and negotiate the provisions in his hometown of Melbourne. I also led the ITU-T cybersecurity standards group over the past four years. The turf is all too familiar. cheers, tony -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 21 14:50:22 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 11:50:22 -0800 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: <50AC87A2.7050407@itforchange.net> <50AC88AD.5070304@gmail.com> <20121121084024.GB25733@hserus.net> <20121121103630.69164efa@quill.bollow.ch> <20121121100804.GA26226@hserus.net> <20121121183002.77f0e446@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <064201cdc821$7dcb3dc0$7961b940$@gmail.com> Perhaps a sophisticated form of forum shopping? http://blogs.siliconvalley.com/gmsv/2012/10/15/googles-world-antitrust-decis ion-near-plus-patents-privacy/ M -----Original Message----- From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 10:36 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website Google attacks UN net conference On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 2:30 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > Norbert Bollow [21/11/12 10:36 +0100]: > > >> I fail to see how google selling email, collaboration etc > > >> services to telcos has anything to do with the free and open internet here. > > > > > >You may need to read up on the very significant body of literature > > >that exists about the effects of this kind of partnerships. > > > > I haven't seen significant papers in this area, but am glad to be > > corrected. > > > > I do come from a background where my workplace (and my previous > > workplace) have been large mail hosting shops that hosted mail for > > everything from small businesses, ngos and universities to ISPs and > > free webmail providers. So - please do tell me just what effect > > outsourcing your mail hosting has, from a governance standpoint. I > > might be able to provide a counterpoint or two. > > I don't know about any literature on this specific type of deal that > would describe how there's a significant difference between that > "email, collaboration etc services" deal with a company with Google's > technical and market power muscle as opposed to outsourcing just email > to the kind of company that you describe. > > But there's a significant body of literature on antitrust concerns in > general, and it's easy to find. Also there is literature on price > discrimination, which goes very much to the heart of Parminder's point > as I understand it. I would propose that a good starting point on that > topic is this paper: > > A. M. Odlyzko: The evolution of price discrimination in transportation > and its implications for the Internet, Review of Network Economics, > vol. 3, no. 3, September 2004, pp. 323-346. > http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/rne33.pdf > > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 21 15:06:25 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 20:06:25 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) In-Reply-To: <063b01cdc81e$1ad89cb0$5089d610$@gmail.com> References: <50ACEBD0.5050708@netmagic.com>,<661ADF76-F3DE-4694-8E1C-E2DD2696FC5D@farber.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16C6A4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<063b01cdc81e$1ad89cb0$5089d610$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16C790@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> I recommend the more nuanced (?) recent Hollywood B movie - 'Cowboys and Aliens.' In case you missed it, and sorry then for giving away the plot, Cowboys, of the black and white hat variety, and "Indians," all join together to battle the space invaders ; ) Lee ________________________________________ From: michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 2:26 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Lee W McKnight Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) Hmmm... Cowboys and ``Indians``... I like a good shoot-em-up especially when the good guys are all wearing white hats and the bad guys, black ones... Makes figuring out who to root for so much easier :) M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 10:45 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) The attachment is perhaps of interest to some, re WCIT, from old pal, and ex-FCC, ex-ITU, and ex-Verisigner Tony Rutkowski. ; ) Lee ________________________________________ From: David Farber [dave at farber.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:21 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: Any chance Date: November 21, 2012 9:57:20 AM EST To: "DAVID J. FARBER" Reply-To: trutkowski at netmagic.com Hi Dave, Does this do it for you? It should be popular. :-) For noting, I ran the secretariat for the last WCIT, and helped the Secretary-General at the time develop and negotiate the provisions in his hometown of Melbourne. I also led the ITU-T cybersecurity standards group over the past four years. The turf is all too familiar. cheers, tony -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 21 15:42:47 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 07:42:47 +1100 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16C790@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <50ACEBD0.5050708@netmagic.com>,<661ADF76-F3DE-4694-8E1C-E2DD2696FC5D@farber.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16C6A4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<063b01cdc81e$1ad89cb0$5089d610$@gmail.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16C790@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Lee, is that Cowboys (as in those who hold power now) vs Indians (those lacking power in this particular circumstance but holding certain moral rights not respected by the cowboys?) Certainly this looks like a battle between the Internet status quo, (represented by USG, ISOC, Google et al) and a few nation states and their organisation who feel disenfranchised by the growth of the Internet. Well, let the games begin! I'm sure both parties feel they have God on their side.. Ian Peter PS I along with quite a few others here do not believe it is in civil society's interests to take sides in this decades old battle. By all means argue for ITU to open up its closed meetings, but I do not think an alignment of opposition to ITU per se is sensible strategically. -----Original Message----- From: Lee W McKnight Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 7:06 AM To: michael gurstein ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) I recommend the more nuanced (?) recent Hollywood B movie - 'Cowboys and Aliens.' In case you missed it, and sorry then for giving away the plot, Cowboys, of the black and white hat variety, and "Indians," all join together to battle the space invaders ; ) Lee ________________________________________ From: michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 2:26 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Lee W McKnight Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) Hmmm... Cowboys and ``Indians``... I like a good shoot-em-up especially when the good guys are all wearing white hats and the bad guys, black ones... Makes figuring out who to root for so much easier :) M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 10:45 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) The attachment is perhaps of interest to some, re WCIT, from old pal, and ex-FCC, ex-ITU, and ex-Verisigner Tony Rutkowski. ; ) Lee ________________________________________ From: David Farber [dave at farber.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:21 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: Any chance Date: November 21, 2012 9:57:20 AM EST To: "DAVID J. FARBER" Reply-To: trutkowski at netmagic.com Hi Dave, Does this do it for you? It should be popular. :-) For noting, I ran the secretariat for the last WCIT, and helped the Secretary-General at the time develop and negotiate the provisions in his hometown of Melbourne. I also led the ITU-T cybersecurity standards group over the past four years. The turf is all too familiar. cheers, tony ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Nov 21 16:08:42 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 02:08:42 +0500 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: <064201cdc821$7dcb3dc0$7961b940$@gmail.com> References: <50AC87A2.7050407@itforchange.net> <50AC88AD.5070304@gmail.com> <20121121084024.GB25733@hserus.net> <20121121103630.69164efa@quill.bollow.ch> <20121121100804.GA26226@hserus.net> <20121121183002.77f0e446@quill.bollow.ch> <064201cdc821$7dcb3dc0$7961b940$@gmail.com> Message-ID: And perhaps Parminder's assertion is insane as ever but I am sure many squabble here because he is right most of the time ...... one side of the world will never be able to cross its misunderstanding of our cultures and perceptions of politics, governance and global resources ....... what if many of southern countries decided on changing the way the world got its Tea and Coffee and of course Choco ;o) While the fact that Internet giants first need to achieve self and ethical regulation before they can dance to the tunes of liberation but still will do everything in their power to promote the free market economy, override other nation's interests and keep secrets! Is Facebook on that road?:::::read below: Anyways on a separate note, here is Facebook asking you about your thoughts on FACEBOOK's SITE GOVERNANCE: http://www.facebook.com/fbsitegovernance "We are proposing updates to our Data Use Policy and Statement of Rights and Responsibilities to, among other things, restructure our site governance process. Please review the updates under the “Documents” tab of our Site Governance Page and leave comments by 9:00 AM PST on November 28, 2012. Remember, substantive and relevant comments about specific changes help us evaluate a proposal." GIVE COMMENTS ON Proposed Updates to FACEBOOK's Governing Documents on the link below: https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-site-governance/proposed-updates-to-our-governing-documents/10152304935685301 -- Best Fouad On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 12:50 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Perhaps a sophisticated form of forum shopping? > > > > http://blogs.siliconvalley.com/gmsv/2012/10/15/googles-world-antitrust-decision-near-plus-patents-privacy/ > > > > M > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake > > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 10:36 AM > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website > > > > Google attacks UN net conference > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 2:30 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> > >> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> > >> > Norbert Bollow [21/11/12 10:36 +0100]: > >> > >> I fail to see how google selling email, collaboration etc > >> > >> services to telcos has anything to do with the free and open internet >> > >> here. > >> > > > >> > >You may need to read up on the very significant body of literature > >> > >that exists about the effects of this kind of partnerships. > >> > > >> > I haven't seen significant papers in this area, but am glad to be > >> > corrected. > >> > > >> > I do come from a background where my workplace (and my previous > >> > workplace) have been large mail hosting shops that hosted mail for > >> > everything from small businesses, ngos and universities to ISPs and > >> > free webmail providers. So - please do tell me just what effect > >> > outsourcing your mail hosting has, from a governance standpoint. I > >> > might be able to provide a counterpoint or two. > >> > >> I don't know about any literature on this specific type of deal that > >> would describe how there's a significant difference between that > >> "email, collaboration etc services" deal with a company with Google's > >> technical and market power muscle as opposed to outsourcing just email > >> to the kind of company that you describe. > >> > >> But there's a significant body of literature on antitrust concerns in > >> general, and it's easy to find. Also there is literature on price > >> discrimination, which goes very much to the heart of Parminder's point > >> as I understand it. I would propose that a good starting point on that > >> topic is this paper: > >> > >> A. M. Odlyzko: The evolution of price discrimination in transportation > >> and its implications for the Internet, Review of Network Economics, > >> vol. 3, no. 3, September 2004, pp. 323-346. > >> http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/rne33.pdf > >> > >> 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Nov 21 16:13:53 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 21:13:53 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) In-Reply-To: References: <50ACEBD0.5050708@netmagic.com>,<661ADF76-F3DE-4694-8E1C-E2DD2696FC5D@farber.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16C6A4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<063b01cdc81e$1ad89cb0$5089d610$@gmail.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16C790@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16C804@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Ian, I agree completely with "By all means argue for ITU to open up its closed meetings, but I do not think an alignment of opposition to ITU per se is sensible strategically." Personally I have always advocated keeping an open door and have worked with ITU whenever possible - since Tony was there actually back in the 80s, when we - conspired? - to help kill off the outmoded CCIR. There's certainly a lot of good things been done by the ITU over the past ~150 years. That's a distinct issue however from agreeing with particular WCIT proposals that define packet networks of networks and various associated information services available across telecom networks, as the same thing as a telecom net, as some of the proposals under consideration at WCIT would ask us all to do. Maybe it's because I am a prof at an Information School, but personally I am partial to information services, and would not like to see them all submerged in telecoms regulation. But that's just me, I am not speaking for the West, or Cowboys of any variety. And again speaking personally, I don't see this as west v east or north - south issue, or white hats vs black hats, it's really far more nuanced even than a Hollywood B movie ; ) Although the headlines and noise over the next few weeks will be heavy on criticizing villains. So maybe we do have all the ingredients needed for another action - adventure! ; ) Although the final outcome, odds are, will be another long and boring text intended to fudge the big issues, for the next 30 years. Hopefully one civil society, globally, can live with. Lee ________________________________________ From: Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 3:42 PM To: Lee W McKnight; michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) Lee, is that Cowboys (as in those who hold power now) vs Indians (those lacking power in this particular circumstance but holding certain moral rights not respected by the cowboys?) Certainly this looks like a battle between the Internet status quo, (represented by USG, ISOC, Google et al) and a few nation states and their organisation who feel disenfranchised by the growth of the Internet. Well, let the games begin! I'm sure both parties feel they have God on their side.. Ian Peter PS I along with quite a few others here do not believe it is in civil society's interests to take sides in this decades old battle. By all means argue for ITU to open up its closed meetings, but I do not think an alignment of opposition to ITU per se is sensible strategically. -----Original Message----- From: Lee W McKnight Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 7:06 AM To: michael gurstein ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) I recommend the more nuanced (?) recent Hollywood B movie - 'Cowboys and Aliens.' In case you missed it, and sorry then for giving away the plot, Cowboys, of the black and white hat variety, and "Indians," all join together to battle the space invaders ; ) Lee ________________________________________ From: michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 2:26 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Lee W McKnight Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) Hmmm... Cowboys and ``Indians``... I like a good shoot-em-up especially when the good guys are all wearing white hats and the bad guys, black ones... Makes figuring out who to root for so much easier :) M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 10:45 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) The attachment is perhaps of interest to some, re WCIT, from old pal, and ex-FCC, ex-ITU, and ex-Verisigner Tony Rutkowski. ; ) Lee ________________________________________ From: David Farber [dave at farber.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:21 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: Any chance Date: November 21, 2012 9:57:20 AM EST To: "DAVID J. FARBER" Reply-To: trutkowski at netmagic.com Hi Dave, Does this do it for you? It should be popular. :-) For noting, I ran the secretariat for the last WCIT, and helped the Secretary-General at the time develop and negotiate the provisions in his hometown of Melbourne. I also led the ITU-T cybersecurity standards group over the past four years. The turf is all too familiar. cheers, tony ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Nov 21 16:18:16 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 02:18:16 +0500 Subject: [governance] Facebook.com invites comments for restructuring of its site governance process Message-ID: Facebook is asking its users about their thoughts on FACEBOOK's SITE GOVERNANCE: "We are proposing updates to our Data Use Policy and Statement of Rights and Responsibilities to, among other things, restructure our site governance process. Please review the updates under the “Documents” tab of our Site Governance Page and leave comments by 9:00 AM PST on November 28, 2012. Remember, substantive and relevant comments about specific changes help us evaluate a proposal." GIVE COMMENTS ON Proposed Updates to FACEBOOK's Governing Documents on the link below: https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-site-governance/proposed-updates-to-our-governing-documents/10152304935685301 The announcement: http://www.facebook.com/fbsitegovernance -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Nov 21 17:20:33 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 03:50:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: <50AC87A2.7050407@itforchange.net> <50AC88AD.5070304@gmail.com> <20121121084024.GB25733@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Nov 21, 2012 10:53 PM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > Siva/ Suresh, > > The attack on Parminder was uncalled for distasteful and in violation of the spirit of multi-stakeholderism. This is a warning to you and to others on the list who may think of venturing into personal attacks. > > We have to learn to engage in debate without resorting to personal attacks. > > Sala Tamanikaiwaimaro > > (Co-Coordinator of the IGC) > > On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: >> >> Dear Andrea Glorioso, >> >> I am sorry if I have contributed to your impression of a personal attack on this participant. >> >> I was rather trying to say that this participant was responding to Google's campaign with an attack on Google instead of on the argument. >> >> I was actually saying that this participant is NOT 'crazy', a term used by other participants, perhaps informally, lightly. >> >> Whatever I said on the participant's calculated purpose might not please be seen as a personal attack. However I wish I hadn't used the phrase 'distorted intelligence', but even this was said in light vain, a Smiley was missing. >> >> I often strongly disagree with this participant, but my responses have not been intended to be attack on the person, certainly not in a distasteful manner. >> >> However I will be careful to double check on the tone of on my exchanges with this participant in particular, as what is said here rather lightly does not seem to appear light in print. >> >> Thank you. >> Sivasubramanian M (In addition to what I have said above as response to Andrea Gloriosa, I must add the following in response to you on the specific passage that you have quoted in a previous message, because you reopened the issue AFTER my response as above) Before anything I must add that Parminder is some one with views that I strongly oppose, he is an opponent, but not an enemy that I would be disrespectful against. I have had similar, strong exchanges with Parminder on this list, but face to face, whatever minimal interaction I have had with Parminder or Guru, have always been polite. This makes me assume that no offences taken, so far. This is what you quoted from what I wrote: "Parminder is quite intelligent, but his liver, brain and heart are contaminated by a misplaced passion for the ITU." A person well trained in diplomatic parlance would have said "Parminder's views are aligned to that of the ITU". That would have been an 'observation' and wouldn't have been considered a personal attack. I don't have a background in Government or Diplomacy, my undergraduate education was in Literature, so my expressions stem from this background. 'liver, brain and heart' are references drawn from the poetic expressions of a romantic Duke from The Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare. Liver, brain and heart were considered the seat of emotions in the Elizabethan age. What I conveyed from the expression 'his liver, brain and heart are contaminated by a misplaced passion for the ITU' was simply the idea that Parminder's views are immensely aligned to that of the ITU. Rephrased like this, it could not possibly be misconstrued as a personal attack. Someone else from Fiji - this one, a friend - once cautioned me about the intended meaning being lost in translation and in cross-cultural exchanges, in most communication in the Governance list. I must follow his advice :-) This explanation should be sufficient if it your intervention was due to any misunderstanding, but would not suffice if what was offensive was the reference to one or more views being aligned to the ITU agenda :-) Sivasubramanian M >> >> On Nov 21, 2012 8:37 PM, "Andrea Glorioso" wrote: >>> >>> I do not often intervene in this mailing list, although I follow it with great attention. >>> >>> But I must say that independently from any substantive opinion one might have on Google, the ITU, WCIT or anything else, I find the tone of recent emails concerning the mental state and/or other personal characteristics of people extremely distasteful and very unhelpful to foster dialogue, which I thought was one of the main objectives of the the multi-stakeholder model. >>> >>> Civil society's main strength lies in its diversity. In my view such diversity should be nurtured. I never believed in fake notions of "consensus", nor am I shy to express my or the European Commission's disagreement when need be; but one can do so, even quite strongly, focusing on the substance rather than other elements. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Andrea >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: >>>> >>>> On Nov 21, 2012 2:10 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: >>>> > >>>> > I fail to see how google selling email, collaboration etc services to >>>> > telcos has anything to do with the free and open internet here. >>>> > >>>> > Remember something - even if google sells something to the telcos, the >>>> > users are the telco's users, and the law that's followed will be the law of >>>> > whichever country those users are in, and the telco does business in. >>>> > >>>> > And as for asking whether parminder is crazy .. well, I will confess that I >>>> > don't quite have to ask myself that question at all. >>>> >>>> That is too emphatic an assertion. I would not agree with the idea that Parminder is crazy. Parminder is sane, intelligent, calculative and his responses to any thing said or done for the good of the Internet is strategically constructed, sometimes incoherently, this again with a calculated purpose. >>>> >>>> It requires a person of Parminder's distorted intelligence to come with a response to something so good as Google's campaign to preserve the free and open Internet. >>>> >>>> His strategy: "Don't find fault with the ideas expressed in the Google campaign (because you can't). Find fault with Google (it is easier, and definitely distracts attention away from the arguments presented to the arguer, Google)". This is 'argumentum ad hominem' >>>> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem >>>> >>>> Parminder is quite intelligent, but his liver, brain and heart are contaminated by a misplaced passion for the ITU. >>>> >>>> Sivasubramanian M. >>>> >>>> > >>>> > Riaz K Tayob [21/11/12 09:54 +0200]: >>>> > >>>> >> Are you crazy Parminder? >>>> >> >>>> >> Rule no. 1 The "free market" is always right >>>> >> >>>> >> Rule no. 2 If not, consult rule number 1. >>>> >> >>>> >> Rule no. 3 If you feel let down by rule no. 1 consult rule no. 2 >>>> >> >>>> >> Apologies if this seems self-referential... but that is how it IS >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> On 2012/11/21 09:49 AM, parminder wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> From Google's sign-on campaign >>>> >>> >>>> >>> “A free and open world depends on a free and open >>>> >>> Internet. Governments alone, working behind closed doors, >>>> >>> should not direct its future. The billions of people >>>> >>> around the globe who use the Internet should have a voice.” >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> https://www.google.com/takeaction/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=112012freeandopen#make-your-voice-heard >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Dear Google; Yes, the world indeed needs an open Internet, for which reason it is rather awful to note that you, meaning, Google; >>>> >>> >>>> >>> 1) Sold the entire net neutrality campaign down the drain in the US, by first assuming its leadership and then entering into a self-serving agreement with Verizon, whereby the main means of accessing the Internet in the future - mobiles - are exempted from net neutrality provisions. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> 2) Have recently entered into exclusive arrangements with telecos to provide Gmail, Google + and Google Search for free in some developing countries (Philippines) , and as a special low cost package exclusively of a few Internet services (and not the full, public Internet) in others (India), which makes a mockery of an open and net neutral Internet. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> 3) Tweak your search results, which is increasingly the main way of accessing locations on the Internet, in non-transparent ways, with increasing evidence that this is done in a manner that merely serves your own commercial interests and goes against consumer/ public interest, and for which reasons Google is currently subject to regulatory investigations in the US and EU. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> ( There are hundreds of other outrages, big and small, including the fact that today I suddenly see my default browser getting set for "Chrome' when I prefer and have always used Mozilla Firefox and never asked for the change of default.) >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I cannot see anything other than effective regulation of the Internet to be able to check such excesses by Internet companies that are deeply compromising the openness of the Internet (sticking here to only to the subject of openness of the Internet, used in above appeal by Google). >>>> >>> >>>> >>> So, lets be honest, it is not about people versus ITU, not even, Google versus ITU, or even Google versus content regulation; it is Google versus any regulation of the Internet space so that Google, and similarly positioned dominant players, can have a free run over the economic, social and political resources of the world. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> It is very important to wage the needed struggles to keep Internet's content free from undue statist controls. But one needs to be careful about whom one chooses as partners, nay, leaders of the campaign. Remember, the lessons from the net neutrality campaign in the US which was sold cheap by those who assumed its leadership. Also, have no doubt whatsoever that ACTAs and PIPAs will come back in new forms, accommodating the interests of the big Internet companies that led the opposition in the first round. (Anyone wanting to take a bet on this! :) ) And. when the second round happens, since 'our leaders' would have crossed over, there wouldnt be much fight left to give. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> For sure, make opportunistic, tactical, alliances, but civil society needs to be careful not to abandon leadership of public interest causes to players who cannot but become turncoat and, well, betray, - sooner or later getting into bed with whoever is economically and politically powerful around to help their business prosper. Such is the structural logic of big business. Let them stick to what they do best - organise productive forces of the world. Leave public interest causes to public interest players - civil society and governments. However, if the sentiment is simply overflowing, maybe just donate some money to such causes, in an arms- lenght /hands-off approach vis a vis managing the precise activities involved. I simply dont fancy corporate-led 'public interest' campaigns. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> One was stuck by the number of Google organised panels at the Baku IGF, where they openly took part and gave their policy pitch. As a participant from Pakistan said at a workshop ' I find a Google representative at every panel that I am at'. Such brash presence at policy forums and taking strong policy positions by corporates is a relatively new game, and to my mind not a welcome thing for our democracies. I keep hoping that civil society would give this phenomenon a deeper thought and analysis, rather than just riding the bandwagon. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> parminder >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On Wednesday 21 November 2012 04:47 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Just saw Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/ >>>> >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/fr/takeaction/ >>>> >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/es/takeaction/ >>>> >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/ar/takeaction/ >>>> >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/zh-CN/takeaction/ >>>> >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/pt-BR/takeaction/ >>>> >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/ru/takeaction/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> (thanks to a colleague for sharing!) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >> >>>> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >> >>>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> > >>>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> > >>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To 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 >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji 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 > L -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Nov 21 18:34:52 2012 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 00:34:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: <50AC87A2.7050407@itforchange.net> References: <50AC87A2.7050407@itforchange.net> Message-ID: 2012/11/21, parminder : > From Google's sign-on campaign > > “A free and open world depends on a free and open Internet. If you pay for it, it is a product. If it is free, YOU are the product. Google comes for free. Governments come for taxes. > Governments alone, remain for protecting us from Google, how imperfect they may be. I presume that "ITU", through our elected government reps, stands for "Internet Technical Use" now IETF, IABn W3C, ISOC, IEEE are market driven (http://open-stand.org). Up to now, democracy is about elected govs, not about self promoted merchants ? jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 21 19:46:27 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 06:16:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) Message-ID: a much better graphic novel than it was a b movie .. The opposition is to specific proposals, and to giving itu exclusive control which is the gist of several of these proposals I won't paint itu as black as tony does, but then I have only written a botnet white paper for it and chaired panels at a few of the multistakeholder cybersecurity events they used to do a few years back as part od wsis action line c5, not spent three decades deep in itu's highly politicized governance and upper echelons , --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Lee W McKnight" To: "michael gurstein" , "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) Date: Thu, Nov 22, 2012 1:36 AM I recommend the more nuanced (?) recent Hollywood B movie - 'Cowboys and Aliens.' In case you missed it, and sorry then for giving away the plot, Cowboys, of the black and white hat variety, and "Indians," all join together to battle the space invaders ; ) Lee ________________________________________ From: michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 2:26 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Lee W McKnight Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) Hmmm... Cowboys and ``Indians``... I like a good shoot-em-up especially when the good guys are all wearing white hats and the bad guys, black ones... Makes figuring out who to root for so much easier :) M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 10:45 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) The attachment is perhaps of interest to some, re WCIT, from old pal, and ex-FCC, ex-ITU, and ex-Verisigner Tony Rutkowski. ; ) Lee ________________________________________ From: David Farber [dave at farber.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:21 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: Any chance Date: November 21, 2012 9:57:20 AM EST To: "DAVID J. FARBER" Reply-To: trutkowski at netmagic.com Hi Dave, Does this do it for you? It should be popular. :-) For noting, I ran the secretariat for the last WCIT, and helped the Secretary-General at the time develop and negotiate the provisions in his hometown of Melbourne. I also led the ITU-T cybersecurity standards group over the past four years. The turf is all too familiar. cheers, tony -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 21 19:54:29 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 06:24:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website Message-ID: Right. Truthout screeds, random allegations, accusations about "arrogance", half truth laden polemic .. to pick a few. And those are not deemed to be personal attacks because they are targeted at a corporation rather than individual? Fun days. There was a time when civil society discourse was actually civil. But any incivility I have committed is in response to behavior that does not and should not characterize civil society. So sala, thank you for your warning. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Guru गुरु" To: Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2012 10:51 PM http://truth-out.org/news/item/12676-how-google-is-helping-the-gas-lobby-support-fracking On Wednesday 21 November 2012 06:25 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Hi all, > > Google is now champion for arrogance and disinformation. They believe > they reached a State statute whereby they can dictate other States > what they have to do. Actually this not so different from the US gov > attitude. > > Google's dominance of the advertising market is in no way a guarantee > of quality and neutrality. They just leverage their dominance for > promoting their own business. And they conflate their particular > interests with grand ideologies as free information for all. > > Let's assume that drugs are free for all. Then the web would be > swamped with ads for drugs, seminars praising benefits of using drugs, > training sessions for acquiring drug consumption art, testimonies from > drug users telling how it changed their life for the good, mass > campaign vilifying institutions or governments requesting drug > control, and so on. Just because the drug maffia has enough resources > for controlling a free market. And the saying is "the market is right". > > As expected, the simple association of information and drug will > immediately raise fury. It's just taboo. Like associating Google > interests with freedom of information. > > There was a time when the US gov would resist and break excessive and > abusive dominance in certain market segments, like oil, bank, telecom. > Now it's the opposite. Excessive market dominance is good for US world > dominance, as long as the dominant firms are based in the US. Then > where are check and balance mechanisms ? > > Let's not be fooled by Google stylish propaganda. The real issues in > WCIT 2012 have nothing to do with internet censorship, and Google > knows it too well. The issues are finding a more equitable balance > between stakeholders interests and profits. > > Parminder's observations are entirely relevant. The most dangerous > threats to information freedom are US lead secretly negotiated > treaties by multi-national lobbies, SOPA, ACTA, etc. More are coming, > still secret, basically a rehash of those that failed, TPP, CleanIT, > .. watch out. > > Cheers, Louis > - - - > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, parminder > wrote: > > > On Wednesday 21 November 2012 01:19 PM, parminder wrote: >> snip > >> Dear Google; Yes, the world indeed needs an open Internet, for >> which reason it is rather awful to note that you, meaning, Google; >> >> 1) Sold the entire net neutrality campaign down the drain in the >> US, by first assuming its leadership and then entering into a >> self-serving agreement with Verizon, whereby the main means of >> accessing the Internet in the future - mobiles - are exempted >> from net neutrality provisions. >> >> 2) Have recently entered into exclusive arrangements with telecos >> to provide Gmail, Google + and Google Search for free in some >> developing countries (Philippines) , and as a special low cost >> package exclusively of a few Internet services (and not the full, >> public Internet) in others (India), which makes a mockery of an >> open and net neutral Internet. > > BTW, is it a mere coincidence these new mobile based > non-net-neutral services seem to have something to do with the > betraying compromise that Google made that is mentioned in point 1 > above? > >> >> 3) Tweak your search results, which is increasingly the main way >> of accessing locations on the Internet, in non-transparent ways, >> with increasing evidence that this is done in a manner that >> merely serves your own commercial interests and goes against >> consumer/ public interest, and for which reasons Google is >> currently subject to regulatory investigations in the US and EU. >> >> ( There are hundreds of other outrages, big and small, including >> the fact that today I suddenly see my default browser getting >> set for "Chrome' when I prefer and have always used Mozilla >> Firefox and never asked for the change of default.) >> >> I cannot see anything other than effective regulation of the >> Internet to be able to check such excesses by Internet companies >> that are deeply compromising the openness of the Internet >> (sticking here to only to the subject of openness of the >> Internet, used in above appeal by Google). >> >> So, lets be honest, it is not about people versus ITU, not even, >> Google versus ITU, or even Google versus content regulation; it >> is Google versus any regulation of the Internet space so that >> Google, and similarly positioned dominant players, can have a >> free run over the economic, social and political resources of the >> world. >> >> It is very important to wage the needed struggles to keep >> 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 21 19:59:11 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 06:29:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website Message-ID: Google doesn't have any kind of a monopoly on the online collaboration market and nor does it mine data for advertising from its paying clients for google apps. In that it competes with Cisco, Dell, ibm and a variety if other large and small companies in the same space. So while antitrust concerns may be entirely legitimate in discourse about google search, those concerns don't quite apply for online collaboration and nor does the market situation that exists in this space facilitate cartelization and antitrust. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Norbert Bollow" To: , "Suresh Ramasubramanian" Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2012 11:00 PM Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Norbert Bollow [21/11/12 10:36 +0100]: > >> I fail to see how google selling email, collaboration etc services > >> to telcos has anything to do with the free and open internet here. > > > >You may need to read up on the very significant body of literature > >that exists about the effects of this kind of partnerships. > > I haven't seen significant papers in this area, but am glad to be > corrected. > > I do come from a background where my workplace (and my previous > workplace) have been large mail hosting shops that hosted mail for > everything from small businesses, ngos and universities to ISPs and > free webmail providers. So - please do tell me just what effect > outsourcing your mail hosting has, from a governance standpoint. I > might be able to provide a counterpoint or two. I don't know about any literature on this specific type of deal that would describe how there's a significant difference between that "email, collaboration etc services" deal with a company with Google's technical and market power muscle as opposed to outsourcing just email to the kind of company that you describe. But there's a significant body of literature on antitrust concerns in general, and it's easy to find. Also there is literature on price discrimination, which goes very much to the heart of Parminder's point as I understand it. I would propose that a good starting point on that topic is this paper: A. M. Odlyzko: The evolution of price discrimination in transportation and its implications for the Internet, Review of Network Economics, vol. 3, no. 3, September 2004, pp. 323-346. http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/rne33.pdf 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 betunat at gmail.com Thu Nov 22 03:57:05 2012 From: betunat at gmail.com (Bethel Terefe) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 00:57:05 -0800 Subject: [governance] Good Bye .DOTAFRICA: ICANN Approves the Change Request Made by DotConnectAfrica Trust for Its .Africa In-Reply-To: References: <20121107081316.GA28721@hserus.net> <20121108083558.GA22514@hserus.net> <2BCBD1E3-E4F4-4D67-9AEF-D3F63F841378@hserus.net> Message-ID: that is good news Ethiopia's Ministry of Communication and information technology has been working with AU on this issue i am glad its adopted On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 7:09 AM, Kivuva wrote: > Today, the national governments that constitute ICANN’s Governmental > Advisory Committee (GAC) for the first time publicly voiced their concerns > over specific new Top-Level Domain (TLD) applications in the form of Early > Warnings. > > More than 240 individual GAC Early Warnings were issued in relation to 200 > new TLD applications which account for 162 unique strings. > > DotConnectAfrica’s application for .africa received 17 Early Warnings. > UniForum SA’s application for .africa received no Early Warnings. > > > http://www.ariservices.com/blog/first-insights-from-the-gac-early-warnings-on-new-top-level-domains/ > > On 9 November 2012 02:43, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> Volumes are definitely key. Especially to offset the rather high startup >> costs of a new tld >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 09-Nov-2012, at 1:31, "Fahd A. Batayneh" >> wrote: >> >> From my discussions with a couple of TLD applicants, some have set >> success-numbers such as "if I manage to secure xyz,000 registrations at the >> cost of ab dollars per domain name, I have fulfilled my cause". That - as >> you said - mainly comes from good marketing. >> >> Fahd >> On Nov 8, 2012 11:36 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" >> wrote: >> >>> Success in terms of numbers? It depends on how much their marketing >>> skills >>> match their skills in high decibel politicking. Convincing companies with >>> .eg, .ng, .za etc domains to get themselves .africa in addition / as a >>> substitute may or may not be easy. They could certainly learn from >>> .asia's >>> experience I'd say. >>> >>> Fahd A. Batayneh [08/11/12 09:17 +0200]: >>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> (snip) >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Even the TLD by itself has little or no relevance in the larger scheme >>>>> of >>>>> things, any more than say .museum has for museums the world over, or >>>>> its >>>>> geographic predecessor .asia has had for Asia (moderately, but not too >>>>> popular) >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I agree. In fact, around 1% of the domain names registered at a global >>>> level originate from Africa (or at least have African addresses tied to >>>> them). >>>> >>>> So this all boils down to how the folks at .africa define the success of >>>> the TLD in terms of numbers. >>>> >>>> Fahd >>>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > ______________________ > Mwendwa Kivuva > For > Business Development > Transworld Computer Channels > Cel: 0722402248 > twitter.com/lordmwesh > www.transworldAfrica.com | Fluent in computing > kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 22 05:05:39 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:05:39 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) References: <50ACEBD0.5050708@netmagic.com> <661ADF76-F3DE-4694-8E1C-E2DD2696FC5D@farber.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16C6A4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <063b01cdc81e$1ad89cb0$5089d610$@gmail.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16C790@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD645@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Ian: I along with quite a few others here do not believe it is in civil society's interests to take sides in this decades old battle. By all means argue for ITU to open up its closed meetings, but I do not think an alignment of opposition to ITU per se is sensible strategically. Wolfgang: ITU does a good job in a number of important fields: frequency coordination, development, infrastructure, standards. ITU needs support to do this job good. But it should stick to its core business. Domain names and IP addresses are not the core business of ITU. I would not recommend that ICANN or the RIRs enter the field of frequency allocation and I do not recommend that ITU should enter the DNS space. Unfortunately since 1996 we have a cold war here. In Guadalajara (2010) there was a moment of "detenete" when for the first time in ITUs history an acronym like ICANN appeared in a ITU resolution (althoug it was only in a footnote). The recommendation was to enhance collaboration. But nothing has happened so far. To end the cold war would need a clear understanding of a division of labour. Since years the option of an ICANN-ITU MoU is discussed without any progress. Fadi and Toure had a "summit meeting" in form of a joint breakfest during the IGF in Baku in October 2012. Both sides were happy with the new level of "mutual understanding". Is this the start of a "new season"? I am not sure. It is very complex. It is not only the ITU Secretariat, it is also about "member states" and as long as member states do not have any interests in something like an ITU-ICANN peaceful coexistence on the basis of a collaborative division of labour we will see a continuation of a harmful arm twisting. Dubai is just the next step. More will come in Geneva (May 2013), in the ITU Plenipotentiary in 2014 and in the WSIS 10+ process (which will kick start in February in Paris) until a possible WSIS III in 2015. The only thing one can hope for is that this cold war will not affect too much the individual Internet user. But also this is nowadays questionable with national governments which want to extend their "national sovereignty" into cyberspace. Wolfgang -----Original Message----- From: Lee W McKnight Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 7:06 AM To: michael gurstein ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) I recommend the more nuanced (?) recent Hollywood B movie - 'Cowboys and Aliens.' In case you missed it, and sorry then for giving away the plot, Cowboys, of the black and white hat variety, and "Indians," all join together to battle the space invaders ; ) Lee ________________________________________ From: michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 2:26 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Lee W McKnight Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) Hmmm... Cowboys and ``Indians``... I like a good shoot-em-up especially when the good guys are all wearing white hats and the bad guys, black ones... Makes figuring out who to root for so much easier :) M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 10:45 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) The attachment is perhaps of interest to some, re WCIT, from old pal, and ex-FCC, ex-ITU, and ex-Verisigner Tony Rutkowski. ; ) Lee ________________________________________ From: David Farber [dave at farber.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:21 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: Any chance Date: November 21, 2012 9:57:20 AM EST To: "DAVID J. FARBER" Reply-To: trutkowski at netmagic.com Hi Dave, Does this do it for you? It should be popular. :-) For noting, I ran the secretariat for the last WCIT, and helped the Secretary-General at the time develop and negotiate the provisions in his hometown of Melbourne. I also led the ITU-T cybersecurity standards group over the past four years. The turf is all too familiar. cheers, tony ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your 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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 22 06:34:00 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 17:04:00 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD645@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <50ACEBD0.5050708@netmagic.com> <661ADF76-F3DE-4694-8E1C-E2DD2696FC5D@farber.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16C6A4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <063b01cdc81e$1ad89cb0$5089d610$@gmail.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16C790@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD645@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <5C73A14E-FFF1-42C1-9039-FECD3C59FD48@hserus.net> To be frank, Bob Shaw moving away (or being moved away?) from cybersecurity activities at ITU has been a giant step backwards .. I have noticed a dramatic lowering of the level of engagement with civil society and other relevant non government stakeholders since then. --srs (iPad) On 22-Nov-2012, at 15:35, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Ian: > I along with quite a few others here do not believe it is in civil society's interests to take sides in this decades old battle. By all means > argue for ITU to open up its closed meetings, but I do not think an alignment of opposition to ITU per se is sensible strategically. > > Wolfgang: > ITU does a good job in a number of important fields: frequency coordination, development, infrastructure, standards. ITU needs support to do this job good. But it should stick to its core business. Domain names and IP addresses are not the core business of ITU. I would not recommend that ICANN or the RIRs enter the field of frequency allocation and I do not recommend that ITU should enter the DNS space. Unfortunately since 1996 we have a cold war here. In Guadalajara (2010) there was a moment of "detenete" when for the first time in ITUs history an acronym like ICANN appeared in a ITU resolution (althoug it was only in a footnote). The recommendation was to enhance collaboration. But nothing has happened so far. To end the cold war would need a clear understanding of a division of labour. Since years the option of an ICANN-ITU MoU is discussed without any progress. Fadi and Toure had a "summit meeting" in form of a joint breakfest during the IGF in Baku in October 2012. Both sides were happy with the new level of "mutual understanding". Is this the start of a "new season"? I am not sure. It is very complex. It is not only the ITU Secretariat, it is also about "member states" and as long as member states do not have any interests in something like an ITU-ICANN peaceful coexistence on the basis of a collaborative division of labour we will see a continuation of a harmful arm twisting. Dubai is just the next step. More will come in Geneva (May 2013), in the ITU Plenipotentiary in 2014 and in the WSIS 10+ process (which will kick start in February in Paris) until a possible WSIS III in 2015. The only thing one can hope for is that this cold war will not affect too much the individual Internet user. But also this is nowadays questionable with national governments which want to extend their "national sovereignty" into cyberspace. > > > Wolfgang > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee W McKnight > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 7:06 AM > To: michael gurstein ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note > from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) > > I recommend the more nuanced (?) recent Hollywood B movie - 'Cowboys and > Aliens.' > In case you missed it, and sorry then for giving away the plot, Cowboys, of > the black and white hat variety, and "Indians," all join together to battle > the space invaders ; ) > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 2:26 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Lee W McKnight > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note > from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) > > Hmmm... Cowboys and ``Indians``... I like a good shoot-em-up especially when > the good guys are all wearing white hats and the bad guys, black ones... > Makes figuring out who to root for so much easier :) > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 10:45 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from > Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) > > The attachment is perhaps of interest to some, re WCIT, from old pal, and > ex-FCC, ex-ITU, and ex-Verisigner Tony Rutkowski. ; ) > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: David Farber [dave at farber.net] > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:21 PM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski > (comments welcomed :-) ) > > From: Tony Rutkowski > Subject: Re: Any chance > Date: November 21, 2012 9:57:20 AM EST > To: "DAVID J. FARBER" > Reply-To: trutkowski at netmagic.com > > Hi Dave, > > Does this do it for you? > It should be popular. :-) > > For noting, I ran the secretariat > for the last WCIT, and helped > the Secretary-General at the > time develop and negotiate > the provisions in his hometown > of Melbourne. I also led the > ITU-T cybersecurity standards > group over the past four years. > The turf is all too familiar. > > cheers, > tony > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Nov 22 09:23:31 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 16:23:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: <051901cdc807$dae2b7f0$90a827d0$@gmail.com> References: <50AC87A2.7050407@itforchange.net> <50AC88AD.5070304@gmail.com> <20121121084024.GB25733@hserus.net> <051901cdc807$dae2b7f0$90a827d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50AE3563.1040505@gmail.com> Haha, sometimes irony is just lost on this list... Thanks Gurstein! Irony does not translate well on the internet indeed... It does however flush out some rather interesting verbiage from our rather eloquent interlocutors : ) People in glass houses should not get undressed in the dark and all that... On 2012/11/21 06:47 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > FWIW, it is probably good to point out that Riaz` original comments on > Parminder`s post were meant ironically (and supportively… > > Which suggests Internet Communicativity Rule #2* /Irony doesn`t > translate well on the (multilingual/multicultural) Internet…/ > > *Internet Communicativity Rule #1, /there are no Communicativity Rules > on the Internet/./Whatever you say in whatever language will always be > misinterpreted by someone somewhere. /:) (including this message, see > rule #2. > > Best, > > M > > *From:*sama.digitalpolicy at gmail.com > [mailto:sama.digitalpolicy at gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Andrea Glorioso > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 21, 2012 7:07 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website > > I do not often intervene in this mailing list, although I follow it > with great attention. > > But I must say that independently from any substantive opinion one > might have on Google, the ITU, WCIT or anything else, I find the tone > of recent emails concerning the mental state and/or other personal > characteristics of people extremely distasteful and very unhelpful to > foster dialogue, which I thought was one of the main objectives of the > the multi-stakeholder model. > > Civil society's main strength lies in its diversity. In my view such > diversity should be nurtured. I never believed in fake notions of > "consensus", nor am I shy to express my or the European Commission's > disagreement when need be; but one can do so, even quite strongly, > focusing on the substance rather than other elements. > > Best, > > Andrea > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Sivasubramanian M > > wrote: > > On Nov 21, 2012 2:10 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > wrote: > > > > I fail to see how google selling email, collaboration etc services to > > telcos has anything to do with the free and open internet here. > > > > Remember something - even if google sells something to the telcos, the > > users are the telco's users, and the law that's followed will be the > law of > > whichever country those users are in, and the telco does business in. > > > > And as for asking whether parminder is crazy .. well, I will confess > that I > > don't quite have to ask myself that question at all. > > That is too emphatic an assertion. I would not agree with the idea > that Parminder is crazy. Parminder is sane, intelligent, calculative > and his responses to any thing said or done for the good of the > Internet is strategically constructed, sometimes incoherently, this > again with a calculated purpose. > > It requires a person of Parminder's distorted intelligence to come > with a response to something so good as Google's campaign to preserve > the free and open Internet. > > His strategy: "Don't find fault with the ideas expressed in the Google > campaign (because you can't). Find fault with Google (it is easier, > and definitely distracts attention away from the arguments presented > to the arguer, Google)". This is 'argumentum ad hominem' > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem > > Parminder is quite intelligent, but his liver, brain and heart are > contaminated by a misplaced passion for the ITU. > > Sivasubramanian M. > > > > > Riaz K Tayob [21/11/12 09:54 +0200]: > > > >> Are you crazy Parminder? > >> > >> Rule no. 1 The "free market" is always right > >> > >> Rule no. 2 If not, consult rule number 1. > >> > >> Rule no. 3 If you feel let down by rule no. 1 consult rule no. 2 > >> > >> Apologies if this seems self-referential... but that is how it IS > >> > >> > >> > >> On 2012/11/21 09:49 AM, parminder wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> From Google's sign-on campaign > >>> > >>> “A free and open world depends on a free and open > >>> Internet. Governments alone, working behind closed doors, > >>> should not direct its future. The billions of people > >>> around the globe who use the Internet should have a voice.” > >>> > >>> > >>> > https://www.google.com/takeaction/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=112012freeandopen#make-your-voice-heard > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Dear Google; Yes, the world indeed needs an open Internet, for > which reason it is rather awful to note that you, meaning, Google; > >>> > >>> 1) Sold the entire net neutrality campaign down the drain in the > US, by first assuming its leadership and then entering into a > self-serving agreement with Verizon, whereby the main means of > accessing the Internet in the future - mobiles - are exempted from net > neutrality provisions. > >>> > >>> 2) Have recently entered into exclusive arrangements with telecos > to provide Gmail, Google + and Google Search for free in some > developing countries (Philippines) , and as a special low cost package > exclusively of a few Internet services (and not the full, public > Internet) in others (India), which makes a mockery of an open and net > neutral Internet. > >>> > >>> 3) Tweak your search results, which is increasingly the main way > of accessing locations on the Internet, in non-transparent ways, with > increasing evidence that this is done in a manner that merely serves > your own commercial interests and goes against consumer/ public > interest, and for which reasons Google is currently subject to > regulatory investigations in the US and EU. > >>> > >>> ( There are hundreds of other outrages, big and small, including > the fact that today I suddenly see my default browser getting set for > "Chrome' when I prefer and have always used Mozilla Firefox and never > asked for the change of default.) > >>> > >>> I cannot see anything other than effective regulation of the > Internet to be able to check such excesses by Internet companies that > are deeply compromising the openness of the Internet (sticking here to > only to the subject of openness of the Internet, used in above appeal > by Google). > >>> > >>> So, lets be honest, it is not about people versus ITU, not even, > Google versus ITU, or even Google versus content regulation; it is > Google versus any regulation of the Internet space so that Google, and > similarly positioned dominant players, can have a free run over the > economic, social and political resources of the world. > >>> > >>> It is very important to wage the needed struggles to keep > Internet's content free from undue statist controls. But one needs to > be careful about whom one chooses as partners, nay, leaders of the > campaign. Remember, the lessons from the net neutrality campaign in > the US which was sold cheap by those who assumed its leadership. Also, > have no doubt whatsoever that ACTAs and PIPAs will come back in new > forms, accommodating the interests of the big Internet companies that > led the opposition in the first round. (Anyone wanting to take a bet > on this! :) ) And. when the second round happens, since 'our leaders' > would have crossed over, there wouldnt be much fight left to give. > >>> > >>> For sure, make opportunistic, tactical, alliances, but civil > society needs to be careful not to abandon leadership of public > interest causes to players who cannot but become turncoat and, well, > betray, - sooner or later getting into bed with whoever is > economically and politically powerful around to help their business > prosper. Such is the structural logic of big business. Let them stick > to what they do best - organise productive forces of the world. Leave > public interest causes to public interest players - civil society and > governments. However, if the sentiment is simply overflowing, maybe > just donate some money to such causes, in an arms- lenght /hands-off > approach vis a vis managing the precise activities involved. I simply > dont fancy corporate-led 'public interest' campaigns. > >>> > >>> One was stuck by the number of Google organised panels at the Baku > IGF, where they openly took part and gave their policy pitch. As a > participant from Pakistan said at a workshop ' I find a Google > representative at every panel that I am at'. Such brash presence at > policy forums and taking strong policy positions by corporates is a > relatively new game, and to my mind not a welcome thing for our > democracies. I keep hoping that civil society would give this > phenomenon a deeper thought and analysis, rather than just riding the > bandwagon. > >>> > >>> parminder > >>> > >>> On Wednesday 21 November 2012 04:47 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Just saw Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website > >>>> > >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/ > >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/fr/takeaction/ > >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/es/takeaction/ > >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/ar/takeaction/ > >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/zh-CN/takeaction/ > >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/pt-BR/takeaction/ > >>>> https://www.google.com/intl/ru/takeaction/ > >>>> > >>>> (thanks to a colleague for sharing!) > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 nashton at ccianet.org Thu Nov 22 09:31:40 2012 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 15:31:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: <20121121103630.69164efa@quill.bollow.ch> References: <50AC87A2.7050407@itforchange.net> <50AC88AD.5070304@gmail.com> <20121121084024.GB25733@hserus.net> <20121121103630.69164efa@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: +1 On 21 Nov 2012, at 10:36, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Please let's refrain from any kind of ridicule and ad hominem attacks. > > Having a constructive discussion between people with very different > viewpoints is challenging enough already in the absence of directing > unpleasant, ridiculing words at anyone. Such ridicule is particularly > problematic when it is used to attack someone who has a viewpoint that > a large number of other participants find difficult to understand. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 22 09:41:39 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 16:41:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50AE39A3.5050000@gmail.com> having been the "victim" of too robust engagement on this list, I feel incumbent to respond... There is a difference between posting a third party article (that might be provocative etc) and entering the fray. This is a crucial difference that needs to be borne in mind. I will say it straight out (so there is no doubt), this list has a predilection for ICANN (on CIR) and market/corporate views as opposed to public interest views (of course any minority like to feel it is special ;) and I am so glad that more even handedness is being shown by moderators like Sala... I am not sure even Hegel would have agreed that civil society was civil (it was aspirational), but he encouraged the dialectical (i.e. reasoned argument) as the best way forward in civil society... So for me the only worry is whether the arguments made can be sustained by reason... on this list, in times not so long ago, reason was typically a hostage in the arguments against Auerbach, Parminder, Gurstein type arguments... On 2012/11/22 02:54 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Right. Truthout screeds, random allegations, accusations about > "arrogance", half truth laden polemic .. to pick a few. > > And those are not deemed to be personal attacks because they are > targeted at a corporation rather than individual? > > Fun days. There was a time when civil society discourse was actually > civil. But any incivility I have committed is in response to behavior > that does not and should not characterize civil society. > > So sala, thank you for your warning. > > --srs (htc one x) > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Guru गुरु" > To: > Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website > Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2012 10:51 PM > > > > http://truth-out.org/news/item/12676-how-google-is-helping-the-gas-lobby-support-fracking > > > On Wednesday 21 November 2012 06:25 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Google is now champion for arrogance and disinformation. They believe > > they reached a State statute whereby they can dictate other States > > what they have to do. Actually this not so different from the US gov > > attitude. > > > > Google's dominance of the advertising market is in no way a guarantee > > of quality and neutrality. They just leverage their dominance for > > promoting their own business. And they conflate their particular > > interests with grand ideologies as free information for all. > > > > Let's assume that drugs are free for all. Then the web would be > > swamped with ads for drugs, seminars praising benefits of using drugs, > > training sessions for acquiring drug consumption art, testimonies from > > drug users telling how it changed their life for the good, mass > > campaign vilifying institutions or governments requesting drug > > control, and so on. Just because the drug maffia has enough resources > > for controlling a free market. And the saying is "the market is right". > > > > As expected, the simple association of information and drug will > > immediately raise fury. It's just taboo. Like associating Google > > interests with freedom of information. > > > > There was a time when the US gov would resist and break excessive and > > abusive dominance in certain market segments, like oil, bank, telecom. > > Now it's the opposite. Excessive market dominance is good for US world > > dominance, as long as the dominant firms are based in the US. Then > > where are check and balance mechanisms ? > > > > Let's not be fooled by Google stylish propaganda. The real issues in > > WCIT 2012 have nothing to do with internet censorship, and Google > > knows it too well. The issues are finding a more equitable balance > > between stakeholders interests and profits. > > > > Parminder's observations are entirely relevant. The most dangerous > > threats to information freedom are US lead secretly negotiated > > treaties by multi-national lobbies, SOPA, ACTA, etc. More are coming, > > still secret, basically a rehash of those that failed, TPP, CleanIT, > > .. watch out. > > > > Cheers, Louis > > - - - > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, parminder > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday 21 November 2012 01:19 PM, parminder wrote: > >> snip > > > >> Dear Google; Yes, the world indeed needs an open Internet, for > >> which reason it is rather awful to note that you, meaning, Google; > >> > >> 1) Sold the entire net neutrality campaign down the drain in the > >> US, by first assuming its leadership and then entering into a > >> self-serving agreement with Verizon, whereby the main means of > >> accessing the Internet in the future - mobiles - are exempted > >> from net neutrality provisions. > >> > >> 2) Have recently entered into exclusive arrangements with telecos > >> to provide Gmail, Google + and Google Search for free in some > >> developing countries (Philippines) , and as a special low cost > >> package exclusively of a few Internet services (and not the full, > >> public Internet) in others (India), which makes a mockery of an > >> open and net neutral Internet. > > > > BTW, is it a mere coincidence these new mobile based > > non-net-neutral services seem to have something to do with the > > betraying compromise that Google made that is mentioned in point 1 > > above? > > > >> > >> 3) Tweak your search results, which is increasingly the main way > >> of accessing locations on the Internet, in non-transparent ways, > >> with increasing evidence that this is done in a manner that > >> merely serves your own commercial interests and goes against > >> consumer/ public interest, and for which reasons Google is > >> currently subject to regulatory investigations in the US and EU. > >> > >> ( There are hundreds of other outrages, big and small, including > >> the fact that today I suddenly see my default browser getting > >> set for "Chrome' when I prefer and have always used Mozilla > >> Firefox and never asked for the change of default.) > >> > >> I cannot see anything other than effective regulation of the > >> Internet to be able to check such excesses by Internet companies > >> that are deeply compromising the openness of the Internet > >> (sticking here to only to the subject of openness of the > >> Internet, used in above appeal by Google). > >> > >> So, lets be honest, it is not about people versus ITU, not even, > >> Google versus ITU, or even Google versus content regulation; it > >> is Google versus any regulation of the Internet space so that > >> Google, and similarly positioned dominant players, can have a > >> free run over the economic, social and political resources of the > >> world. > >> > >> It is very important to wage the needed struggles to keep > >> 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Nov 22 09:43:03 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 16:43:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: <50AC87A2.7050407@itforchange.net> <50AC88AD.5070304@gmail.com> <20121121084024.GB25733@hserus.net> <20121121103630.69164efa@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <50AE39F7.6000301@gmail.com> +1, conditional upon even-handedness i.e. irrespective of political position! On 2012/11/22 04:31 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > +1 > > On 21 Nov 2012, at 10:36, Norbert Bollow > wrote: > >> Please let's refrain from any kind of ridicule and ad hominem attacks. >> >> Having a constructive discussion between people with very different >> viewpoints is challenging enough already in the absence of directing >> unpleasant, ridiculing words at anyone. Such ridicule is particularly >> problematic when it is used to attack someone who has a viewpoint that >> a large number of other participants find difficult to understand. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 22 09:49:50 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 06:49:50 -0800 Subject: [governance] All WCIT Documents Made Public by Dot.-Nxt Message-ID: <089501cdc8c0$bb243240$316c96c0$@gmail.com> http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/11/23/why-we-are-making-all-wcit-doc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 22 09:51:06 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 20:21:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] europarl resolution Message-ID: http://falkvinge.net/2012/11/22/european-parliament-unanimously-passed-resolution-against-itu-asserting-control-over-internet/ --srs (iPad) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 22 10:01:04 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 20:31:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: <50AE39A3.5050000@gmail.com> References: <50AE39A3.5050000@gmail.com> Message-ID: <792F7656-0E62-404A-9DA6-069FC71908FA@hserus.net> Riaz, I like to think of myself as somewhere between the two camps and not attached to either. I see (and have earlier commented on) multiple flaws in ICANN's processes and governance, and I don't have blind faith in either of those. You don't see me reacting as viscerally to, say, Gurstein (or even to Karl Auerbach, with whom I've had my share of differences of opinion before on politechbot and elsewhere) There is, however, a rather clear line between dialectics and propaganda. And I am afraid I tend to react very negatively when I see propaganda. Especially where it is of the sort that seeks to demonise the opposition just to score a point. Without in any way comparing anybody on or off this list to a nazi, I would still like to leave this chapter from Mein Kampf here as probably the most succinct essay on the effective use of propaganda that I have ever read. And when I see these principles freely applied anywhere (in industry lobbying, in civil society 'advocacy (!)' ..) it leaves an extremely bad taste in my mouth. http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch06.html --srs (iPad) On 22-Nov-2012, at 20:11, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > having been the "victim" of too robust engagement on this list, I feel incumbent to respond... > > There is a difference between posting a third party article (that might be provocative etc) and entering the fray. This is a crucial difference that needs to be borne in mind. > > I will say it straight out (so there is no doubt), this list has a predilection for ICANN (on CIR) and market/corporate views as opposed to public interest views (of course any minority like to feel it is special ;) and I am so glad that more even handedness is being shown by moderators like Sala... > > I am not sure even Hegel would have agreed that civil society was civil (it was aspirational), but he encouraged the dialectical (i.e. reasoned argument) as the best way forward in civil society... So for me the only worry is whether the arguments made can be sustained by reason... on this list, in times not so long ago, reason was typically a hostage in the arguments against Auerbach, Parminder, Gurstein type arguments... > > > > On 2012/11/22 02:54 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Right. Truthout screeds, random allegations, accusations about "arrogance", half truth laden polemic .. to pick a few. >> >> And those are not deemed to be personal attacks because they are targeted at a corporation rather than individual? >> >> Fun days. There was a time when civil society discourse was actually civil. But any incivility I have committed is in response to behavior that does not and should not characterize civil society. >> >> So sala, thank you for your warning. >> >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "Guru गुरु" >> To: >> Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website >> Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2012 10:51 PM >> >> >> >> http://truth-out.org/news/item/12676-how-google-is-helping-the-gas-lobby-support-fracking >> >> >> On Wednesday 21 November 2012 06:25 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Google is now champion for arrogance and disinformation. They believe >> > they reached a State statute whereby they can dictate other States >> > what they have to do. Actually this not so different from the US gov >> > attitude. >> > >> > Google's dominance of the advertising market is in no way a guarantee >> > of quality and neutrality. They just leverage their dominance for >> > promoting their own business. And they conflate their particular >> > interests with grand ideologies as free information for all. >> > >> > Let's assume that drugs are free for all. Then the web would be >> > swamped with ads for drugs, seminars praising benefits of using drugs, >> > training sessions for acquiring drug consumption art, testimonies from >> > drug users telling how it changed their life for the good, mass >> > campaign vilifying institutions or governments requesting drug >> > control, and so on. Just because the drug maffia has enough resources >> > for controlling a free market. And the saying is "the market is right". >> > >> > As expected, the simple association of information and drug will >> > immediately raise fury. It's just taboo. Like associating Google >> > interests with freedom of information. >> > >> > There was a time when the US gov would resist and break excessive and >> > abusive dominance in certain market segments, like oil, bank, telecom. >> > Now it's the opposite. Excessive market dominance is good for US world >> > dominance, as long as the dominant firms are based in the US. Then >> > where are check and balance mechanisms ? >> > >> > Let's not be fooled by Google stylish propaganda. The real issues in >> > WCIT 2012 have nothing to do with internet censorship, and Google >> > knows it too well. The issues are finding a more equitable balance >> > between stakeholders interests and profits. >> > >> > Parminder's observations are entirely relevant. The most dangerous >> > threats to information freedom are US lead secretly negotiated >> > treaties by multi-national lobbies, SOPA, ACTA, etc. More are coming, >> > still secret, basically a rehash of those that failed, TPP, CleanIT, >> > .. watch out. >> > >> > Cheers, Louis >> > - - - >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, parminder > > > wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Wednesday 21 November 2012 01:19 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> snip >> > >> >> Dear Google; Yes, the world indeed needs an open Internet, for >> >> which reason it is rather awful to note that you, meaning, Google; >> >> >> >> 1) Sold the entire net neutrality campaign down the drain in the >> >> US, by first assuming its leadership and then entering into a >> >> self-serving agreement with Verizon, whereby the main means of >> >> accessing the Internet in the future - mobiles - are exempted >> >> from net neutrality provisions. >> >> >> >> 2) Have recently entered into exclusive arrangements with telecos >> >> to provide Gmail, Google + and Google Search for free in some >> >> developing countries (Philippines) , and as a special low cost >> >> package exclusively of a few Internet services (and not the full, >> >> public Internet) in others (India), which makes a mockery of an >> >> open and net neutral Internet. >> > >> > BTW, is it a mere coincidence these new mobile based >> > non-net-neutral services seem to have something to do with the >> > betraying compromise that Google made that is mentioned in point 1 >> > above? >> > >> >> >> >> 3) Tweak your search results, which is increasingly the main way >> >> of accessing locations on the Internet, in non-transparent ways, >> >> with increasing evidence that this is done in a manner that >> >> merely serves your own commercial interests and goes against >> >> consumer/ public interest, and for which reasons Google is >> >> currently subject to regulatory investigations in the US and EU. >> >> >> >> ( There are hundreds of other outrages, big and small, including >> >> the fact that today I suddenly see my default browser getting >> >> set for "Chrome' when I prefer and have always used Mozilla >> >> Firefox and never asked for the change of default.) >> >> >> >> I cannot see anything other than effective regulation of the >> >> Internet to be able to check such excesses by Internet companies >> >> that are deeply compromising the openness of the Internet >> >> (sticking here to only to the subject of openness of the >> >> Internet, used in above appeal by Google). >> >> >> >> So, lets be honest, it is not about people versus ITU, not even, >> >> Google versus ITU, or even Google versus content regulation; it >> >> is Google versus any regulation of the Internet space so that >> >> Google, and similarly positioned dominant players, can have a >> >> free run over the economic, social and political resources of the >> >> world. >> >> >> >> It is very important to wage the needed struggles to keep >> >> In > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 22 10:36:40 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 07:36:40 -0800 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: <792F7656-0E62-404A-9DA6-069FC71908FA@hserus.net> References: <50AE39A3.5050000@gmail.com> <792F7656-0E62-404A-9DA6-069FC71908FA@hserus.net> Message-ID: <08d301cdc8c7$3e588c50$bb09a4f0$@gmail.com> Ah, we`ve done a Godwin … I knew it was coming… M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 7:01 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website Riaz, I like to think of myself as somewhere between the two camps and not attached to either. I see (and have earlier commented on) multiple flaws in ICANN's processes and governance, and I don't have blind faith in either of those. You don't see me reacting as viscerally to, say, Gurstein (or even to Karl Auerbach, with whom I've had my share of differences of opinion before on politechbot and elsewhere) There is, however, a rather clear line between dialectics and propaganda. And I am afraid I tend to react very negatively when I see propaganda. Especially where it is of the sort that seeks to demonise the opposition just to score a point. Without in any way comparing anybody on or off this list to a nazi, I would still like to leave this chapter from Mein Kampf here as probably the most succinct essay on the effective use of propaganda that I have ever read. And when I see these principles freely applied anywhere (in industry lobbying, in civil society 'advocacy (!)' ..) it leaves an extremely bad taste in my mouth. http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch06.html --srs (iPad) On 22-Nov-2012, at 20:11, Riaz K Tayob wrote: having been the "victim" of too robust engagement on this list, I feel incumbent to respond... There is a difference between posting a third party article (that might be provocative etc) and entering the fray. This is a crucial difference that needs to be borne in mind. I will say it straight out (so there is no doubt), this list has a predilection for ICANN (on CIR) and market/corporate views as opposed to public interest views (of course any minority like to feel it is special ;) and I am so glad that more even handedness is being shown by moderators like Sala... I am not sure even Hegel would have agreed that civil society was civil (it was aspirational), but he encouraged the dialectical (i.e. reasoned argument) as the best way forward in civil society... So for me the only worry is whether the arguments made can be sustained by reason... on this list, in times not so long ago, reason was typically a hostage in the arguments against Auerbach, Parminder, Gurstein type arguments... On 2012/11/22 02:54 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Right. Truthout screeds, random allegations, accusations about "arrogance", half truth laden polemic .. to pick a few. And those are not deemed to be personal attacks because they are targeted at a corporation rather than individual? Fun days. There was a time when civil society discourse was actually civil. But any incivility I have committed is in response to behavior that does not and should not characterize civil society. So sala, thank you for your warning. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Guru गुरु" To: Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2012 10:51 PM http://truth-out.org/news/item/12676-how-google-is-helping-the-gas-lobby-support-fracking On Wednesday 21 November 2012 06:25 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Hi all, > > Google is now champion for arrogance and disinformation. They believe > they reached a State statute whereby they can dictate other States > what they have to do. Actually this not so different from the US gov > attitude. > > Google's dominance of the advertising market is in no way a guarantee > of quality and neutrality. They just leverage their dominance for > promoting their own business. And they conflate their particular > interests with grand ideologies as free information for all. > > Let's assume that drugs are free for all. Then the web would be > swamped with ads for drugs, seminars praising benefits of using drugs, > training sessions for acquiring drug consumption art, testimonies from > drug users telling how it changed their life for the good, mass > campaign vilifying institutions or governments requesting drug > control, and so on. Just because the drug maffia has enough resources > for controlling a free market. And the saying is "the market is right". > > As expected, the simple association of information and drug will > immediately raise fury. It's just taboo. Like associating Google > interests with freedom of information. > > There was a time when the US gov would resist and break excessive and > abusive dominance in certain market segments, like oil, bank, telecom. > Now it's the opposite. Excessive market dominance is good for US world > dominance, as long as the dominant firms are based in the US. Then > where are check and balance mechanisms ? > > Let's not be fooled by Google stylish propaganda. The real issues in > WCIT 2012 have nothing to do with internet censorship, and Google > knows it too well. The issues are finding a more equitable balance > between stakeholders interests and profits. > > Parminder's observations are entirely relevant. The most dangerous > threats to information freedom are US lead secretly negotiated > treaties by multi-national lobbies, SOPA, ACTA, etc. More are coming, > still secret, basically a rehash of those that failed, TPP, CleanIT, > .. watch out. > > Cheers, Louis > - - - > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, parminder > wrote: > > > On Wednesday 21 November 2012 01:19 PM, parminder wrote: >> snip > >> Dear Google; Yes, the world indeed needs an open Internet, for >> which reason it is rather awful to note that you, meaning, Google; >> >> 1) Sold the entire net neutrality campaign down the drain in the >> US, by first assuming its leadership and then entering into a >> self-serving agreement with Verizon, whereby the main means of >> accessing the Internet in the future - mobiles - are exempted >> from net neutrality provisions. >> >> 2) Have recently entered into exclusive arrangements with telecos >> to provide Gmail, Google + and Google Search for free in some >> developing countries (Philippines) , and as a special low cost >> package exclusively of a few Internet services (and not the full, >> public Internet) in others (India), which makes a mockery of an >> open and net neutral Internet. > > BTW, is it a mere coincidence these new mobile based > non-net-neutral services seem to have something to do with the > betraying compromise that Google made that is mentioned in point 1 > above? > >> >> 3) Tweak your search results, which is increasingly the main way >> of accessing locations on the Internet, in non-transparent ways, >> with increasing evidence that this is done in a manner that >> merely serves your own commercial interests and goes against >> consumer/ public interest, and for which reasons Google is >> currently subject to regulatory investigations in the US and EU. >> >> ( There are hundreds of other outrages, big and small, including >> the fact that today I suddenly see my default browser getting >> set for "Chrome' when I prefer and have always used Mozilla >> Firefox and never asked for the change of default.) >> >> I cannot see anything other than effective regulation of the >> Internet to be able to check such excesses by Internet companies >> that are deeply compromising the openness of the Internet >> (sticking here to only to the subject of openness of the >> Internet, used in above appeal by Google). >> >> So, lets be honest, it is not about people versus ITU, not even, >> Google versus ITU, or even Google versus content regulation; it >> is Google versus any regulation of the Internet space so that >> Google, and similarly positioned dominant players, can have a >> free run over the economic, social and political resources of the >> world. >> >> It is very important to wage the needed struggles to keep >> In ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 22 10:56:19 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 21:26:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: <08d301cdc8c7$3e588c50$bb09a4f0$@gmail.com> References: <50AE39A3.5050000@gmail.com> <792F7656-0E62-404A-9DA6-069FC71908FA@hserus.net> <08d301cdc8c7$3e588c50$bb09a4f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Not really. I am not calling anybody at all a nazi here. Did you read that essay, Michael? --srs (iPad) On 22-Nov-2012, at 21:06, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Ah, we`ve done a Godwin… I knew it was coming… > > M > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 7:01 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website > > Riaz, I like to think of myself as somewhere between the two camps and not attached to either. > > I see (and have earlier commented on) multiple flaws in ICANN's processes and governance, and I don't have blind faith in either of those. > > You don't see me reacting as viscerally to, say, Gurstein (or even to Karl Auerbach, with whom I've had my share of differences of opinion before on politechbot and elsewhere) > > There is, however, a rather clear line between dialectics and propaganda. And I am afraid I tend to react very negatively when I see propaganda. Especially where it is of the sort that seeks to demonise the opposition just to score a point. > > Without in any way comparing anybody on or off this list to a nazi, I would still like to leave this chapter from Mein Kampf here as probably the most succinct essay on the effective use of propaganda that I have ever read. And when I see these principles freely applied anywhere (in industry lobbying, in civil society 'advocacy (!)' ..) it leaves an extremely bad taste in my mouth. > > http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch06.html > > --srs (iPad) > > On 22-Nov-2012, at 20:11, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > having been the "victim" of too robust engagement on this list, I feel incumbent to respond... > > There is a difference between posting a third party article (that might be provocative etc) and entering the fray. This is a crucial difference that needs to be borne in mind. > > I will say it straight out (so there is no doubt), this list has a predilection for ICANN (on CIR) and market/corporate views as opposed to public interest views (of course any minority like to feel it is special ;) and I am so glad that more even handedness is being shown by moderators like Sala... > > I am not sure even Hegel would have agreed that civil society was civil (it was aspirational), but he encouraged the dialectical (i.e. reasoned argument) as the best way forward in civil society... So for me the only worry is whether the arguments made can be sustained by reason... on this list, in times not so long ago, reason was typically a hostage in the arguments against Auerbach, Parminder, Gurstein type arguments... > > > > On 2012/11/22 02:54 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Right. Truthout screeds, random allegations, accusations about "arrogance", half truth laden polemic .. to pick a few. > > And those are not deemed to be personal attacks because they are targeted at a corporation rather than individual? > > Fun days. There was a time when civil society discourse was actually civil. But any incivility I have committed is in response to behavior that does not and should not characterize civil society. > > So sala, thank you for your warning. > > --srs (htc one x) > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Guru गुरु" > To: > Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website > Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2012 10:51 PM > > > > http://truth-out.org/news/item/12676-how-google-is-helping-the-gas-lobby-support-fracking > > > On Wednesday 21 November 2012 06:25 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Google is now champion for arrogance and disinformation. They believe > > they reached a State statute whereby they can dictate other States > > what they have to do. Actually this not so different from the US gov > > attitude. > > > > Google's dominance of the advertising market is in no way a guarantee > > of quality and neutrality. They just leverage their dominance for > > promoting their own business. And they conflate their particular > > interests with grand ideologies as free information for all. > > > > Let's assume that drugs are free for all. Then the web would be > > swamped with ads for drugs, seminars praising benefits of using drugs, > > training sessions for acquiring drug consumption art, testimonies from > > drug users telling how it changed their life for the good, mass > > campaign vilifying institutions or governments requesting drug > > control, and so on. Just because the drug maffia has enough resources > > for controlling a free market. And the saying is "the market is right". > > > > As expected, the simple association of information and drug will > > immediately raise fury. It's just taboo. Like associating Google > > interests with freedom of information. > > > > There was a time when the US gov would resist and break excessive and > > abusive dominance in certain market segments, like oil, bank, telecom. > > Now it's the opposite. Excessive market dominance is good for US world > > dominance, as long as the dominant firms are based in the US. Then > > where are check and balance mechanisms ? > > > > Let's not be fooled by Google stylish propaganda. The real issues in > > WCIT 2012 have nothing to do with internet censorship, and Google > > knows it too well. The issues are finding a more equitable balance > > between stakeholders interests and profits. > > > > Parminder's observations are entirely relevant. The most dangerous > > threats to information freedom are US lead secretly negotiated > > treaties by multi-national lobbies, SOPA, ACTA, etc. More are coming, > > still secret, basically a rehash of those that failed, TPP, CleanIT, > > .. watch out. > > > > Cheers, Louis > > - - - > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, parminder > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday 21 November 2012 01:19 PM, parminder wrote: > >> snip > > > >> Dear Google; Yes, the world indeed needs an open Internet, for > >> which reason it is rather awful to note that you, meaning, Google; > >> > >> 1) Sold the entire net neutrality campaign down the drain in the > >> US, by first assuming its leadership and then entering into a > >> self-serving agreement with Verizon, whereby the main means of > >> accessing the Internet in the future - mobiles - are exempted > >> from net neutrality provisions. > >> > >> 2) Have recently entered into exclusive arrangements with telecos > >> to provide Gmail, Google + and Google Search for free in some > >> developing countries (Philippines) , and as a special low cost > >> package exclusively of a few Internet services (and not the full, > >> public Internet) in others (India), which makes a mockery of an > >> open and net neutral Internet. > > > > BTW, is it a mere coincidence these new mobile based > > non-net-neutral services seem to have something to do with the > > betraying compromise that Google made that is mentioned in point 1 > > above? > > > >> > >> 3) Tweak your search results, which is increasingly the main way > >> of accessing locations on the Internet, in non-transparent ways, > >> with increasing evidence that this is done in a manner that > >> merely serves your own commercial interests and goes against > >> consumer/ public interest, and for which reasons Google is > >> currently subject to regulatory investigations in the US and EU. > >> > >> ( There are hundreds of other outrages, big and small, including > >> the fact that today I suddenly see my default browser getting > >> set for "Chrome' when I prefer and have always used Mozilla > >> Firefox and never asked for the change of default.) > >> > >> I cannot see anything other than effective regulation of the > >> Internet to be able to check such excesses by Internet companies > >> that are deeply compromising the openness of the Internet > >> (sticking here to only to the subject of openness of the > >> Internet, used in above appeal by Google). > >> > >> So, lets be honest, it is not about people versus ITU, not even, > >> Google versus ITU, or even Google versus content regulation; it > >> is Google versus any regulation of the Internet space so that > >> Google, and similarly positioned dominant players, can have a > >> free run over the economic, social and political resources of the > >> world. > >> > >> It is very important to wage the needed struggles to keep > >> In > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 22 11:02:21 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 05:02:21 +1300 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: <50AE39A3.5050000@gmail.com> <792F7656-0E62-404A-9DA6-069FC71908FA@hserus.net> <08d301cdc8c7$3e588c50$bb09a4f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Suresh, Please refrain from using words like "Nazi" on this list. Dialogue on any of the Internet Governance issues and topics. This discussion has escalated off the relevant issues. Any more warnings and I will remove you from the list. Let this serve as a reminder to all to keep the discussions on Internet Governance issues. Regards, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala *(IGC Co-Coordinator)* On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Not really. I am not calling anybody at all a nazi here. > > Did you read that essay, Michael? > > --srs (iPad) > > On 22-Nov-2012, at 21:06, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Ah, we`ve done a Godwin … I > knew it was coming…**** > > ** ** > > M**** > > ** ** > > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] > *On Behalf Of *Suresh Ramasubramanian > *Sent:* Thursday, November 22, 2012 7:01 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob > *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website**** > > ** ** > > Riaz, I like to think of myself as somewhere between the two camps and not > attached to either. **** > > ** ** > > I see (and have earlier commented on) multiple flaws in ICANN's processes > and governance, and I don't have blind faith in either of those.**** > > ** ** > > You don't see me reacting as viscerally to, say, Gurstein (or even to Karl > Auerbach, with whom I've had my share of differences of opinion before on > politechbot and elsewhere)**** > > ** ** > > There is, however, a rather clear line between dialectics and propaganda. > And I am afraid I tend to react very negatively when I see propaganda. > Especially where it is of the sort that seeks to demonise the opposition > just to score a point. **** > > ** ** > > Without in any way comparing anybody on or off this list to a nazi, I > would still like to leave this chapter from Mein Kampf here as probably the > most succinct essay on the effective use of propaganda that I have ever > read. And when I see these principles freely applied anywhere (in > industry lobbying, in civil society 'advocacy (!)' ..) it leaves an > extremely bad taste in my mouth.**** > > ** ** > > http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch06.html**** > > ** ** > > --srs (iPad)**** > > > On 22-Nov-2012, at 20:11, Riaz K Tayob wrote:**** > > having been the "victim" of too robust engagement on this list, I feel > incumbent to respond... > > There is a difference between posting a third party article (that might be > provocative etc) and entering the fray. This is a crucial difference that > needs to be borne in mind. > > I will say it straight out (so there is no doubt), this list has a > predilection for ICANN (on CIR) and market/corporate views as opposed to > public interest views (of course any minority like to feel it is special ;) > and I am so glad that more even handedness is being shown by moderators > like Sala... > > I am not sure even Hegel would have agreed that civil society was civil > (it was aspirational), but he encouraged the dialectical (i.e. reasoned > argument) as the best way forward in civil society... So for me the only > worry is whether the arguments made can be sustained by reason... on this > list, in times not so long ago, reason was typically a hostage in the > arguments against Auerbach, Parminder, Gurstein type arguments... > > > **** > > On 2012/11/22 02:54 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:**** > > Right. Truthout screeds, random allegations, accusations about > "arrogance", half truth laden polemic .. to pick a few. > > And those are not deemed to be personal attacks because they are targeted > at a corporation rather than individual? > > Fun days. There was a time when civil society discourse was actually > civil. But any incivility I have committed is in response to behavior that > does not and should not characterize civil society. > > So sala, thank you for your warning. > > --srs (htc one x) > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Guru गुरु" > To: > Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website > Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2012 10:51 PM > > > > > http://truth-out.org/news/item/12676-how-google-is-helping-the-gas-lobby-support-fracking > > > On Wednesday 21 November 2012 06:25 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Google is now champion for arrogance and disinformation. They believe > > they reached a State statute whereby they can dictate other States > > what they have to do. Actually this not so different from the US gov > > attitude. > > > > Google's dominance of the advertising market is in no way a guarantee > > of quality and neutrality. They just leverage their dominance for > > promoting their own business. And they conflate their particular > > interests with grand ideologies as free information for all. > > > > Let's assume that drugs are free for all. Then the web would be > > swamped with ads for drugs, seminars praising benefits of using drugs, > > training sessions for acquiring drug consumption art, testimonies from > > drug users telling how it changed their life for the good, mass > > campaign vilifying institutions or governments requesting drug > > control, and so on. Just because the drug maffia has enough resources > > for controlling a free market. And the saying is "the market is right". > > > > As expected, the simple association of information and drug will > > immediately raise fury. It's just taboo. Like associating Google > > interests with freedom of information. > > > > There was a time when the US gov would resist and break excessive and > > abusive dominance in certain market segments, like oil, bank, telecom. > > Now it's the opposite. Excessive market dominance is good for US world > > dominance, as long as the dominant firms are based in the US. Then > > where are check and balance mechanisms ? > > > > Let's not be fooled by Google stylish propaganda. The real issues in > > WCIT 2012 have nothing to do with internet censorship, and Google > > knows it too well. The issues are finding a more equitable balance > > between stakeholders interests and profits. > > > > Parminder's observations are entirely relevant. The most dangerous > > threats to information freedom are US lead secretly negotiated > > treaties by multi-national lobbies, SOPA, ACTA, etc. More are coming, > > still secret, basically a rehash of those that failed, TPP, CleanIT, > > .. watch out. > > > > Cheers, Louis > > - - - > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, parminder > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday 21 November 2012 01:19 PM, parminder wrote: > >> snip > > > >> Dear Google; Yes, the world indeed needs an open Internet, for > >> which reason it is rather awful to note that you, meaning, Google; > >> > >> 1) Sold the entire net neutrality campaign down the drain in the > >> US, by first assuming its leadership and then entering into a > >> self-serving agreement with Verizon, whereby the main means of > >> accessing the Internet in the future - mobiles - are exempted > >> from net neutrality provisions. > >> > >> 2) Have recently entered into exclusive arrangements with telecos > >> to provide Gmail, Google + and Google Search for free in some > >> developing countries (Philippines) , and as a special low cost > >> package exclusively of a few Internet services (and not the full, > >> public Internet) in others (India), which makes a mockery of an > >> open and net neutral Internet. > > > > BTW, is it a mere coincidence these new mobile based > > non-net-neutral services seem to have something to do with the > > betraying compromise that Google made that is mentioned in point 1 > > above? > > > >> > >> 3) Tweak your search results, which is increasingly the main way > >> of accessing locations on the Internet, in non-transparent ways, > >> with increasing evidence that this is done in a manner that > >> merely serves your own commercial interests and goes against > >> consumer/ public interest, and for which reasons Google is > >> currently subject to regulatory investigations in the US and EU. > >> > >> ( There are hundreds of other outrages, big and small, including > >> the fact that today I suddenly see my default browser getting > >> set for "Chrome' when I prefer and have always used Mozilla > >> Firefox and never asked for the change of default.) > >> > >> I cannot see anything other than effective regulation of the > >> Internet to be able to check such excesses by Internet companies > >> that are deeply compromising the openness of the Internet > >> (sticking here to only to the subject of openness of the > >> Internet, used in above appeal by Google). > >> > >> So, lets be honest, it is not about people versus ITU, not even, > >> Google versus ITU, or even Google versus content regulation; it > >> is Google versus any regulation of the Internet space so that > >> Google, and similarly positioned dominant players, can have a > >> free run over the economic, social and political resources of the > >> world. > >> > >> It is very important to wage the needed struggles to keep > >> In **** > > ** ** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t**** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji 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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 22 11:10:23 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 21:40:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: <50AE39A3.5050000@gmail.com> <792F7656-0E62-404A-9DA6-069FC71908FA@hserus.net> <08d301cdc8c7$3e588c50$bb09a4f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: OK. In the interest of amity, I withdraw the entire paragraph from my previous email that cites the essay in question. While maintaining that I have not in fact used the term you object to, to describe anybody at all, and it has never been my intent to do so. The rest of what I stated - that propaganda as a tactic is not the ideal course of action for civil society in a multistakeholder context - will have to stand. --srs (iPad) On 22-Nov-2012, at 21:32, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: > Dear Suresh, > > Please refrain from using words like "Nazi" on this list. Dialogue on any of the Internet Governance issues and topics. This discussion has escalated off the relevant issues. Any more warnings and I will remove you from the list. Let this serve as a reminder to all to keep the discussions on Internet Governance issues. > > > > Regards, > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > (IGC Co-Coordinator) > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Not really. I am not calling anybody at all a nazi here. >> >> Did you read that essay, Michael? >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 22-Nov-2012, at 21:06, "michael gurstein" wrote: >> >>> Ah, we`ve done a Godwin… I knew it was coming… >>> >>> >>> >>> M >>> >>> >>> >>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian >>> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 7:01 AM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob >>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website >>> >>> >>> >>> Riaz, I like to think of myself as somewhere between the two camps and not attached to either. >>> >>> >>> >>> I see (and have earlier commented on) multiple flaws in ICANN's processes and governance, and I don't have blind faith in either of those. >>> >>> >>> >>> You don't see me reacting as viscerally to, say, Gurstein (or even to Karl Auerbach, with whom I've had my share of differences of opinion before on politechbot and elsewhere) >>> >>> >>> >>> There is, however, a rather clear line between dialectics and propaganda. And I am afraid I tend to react very negatively when I see propaganda. Especially where it is of the sort that seeks to demonise the opposition just to score a point. >>> >>> >>> >>> Without in any way comparing anybody on or off this list to a nazi, I would still like to leave this chapter from Mein Kampf here as probably the most succinct essay on the effective use of propaganda that I have ever read. And when I see these principles freely applied anywhere (in industry lobbying, in civil society 'advocacy (!)' ..) it leaves an extremely bad taste in my mouth. >>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch06.html >>> >>> >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> >>> On 22-Nov-2012, at 20:11, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >>> >>> having been the "victim" of too robust engagement on this list, I feel incumbent to respond... >>> >>> There is a difference between posting a third party article (that might be provocative etc) and entering the fray. This is a crucial difference that needs to be borne in mind. >>> >>> I will say it straight out (so there is no doubt), this list has a predilection for ICANN (on CIR) and market/corporate views as opposed to public interest views (of course any minority like to feel it is special ;) and I am so glad that more even handedness is being shown by moderators like Sala... >>> >>> I am not sure even Hegel would have agreed that civil society was civil (it was aspirational), but he encouraged the dialectical (i.e. reasoned argument) as the best way forward in civil society... So for me the only worry is whether the arguments made can be sustained by reason... on this list, in times not so long ago, reason was typically a hostage in the arguments against Auerbach, Parminder, Gurstein type arguments... >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2012/11/22 02:54 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> >>> Right. Truthout screeds, random allegations, accusations about "arrogance", half truth laden polemic .. to pick a few. >>> >>> And those are not deemed to be personal attacks because they are targeted at a corporation rather than individual? >>> >>> Fun days. There was a time when civil society discourse was actually civil. But any incivility I have committed is in response to behavior that does not and should not characterize civil society. >>> >>> So sala, thank you for your warning. >>> >>> --srs (htc one x) >>> >>> >>> ----- Reply message ----- >>> From: "Guru गुरु" >>> To: >>> Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website >>> Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2012 10:51 PM >>> >>> >>> >>> http://truth-out.org/news/item/12676-how-google-is-helping-the-gas-lobby-support-fracking >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday 21 November 2012 06:25 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >>> > Hi all, >>> > >>> > Google is now champion for arrogance and disinformation. They believe >>> > they reached a State statute whereby they can dictate other States >>> > what they have to do. Actually this not so different from the US gov >>> > attitude. >>> > >>> > Google's dominance of the advertising market is in no way a guarantee >>> > of quality and neutrality. They just leverage their dominance for >>> > promoting their own business. And they conflate their particular >>> > interests with grand ideologies as free information for all. >>> > >>> > Let's assume that drugs are free for all. Then the web would be >>> > swamped with ads for drugs, seminars praising benefits of using drugs, >>> > training sessions for acquiring drug consumption art, testimonies from >>> > drug users telling how it changed their life for the good, mass >>> > campaign vilifying institutions or governments requesting drug >>> > control, and so on. Just because the drug maffia has enough resources >>> > for controlling a free market. And the saying is "the market is right". >>> > >>> > As expected, the simple association of information and drug will >>> > immediately raise fury. It's just taboo. Like associating Google >>> > interests with freedom of information. >>> > >>> > There was a time when the US gov would resist and break excessive and >>> > abusive dominance in certain market segments, like oil, bank, telecom. >>> > Now it's the opposite. Excessive market dominance is good for US world >>> > dominance, as long as the dominant firms are based in the US. Then >>> > where are check and balance mechanisms ? >>> > >>> > Let's not be fooled by Google stylish propaganda. The real issues in >>> > WCIT 2012 have nothing to do with internet censorship, and Google >>> > knows it too well. The issues are finding a more equitable balance >>> > between stakeholders interests and profits. >>> > >>> > Parminder's observations are entirely relevant. The most dangerous >>> > threats to information freedom are US lead secretly negotiated >>> > treaties by multi-national lobbies, SOPA, ACTA, etc. More are coming, >>> > still secret, basically a rehash of those that failed, TPP, CleanIT, >>> > .. watch out. >>> > >>> > Cheers, Louis >>> > - - - >>> > >>> > >>> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, parminder >> > > wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > On Wednesday 21 November 2012 01:19 PM, parminder wrote: >>> >> snip >>> > >>> >> Dear Google; Yes, the world indeed needs an open Internet, for >>> >> which reason it is rather awful to note that you, meaning, Google; >>> >> >>> >> 1) Sold the entire net neutrality campaign down the drain in the >>> >> US, by first assuming its leadership and then entering into a >>> >> self-serving agreement with Verizon, whereby the main means of >>> >> accessing the Internet in the future - mobiles - are exempted >>> >> from net neutrality provisions. >>> >> >>> >> 2) Have recently entered into exclusive arrangements with telecos >>> >> to provide Gmail, Google + and Google Search for free in some >>> >> developing countries (Philippines) , and as a special low cost >>> >> package exclusively of a few Internet services (and not the full, >>> >> public Internet) in others (India), which makes a mockery of an >>> >> open and net neutral Internet. >>> > >>> > BTW, is it a mere coincidence these new mobile based >>> > non-net-neutral services seem to have something to do with the >>> > betraying compromise that Google made that is mentioned in point 1 >>> > above? >>> > >>> >> >>> >> 3) Tweak your search results, which is increasingly the main way >>> >> of accessing locations on the Internet, in non-transparent ways, >>> >> with increasing evidence that this is done in a manner that >>> >> merely serves your own commercial interests and goes against >>> >> consumer/ public interest, and for which reasons Google is >>> >> currently subject to regulatory investigations in the US and EU. >>> >> >>> >> ( There are hundreds of other outrages, big and small, including >>> >> the fact that today I suddenly see my default browser getting >>> >> set for "Chrome' when I prefer and have always used Mozilla >>> >> Firefox and never asked for the change of default.) >>> >> >>> >> I cannot see anything other than effective regulation of the >>> >> Internet to be able to check such excesses by Internet companies >>> >> that are deeply compromising the openness of the Internet >>> >> (sticking here to only to the subject of openness of the >>> >> Internet, used in above appeal by Google). >>> >> >>> >> So, lets be honest, it is not about people versus ITU, not even, >>> >> Google versus ITU, or even Google versus content regulation; it >>> >> is Google versus any regulation of the Internet space so that >>> >> Google, and similarly positioned dominant players, can have a >>> >> free run over the economic, social and political resources of the >>> >> world. >>> >> >>> >> It is very important to wage the needed struggles to keep >>> >> In >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Nov 22 11:17:29 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:17:29 -0200 Subject: [governance] All WCIT Documents Made Public by Dot.-Nxt In-Reply-To: <089501cdc8c0$bb243240$316c96c0$@gmail.com> References: <089501cdc8c0$bb243240$316c96c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50AE5019.4020708@cafonso.ca> Interesting. Actually the requirement to register is simple, and free. I wonder if WCITLeaks could use this repository to complete the missing ones in their list? After all, these should be public documents. []s fraternos --c.a. On 11/22/2012 12:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/11/23/why-we-are-making-all-wcit-doc > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 22 11:28:13 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 21:58:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] All WCIT Documents Made Public by Dot.-Nxt In-Reply-To: <50AE5019.4020708@cafonso.ca> References: <089501cdc8c0$bb243240$316c96c0$@gmail.com> <50AE5019.4020708@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <2ACF092E-57A2-40A3-A0BF-A3F62D98CF32@hserus.net> The belated russian submission in particular makes for interesting reading, both the original and the revised versions. --srs (iPad) On 22-Nov-2012, at 21:47, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > Interesting. Actually the requirement to register is simple, and free. I wonder if WCITLeaks could use this repository to complete the missing ones in their list? After all, these should be public documents. > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > > On 11/22/2012 12:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/11/23/why-we-are-making-all-wcit-doc > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Nov 22 11:43:47 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 18:43:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: <50AE39A3.5050000@gmail.com> <792F7656-0E62-404A-9DA6-069FC71908FA@hserus.net> <08d301cdc8c7$3e588c50$bb09a4f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50AE5643.7000706@gmail.com> Sala For the record: 1. I have no objection to Suresh's post (that is without any endorsement of Nazi's or Mein Kampf that brought the world, jews, gays and other minorities untold suffering; just as I do not endorse all the views of the articles I post) as an individual. I would hasten to add that from a third world perspective (and avoiding moral relativism) while the Nazi's are unquotable a whole lot of other colonial genocidiers (like John Steuart Mill etc) are held to be politely quotable... a double standard that removes the functionality of the ideas, throwing out the baby with the bathwater... (and lest I be misconstrued as it is so easy when the word Nazi is mentioned - I unequivocally denounce the actions of the Nazi's and the suffering imposed on particularly the Jews in the industrial scale slaughter; and that we all need to guard against especially as the crisis brings the rising right wing tendency to full fore in Europe). 2. Issues related to the tenor and content of the list are a collective, and ought to take individual views into account, and hence in moderator/s hands, so I am happy to defer should the moderator/collective make such a decision. Riaz (personal) On 2012/11/22 06:02 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear Suresh, > > Please refrain from using words like "Nazi" on this list. Dialogue on > any of the Internet Governance issues and topics. This discussion has > escalated off the relevant issues. Any more warnings and I will remove > you from the list. Let this serve as a reminder to all to keep the > discussions on Internet Governance issues. > > > > Regards, > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > /*(IGC Co-Coordinator)*/ > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > > wrote: > > Not really. I am not calling anybody at all a nazi here. > > Did you read that essay, Michael? > > --srs (iPad) > > On 22-Nov-2012, at 21:06, "michael gurstein" > wrote: > >> Ah, we`ve done a Godwin >> … I knew it was coming… >> >> M >> >> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of >> *Suresh Ramasubramanian >> *Sent:* Thursday, November 22, 2012 7:01 AM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> ; Riaz K Tayob >> *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website >> >> Riaz, I like to think of myself as somewhere between the two >> camps and not attached to either. >> >> I see (and have earlier commented on) multiple flaws in ICANN's >> processes and governance, and I don't have blind faith in either >> of those. >> >> You don't see me reacting as viscerally to, say, Gurstein (or >> even to Karl Auerbach, with whom I've had my share of differences >> of opinion before on politechbot and elsewhere) >> >> There is, however, a rather clear line between dialectics and >> propaganda. And I am afraid I tend to react very negatively when >> I see propaganda. Especially where it is of the sort that seeks >> to demonise the opposition just to score a point. >> >> Without in any way comparing anybody on or off this list to a >> nazi, I would still like to leave this chapter from Mein Kampf >> here as probably the most succinct essay on the effective use of >> propaganda that I have ever read. And when I see these >> principles freely applied anywhere (in industry lobbying, in >> civil society 'advocacy (!)' ..) it leaves an extremely bad taste >> in my mouth. >> >> http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch06.html >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> >> On 22-Nov-2012, at 20:11, Riaz K Tayob > > wrote: >> >> having been the "victim" of too robust engagement on this >> list, I feel incumbent to respond... >> >> There is a difference between posting a third party article >> (that might be provocative etc) and entering the fray. This >> is a crucial difference that needs to be borne in mind. >> >> I will say it straight out (so there is no doubt), this list >> has a predilection for ICANN (on CIR) and market/corporate >> views as opposed to public interest views (of course any >> minority like to feel it is special ;) and I am so glad that >> more even handedness is being shown by moderators like Sala... >> >> I am not sure even Hegel would have agreed that civil society >> was civil (it was aspirational), but he encouraged the >> dialectical (i.e. reasoned argument) as the best way forward >> in civil society... So for me the only worry is whether the >> arguments made can be sustained by reason... on this list, in >> times not so long ago, reason was typically a hostage in the >> arguments against Auerbach, Parminder, Gurstein type arguments... >> >> >> On 2012/11/22 02:54 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >> Right. Truthout screeds, random allegations, accusations >> about "arrogance", half truth laden polemic .. to pick a few. >> >> And those are not deemed to be personal attacks because >> they are targeted at a corporation rather than individual? >> >> Fun days. There was a time when civil society discourse >> was actually civil. But any incivility I have committed >> is in response to behavior that does not and should not >> characterize civil society. >> >> So sala, thank you for your warning. >> >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "Guru गुरु" >> >> To: >> >> Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website >> Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2012 10:51 PM >> >> >> >> http://truth-out.org/news/item/12676-how-google-is-helping-the-gas-lobby-support-fracking >> >> >> On Wednesday 21 November 2012 06:25 PM, Louis Pouzin >> (well) wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Google is now champion for arrogance and >> disinformation. They believe >> > they reached a State statute whereby they can dictate >> other States >> > what they have to do. Actually this not so different >> from the US gov >> > attitude. >> > >> > Google's dominance of the advertising market is in no >> way a guarantee >> > of quality and neutrality. They just leverage their >> dominance for >> > promoting their own business. And they conflate their >> particular >> > interests with grand ideologies as free information for >> all. >> > >> > Let's assume that drugs are free for all. Then the web >> would be >> > swamped with ads for drugs, seminars praising benefits >> of using drugs, >> > training sessions for acquiring drug consumption art, >> testimonies from >> > drug users telling how it changed their life for the >> good, mass >> > campaign vilifying institutions or governments >> requesting drug >> > control, and so on. Just because the drug maffia has >> enough resources >> > for controlling a free market. And the saying is "the >> market is right". >> > >> > As expected, the simple association of information and >> drug will >> > immediately raise fury. It's just taboo. Like >> associating Google >> > interests with freedom of information. >> > >> > There was a time when the US gov would resist and break >> excessive and >> > abusive dominance in certain market segments, like oil, >> bank, telecom. >> > Now it's the opposite. Excessive market dominance is >> good for US world >> > dominance, as long as the dominant firms are based in >> the US. Then >> > where are check and balance mechanisms ? >> > >> > Let's not be fooled by Google stylish propaganda. The >> real issues in >> > WCIT 2012 have nothing to do with internet censorship, >> and Google >> > knows it too well. The issues are finding a more >> equitable balance >> > between stakeholders interests and profits. >> > >> > Parminder's observations are entirely relevant. The >> most dangerous >> > threats to information freedom are US lead secretly >> negotiated >> > treaties by multi-national lobbies, SOPA, ACTA, etc. >> More are coming, >> > still secret, basically a rehash of those that failed, >> TPP, CleanIT, >> > .. watch out. >> > >> > Cheers, Louis >> > - - - >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, parminder >> > >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Wednesday 21 November 2012 01:19 PM, parminder >> wrote: >> >> snip >> > >> >> Dear Google; Yes, the world indeed needs an open >> Internet, for >> >> which reason it is rather awful to note that you, >> meaning, Google; >> >> >> >> 1) Sold the entire net neutrality campaign down >> the drain in the >> >> US, by first assuming its leadership and then >> entering into a >> >> self-serving agreement with Verizon, whereby the >> main means of >> >> accessing the Internet in the future - mobiles - >> are exempted >> >> from net neutrality provisions. >> >> >> >> 2) Have recently entered into exclusive >> arrangements with telecos >> >> to provide Gmail, Google + and Google Search for >> free in some >> >> developing countries (Philippines) , and as a >> special low cost >> >> package exclusively of a few Internet services >> (and not the full, >> >> public Internet) in others (India), which makes a >> mockery of an >> >> open and net neutral Internet. >> > >> > BTW, is it a mere coincidence these new mobile based >> > non-net-neutral services seem to have something to >> do with the >> > betraying compromise that Google made that is >> mentioned in point 1 >> > above? >> > >> >> >> >> 3) Tweak your search results, which is >> increasingly the main way >> >> of accessing locations on the Internet, in >> non-transparent ways, >> >> with increasing evidence that this is done in a >> manner that >> >> merely serves your own commercial interests and >> goes against >> >> consumer/ public interest, and for which reasons >> Google is >> >> currently subject to regulatory investigations in >> the US and EU. >> >> >> >> ( There are hundreds of other outrages, big and >> small, including >> >> the fact that today I suddenly see my default >> browser getting >> >> set for "Chrome' when I prefer and have always >> used Mozilla >> >> Firefox and never asked for the change of default.) >> >> >> >> I cannot see anything other than effective >> regulation of the >> >> Internet to be able to check such excesses by >> Internet companies >> >> that are deeply compromising the openness of the >> Internet >> >> (sticking here to only to the subject of openness >> of the >> >> Internet, used in above appeal by Google). >> >> >> >> So, lets be honest, it is not about people versus >> ITU, not even, >> >> Google versus ITU, or even Google versus content >> regulation; it >> >> is Google versus any regulation of the Internet >> space so that >> >> Google, and similarly positioned dominant players, >> can have a >> >> free run over the economic, social and political >> resources of the >> >> world. >> >> >> >> It is very important to wage the needed struggles >> to keep >> >> In >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji 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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 22 11:51:21 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 08:51:21 -0800 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: <50AE5643.7000706@gmail.com> References: <50AE39A3.5050000@gmail.com> <792F7656-0E62-404A-9DA6-069FC71908FA@hserus.net> <08d301cdc8c7$3e588c50$bb09a4f0$@gmail.com> <50AE5643.7000706@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20121122165121.GA11101@hserus.net> For the record - I share the distaste Riaz expresses for hitler, the nazi party and its policies. As a student of history and political science, I still find the conditions behind their rise to power - widespread dissatisfaction and public anger, petty demagoguery, easy identification of hate groups rather than an attempt to reach out and be inclusive .. fascinating. Especially given that these were all the ingredients for their total destruction after world war II Riaz K Tayob [22/11/12 18:43 +0200]: >Sala > >For the record: > >1. I have no objection to Suresh's post (that is without any >endorsement of Nazi's or Mein Kampf that brought the world, jews, >gays and other minorities untold suffering; just as I do not endorse >all the views of the articles I post) as an individual. I would >hasten to add that from a third world perspective (and avoiding moral >relativism) while the Nazi's are unquotable a whole lot of other >colonial genocidiers (like John Steuart Mill etc) are held to be >politely quotable... a double standard that removes the functionality >of the ideas, throwing out the baby with the bathwater... (and lest I >be misconstrued as it is so easy when the word Nazi is mentioned - I >unequivocally denounce the actions of the Nazi's and the suffering >imposed on particularly the Jews in the industrial scale slaughter; >and that we all need to guard against especially as the crisis brings >the rising right wing tendency to full fore in Europe). > >2. Issues related to the tenor and content of the list are a >collective, and ought to take individual views into account, and >hence in moderator/s hands, so I am happy to defer should the >moderator/collective make such a decision. > >Riaz (personal) > > > > > >On 2012/11/22 06:02 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>Dear Suresh, >> >>Please refrain from using words like "Nazi" on this list. Dialogue >>on any of the Internet Governance issues and topics. This >>discussion has escalated off the relevant issues. Any more warnings >>and I will remove you from the list. Let this serve as a reminder >>to all to keep the discussions on Internet Governance issues. >> >> >> >>Regards, >> >>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>/*(IGC Co-Coordinator)*/ >> >>On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >>> wrote: >> >> Not really. I am not calling anybody at all a nazi here. >> >> Did you read that essay, Michael? >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 22-Nov-2012, at 21:06, "michael gurstein" > > wrote: >> >>> Ah, we`ve done a Godwin >>> … I knew it was coming… >>> >>> M >>> >>> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of >>> *Suresh Ramasubramanian >>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 22, 2012 7:01 AM >>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> ; Riaz K Tayob >>> *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website >>> >>> Riaz, I like to think of myself as somewhere between the two >>> camps and not attached to either. >>> >>> I see (and have earlier commented on) multiple flaws in ICANN's >>> processes and governance, and I don't have blind faith in either >>> of those. >>> >>> You don't see me reacting as viscerally to, say, Gurstein (or >>> even to Karl Auerbach, with whom I've had my share of differences >>> of opinion before on politechbot and elsewhere) >>> >>> There is, however, a rather clear line between dialectics and >>> propaganda. And I am afraid I tend to react very negatively when >>> I see propaganda. Especially where it is of the sort that seeks >>> to demonise the opposition just to score a point. >>> >>> Without in any way comparing anybody on or off this list to a >>> nazi, I would still like to leave this chapter from Mein Kampf >>> here as probably the most succinct essay on the effective use of >>> propaganda that I have ever read. And when I see these >>> principles freely applied anywhere (in industry lobbying, in >>> civil society 'advocacy (!)' ..) it leaves an extremely bad taste >>> in my mouth. >>> >>> http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch06.html >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> >>> On 22-Nov-2012, at 20:11, Riaz K Tayob >> > wrote: >>> >>> having been the "victim" of too robust engagement on this >>> list, I feel incumbent to respond... >>> >>> There is a difference between posting a third party article >>> (that might be provocative etc) and entering the fray. This >>> is a crucial difference that needs to be borne in mind. >>> >>> I will say it straight out (so there is no doubt), this list >>> has a predilection for ICANN (on CIR) and market/corporate >>> views as opposed to public interest views (of course any >>> minority like to feel it is special ;) and I am so glad that >>> more even handedness is being shown by moderators like Sala... >>> >>> I am not sure even Hegel would have agreed that civil society >>> was civil (it was aspirational), but he encouraged the >>> dialectical (i.e. reasoned argument) as the best way forward >>> in civil society... So for me the only worry is whether the >>> arguments made can be sustained by reason... on this list, in >>> times not so long ago, reason was typically a hostage in the >>> arguments against Auerbach, Parminder, Gurstein type arguments... >>> >>> >>> On 2012/11/22 02:54 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> >>> Right. Truthout screeds, random allegations, accusations >>> about "arrogance", half truth laden polemic .. to pick a few. >>> >>> And those are not deemed to be personal attacks because >>> they are targeted at a corporation rather than individual? >>> >>> Fun days. There was a time when civil society discourse >>> was actually civil. But any incivility I have committed >>> is in response to behavior that does not and should not >>> characterize civil society. >>> >>> So sala, thank you for your warning. >>> >>> --srs (htc one x) >>> >>> >>> ----- Reply message ----- >>> From: "Guru गुरु" >>> >>> To: >>> >>> Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website >>> Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2012 10:51 PM >>> >>> >>> >>> http://truth-out.org/news/item/12676-how-google-is-helping-the-gas-lobby-support-fracking >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday 21 November 2012 06:25 PM, Louis Pouzin >>> (well) wrote: >>> > Hi all, >>> > >>> > Google is now champion for arrogance and >>> disinformation. They believe >>> > they reached a State statute whereby they can dictate >>> other States >>> > what they have to do. Actually this not so different >>> from the US gov >>> > attitude. >>> > >>> > Google's dominance of the advertising market is in no >>> way a guarantee >>> > of quality and neutrality. They just leverage their >>> dominance for >>> > promoting their own business. And they conflate their >>> particular >>> > interests with grand ideologies as free information for >>> all. >>> > >>> > Let's assume that drugs are free for all. Then the web >>> would be >>> > swamped with ads for drugs, seminars praising benefits >>> of using drugs, >>> > training sessions for acquiring drug consumption art, >>> testimonies from >>> > drug users telling how it changed their life for the >>> good, mass >>> > campaign vilifying institutions or governments >>> requesting drug >>> > control, and so on. Just because the drug maffia has >>> enough resources >>> > for controlling a free market. And the saying is "the >>> market is right". >>> > >>> > As expected, the simple association of information and >>> drug will >>> > immediately raise fury. It's just taboo. Like >>> associating Google >>> > interests with freedom of information. >>> > >>> > There was a time when the US gov would resist and break >>> excessive and >>> > abusive dominance in certain market segments, like oil, >>> bank, telecom. >>> > Now it's the opposite. Excessive market dominance is >>> good for US world >>> > dominance, as long as the dominant firms are based in >>> the US. Then >>> > where are check and balance mechanisms ? >>> > >>> > Let's not be fooled by Google stylish propaganda. The >>> real issues in >>> > WCIT 2012 have nothing to do with internet censorship, >>> and Google >>> > knows it too well. The issues are finding a more >>> equitable balance >>> > between stakeholders interests and profits. >>> > >>> > Parminder's observations are entirely relevant. The >>> most dangerous >>> > threats to information freedom are US lead secretly >>> negotiated >>> > treaties by multi-national lobbies, SOPA, ACTA, etc. >>> More are coming, >>> > still secret, basically a rehash of those that failed, >>> TPP, CleanIT, >>> > .. watch out. >>> > >>> > Cheers, Louis >>> > - - - >>> > >>> > >>> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, parminder >>> >> >>> > >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > On Wednesday 21 November 2012 01:19 PM, parminder >>> wrote: >>> >> snip >>> > >>> >> Dear Google; Yes, the world indeed needs an open >>> Internet, for >>> >> which reason it is rather awful to note that you, >>> meaning, Google; >>> >> >>> >> 1) Sold the entire net neutrality campaign down >>> the drain in the >>> >> US, by first assuming its leadership and then >>> entering into a >>> >> self-serving agreement with Verizon, whereby the >>> main means of >>> >> accessing the Internet in the future - mobiles - >>> are exempted >>> >> from net neutrality provisions. >>> >> >>> >> 2) Have recently entered into exclusive >>> arrangements with telecos >>> >> to provide Gmail, Google + and Google Search for >>> free in some >>> >> developing countries (Philippines) , and as a >>> special low cost >>> >> package exclusively of a few Internet services >>> (and not the full, >>> >> public Internet) in others (India), which makes a >>> mockery of an >>> >> open and net neutral Internet. >>> > >>> > BTW, is it a mere coincidence these new mobile based >>> > non-net-neutral services seem to have something to >>> do with the >>> > betraying compromise that Google made that is >>> mentioned in point 1 >>> > above? >>> > >>> >> >>> >> 3) Tweak your search results, which is >>> increasingly the main way >>> >> of accessing locations on the Internet, in >>> non-transparent ways, >>> >> with increasing evidence that this is done in a >>> manner that >>> >> merely serves your own commercial interests and >>> goes against >>> >> consumer/ public interest, and for which reasons >>> Google is >>> >> currently subject to regulatory investigations in >>> the US and EU. >>> >> >>> >> ( There are hundreds of other outrages, big and >>> small, including >>> >> the fact that today I suddenly see my default >>> browser getting >>> >> set for "Chrome' when I prefer and have always >>> used Mozilla >>> >> Firefox and never asked for the change of default.) >>> >> >>> >> I cannot see anything other than effective >>> regulation of the >>> >> Internet to be able to check such excesses by >>> Internet companies >>> >> that are deeply compromising the openness of the >>> Internet >>> >> (sticking here to only to the subject of openness >>> of the >>> >> Internet, used in above appeal by Google). >>> >> >>> >> So, lets be honest, it is not about people versus >>> ITU, not even, >>> >> Google versus ITU, or even Google versus content >>> regulation; it >>> >> is Google versus any regulation of the Internet >>> space so that >>> >> Google, and similarly positioned dominant players, >>> can have a >>> >> free run over the economic, social and political >>> resources of the >>> >> world. >>> >> >>> >> It is very important to wage the needed struggles >>> to keep >>> >> In >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >>-- >>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>P.O. Box 17862 >>Suva >>Fiji >> >>Twitter: @SalanietaT >>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>Tel: +679 3544828 >>Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Thu Nov 22 12:09:18 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 19:09:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] 4G Tests Reveal Patchy Urban Coverage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Not really Sala. Would you want to summarize it for us? Fahd On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Fahd, > > Have you seen the latest IDI Report? > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh > wrote: > >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20408514 >> >> It seems that the roll-out of 4G services in the UK has not been up to >> the expectations as the study shows that 40.2% of test locations have >> access to 4G services. >> >> Fahd >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Nov 22 14:48:45 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 06:48:45 +1100 Subject: AW: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD645@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <50ACEBD0.5050708@netmagic.com> <661ADF76-F3DE-4694-8E1C-E2DD2696FC5D@farber.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16C6A4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <063b01cdc81e$1ad89cb0$5089d610$@gmail.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16C790@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD645@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <0E60C32CEC644ADBB941E09C28C019DE@Toshiba> Thanks Wolfgang. I suspect the ITU meet will end not with a bang, but a whimper. No doubt then one side will tell us their campaign was a huge victory for internet freedom, the other will tell us that the campaign was a huge paranoic response to the opinions of some members, opinions not supported by the membership as a whole. And we will move on to the next chapter. But somewhere, sometime, the legitimate concerns of governments as regards inappropriate content have to be addressed by some sort of protocol or agreement. No, that's not ITU's role. Nor is it ICANN's. The protocol has to involve corporations, governments, and civil society. In the absence of such a protocol or agreement we will see a fracturing Internet and more and more attempts at national based controls over content and corporate actions. Having a great big campaign about ITU is not solving this problem one bit. This lack of governance, not ITU, is the reason we are facing a substantial fracturing of the Internet if nothing is done. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:05 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter ; Lee W McKnight ; michael gurstein ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: AW: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) Ian: I along with quite a few others here do not believe it is in civil society's interests to take sides in this decades old battle. By all means argue for ITU to open up its closed meetings, but I do not think an alignment of opposition to ITU per se is sensible strategically. Wolfgang: ITU does a good job in a number of important fields: frequency coordination, development, infrastructure, standards. ITU needs support to do this job good. But it should stick to its core business. Domain names and IP addresses are not the core business of ITU. I would not recommend that ICANN or the RIRs enter the field of frequency allocation and I do not recommend that ITU should enter the DNS space. Unfortunately since 1996 we have a cold war here. In Guadalajara (2010) there was a moment of "detenete" when for the first time in ITUs history an acronym like ICANN appeared in a ITU resolution (althoug it was only in a footnote). The recommendation was to enhance collaboration. But nothing has happened so far. To end the cold war would need a clear understanding of a division of labour. Since years the option of an ICANN-ITU MoU is discussed without any progress. Fadi and Toure had a "summit meeting" in form of a joint breakfest during the IGF in Baku in October 2012. Both sides were happy with the new level of "mutual understanding". Is this the start of a "new season"? I am not sure. It is very complex. It is not only the ITU Secretariat, it is also about "member states" and as long as member states do not have any interests in something like an ITU-ICANN peaceful coexistence on the basis of a collaborative division of labour we will see a continuation of a harmful arm twisting. Dubai is just the next step. More will come in Geneva (May 2013), in the ITU Plenipotentiary in 2014 and in the WSIS 10+ process (which will kick start in February in Paris) until a possible WSIS III in 2015. The only thing one can hope for is that this cold war will not affect too much the individual Internet user. But also this is nowadays questionable with national governments which want to extend their "national sovereignty" into cyberspace. Wolfgang -----Original Message----- From: Lee W McKnight Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 7:06 AM To: michael gurstein ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) I recommend the more nuanced (?) recent Hollywood B movie - 'Cowboys and Aliens.' In case you missed it, and sorry then for giving away the plot, Cowboys, of the black and white hat variety, and "Indians," all join together to battle the space invaders ; ) Lee ________________________________________ From: michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 2:26 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Lee W McKnight Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) Hmmm... Cowboys and ``Indians``... I like a good shoot-em-up especially when the good guys are all wearing white hats and the bad guys, black ones... Makes figuring out who to root for so much easier :) M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 10:45 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) The attachment is perhaps of interest to some, re WCIT, from old pal, and ex-FCC, ex-ITU, and ex-Verisigner Tony Rutkowski. ; ) Lee ________________________________________ From: David Farber [dave at farber.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:21 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: Any chance Date: November 21, 2012 9:57:20 AM EST To: "DAVID J. FARBER" Reply-To: trutkowski at netmagic.com Hi Dave, Does this do it for you? It should be popular. :-) For noting, I ran the secretariat for the last WCIT, and helped the Secretary-General at the time develop and negotiate the provisions in his hometown of Melbourne. I also led the ITU-T cybersecurity standards group over the past four years. The turf is all too familiar. cheers, tony ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your 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 Thu Nov 22 16:22:37 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 22:22:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: <20121122165121.GA11101@hserus.net> References: <50AE39A3.5050000@gmail.com> <792F7656-0E62-404A-9DA6-069FC71908FA@hserus.net> <08d301cdc8c7$3e588c50$bb09a4f0$@gmail.com> <50AE5643.7000706@gmail.com> <20121122165121.GA11101@hserus.net> Message-ID: Dear all, I have been asked to post the following on behalf of Michael Kende, who seems to have some technical problems sending messages to the vlist: "I just opened my email, and this is the first email that I read in this string and I have to say that when you read this last one first, it is not only fairly shocking, but almost impossible to imagine how we got here and why this needed to be said (frankly these days I tend to take it for granted that people have a distaste for all things Nazi, and as the son of a holocaust survivor, I know enough about the history). Sadly, reading the string from the bottom to the top is not much more illuminating as to how we got here. From my point of view, being relatively new to this list, a small group have begun to focus too much on why someone is saying something, rather than simply addressing what they are saying, and this quickly leads to ad hominem attacks and these types of diversions. Speaking at least for myself, and not knowing any of the participants except through this list, this is not very illuminating for those of us who are here to learn about Internet governance rather than why a particular participant is taking a particular position." On Nov 22, 2012 5:52 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: > For the record - I share the distaste Riaz expresses for hitler, the nazi > party and its policies. > > As a student of history and political science, I still find the conditions > behind their rise to power - widespread dissatisfaction and public anger, > petty demagoguery, easy identification of hate groups rather than an > attempt to reach out and be inclusive .. fascinating. Especially given that > these were all the ingredients for their total destruction after world war > II > > Riaz K Tayob [22/11/12 18:43 +0200]: > >> Sala >> >> For the record: >> >> 1. I have no objection to Suresh's post (that is without any endorsement >> of Nazi's or Mein Kampf that brought the world, jews, gays and other >> minorities untold suffering; just as I do not endorse all the views of the >> articles I post) as an individual. I would hasten to add that from a third >> world perspective (and avoiding moral relativism) while the Nazi's are >> unquotable a whole lot of other colonial genocidiers (like John Steuart >> Mill etc) are held to be politely quotable... a double standard that >> removes the functionality of the ideas, throwing out the baby with the >> bathwater... (and lest I be misconstrued as it is so easy when the word >> Nazi is mentioned - I unequivocally denounce the actions of the Nazi's and >> the suffering imposed on particularly the Jews in the industrial scale >> slaughter; and that we all need to guard against especially as the crisis >> brings the rising right wing tendency to full fore in Europe). >> >> 2. Issues related to the tenor and content of the list are a collective, >> and ought to take individual views into account, and hence in moderator/s >> hands, so I am happy to defer should the moderator/collective make such a >> decision. >> >> Riaz (personal) >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2012/11/22 06:02 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >>> Dear Suresh, >>> >>> Please refrain from using words like "Nazi" on this list. Dialogue on >>> any of the Internet Governance issues and topics. This discussion has >>> escalated off the relevant issues. Any more warnings and I will remove you >>> from the list. Let this serve as a reminder to all to keep the discussions >>> on Internet Governance issues. >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> /*(IGC Co-Coordinator)*/ >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian < >>> suresh at hserus.net > wrote: >>> >>> Not really. I am not calling anybody at all a nazi here. >>> >>> Did you read that essay, Michael? >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> On 22-Nov-2012, at 21:06, "michael gurstein" >> > wrote: >>> >>> Ah, we`ve done a Godwin >>>> >… >>>> I knew it was coming… >>>> >>>> M >>>> >>>> *From:*governance-request@**lists.igcaucus.org >>>> >>>> > >>>> [mailto:governance-request@**lists.igcaucus.org] >>>> *On Behalf Of >>>> *Suresh Ramasubramanian >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 22, 2012 7:01 AM >>>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> >; >>>> Riaz K Tayob >>>> *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> >>>> > >>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website >>>> >>>> Riaz, I like to think of myself as somewhere between the two >>>> camps and not attached to either. >>>> >>>> I see (and have earlier commented on) multiple flaws in ICANN's >>>> processes and governance, and I don't have blind faith in either >>>> of those. >>>> >>>> You don't see me reacting as viscerally to, say, Gurstein (or >>>> even to Karl Auerbach, with whom I've had my share of differences >>>> of opinion before on politechbot and elsewhere) >>>> >>>> There is, however, a rather clear line between dialectics and >>>> propaganda. And I am afraid I tend to react very negatively when >>>> I see propaganda. Especially where it is of the sort that seeks >>>> to demonise the opposition just to score a point. >>>> >>>> Without in any way comparing anybody on or off this list to a >>>> nazi, I would still like to leave this chapter from Mein Kampf >>>> here as probably the most succinct essay on the effective use of >>>> propaganda that I have ever read. And when I see these >>>> principles freely applied anywhere (in industry lobbying, in >>>> civil society 'advocacy (!)' ..) it leaves an extremely bad taste >>>> in my mouth. >>>> >>>> http://www.hitler.org/**writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch06.**html >>>> >>>> --srs (iPad) >>>> >>>> >>>> On 22-Nov-2012, at 20:11, Riaz K Tayob >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> having been the "victim" of too robust engagement on this >>>> list, I feel incumbent to respond... >>>> >>>> There is a difference between posting a third party article >>>> (that might be provocative etc) and entering the fray. This >>>> is a crucial difference that needs to be borne in mind. >>>> >>>> I will say it straight out (so there is no doubt), this list >>>> has a predilection for ICANN (on CIR) and market/corporate >>>> views as opposed to public interest views (of course any >>>> minority like to feel it is special ;) and I am so glad that >>>> more even handedness is being shown by moderators like Sala... >>>> >>>> I am not sure even Hegel would have agreed that civil society >>>> was civil (it was aspirational), but he encouraged the >>>> dialectical (i.e. reasoned argument) as the best way forward >>>> in civil society... So for me the only worry is whether the >>>> arguments made can be sustained by reason... on this list, in >>>> times not so long ago, reason was typically a hostage in the >>>> arguments against Auerbach, Parminder, Gurstein type arguments... >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2012/11/22 02:54 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>> >>>> Right. Truthout screeds, random allegations, accusations >>>> about "arrogance", half truth laden polemic .. to pick a few. >>>> >>>> And those are not deemed to be personal attacks because >>>> they are targeted at a corporation rather than individual? >>>> >>>> Fun days. There was a time when civil society discourse >>>> was actually civil. But any incivility I have committed >>>> is in response to behavior that does not and should not >>>> characterize civil society. >>>> >>>> So sala, thank you for your warning. >>>> >>>> --srs (htc one x) >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Reply message ----- >>>> From: "Guru गुरु" >>>> >>>> To: >>>> >>>> > >>>> Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website >>>> Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2012 10:51 PM >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://truth-out.org/news/**item/12676-how-google-is-** >>>> helping-the-gas-lobby-support-**fracking >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wednesday 21 November 2012 06:25 PM, Louis Pouzin >>>> (well) wrote: >>>> > Hi all, >>>> > >>>> > Google is now champion for arrogance and >>>> disinformation. They believe >>>> > they reached a State statute whereby they can dictate >>>> other States >>>> > what they have to do. Actually this not so different >>>> from the US gov >>>> > attitude. >>>> > >>>> > Google's dominance of the advertising market is in no >>>> way a guarantee >>>> > of quality and neutrality. They just leverage their >>>> dominance for >>>> > promoting their own business. And they conflate their >>>> particular >>>> > interests with grand ideologies as free information for >>>> all. >>>> > >>>> > Let's assume that drugs are free for all. Then the web >>>> would be >>>> > swamped with ads for drugs, seminars praising benefits >>>> of using drugs, >>>> > training sessions for acquiring drug consumption art, >>>> testimonies from >>>> > drug users telling how it changed their life for the >>>> good, mass >>>> > campaign vilifying institutions or governments >>>> requesting drug >>>> > control, and so on. Just because the drug maffia has >>>> enough resources >>>> > for controlling a free market. And the saying is "the >>>> market is right". >>>> > >>>> > As expected, the simple association of information and >>>> drug will >>>> > immediately raise fury. It's just taboo. Like >>>> associating Google >>>> > interests with freedom of information. >>>> > >>>> > There was a time when the US gov would resist and break >>>> excessive and >>>> > abusive dominance in certain market segments, like oil, >>>> bank, telecom. >>>> > Now it's the opposite. Excessive market dominance is >>>> good for US world >>>> > dominance, as long as the dominant firms are based in >>>> the US. Then >>>> > where are check and balance mechanisms ? >>>> > >>>> > Let's not be fooled by Google stylish propaganda. The >>>> real issues in >>>> > WCIT 2012 have nothing to do with internet censorship, >>>> and Google >>>> > knows it too well. The issues are finding a more >>>> equitable balance >>>> > between stakeholders interests and profits. >>>> > >>>> > Parminder's observations are entirely relevant. The >>>> most dangerous >>>> > threats to information freedom are US lead secretly >>>> negotiated >>>> > treaties by multi-national lobbies, SOPA, ACTA, etc. >>>> More are coming, >>>> > still secret, basically a rehash of those that failed, >>>> TPP, CleanIT, >>>> > .. watch out. >>>> > >>>> > Cheers, Louis >>>> > - - - >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, parminder >>>> >>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Wednesday 21 November 2012 01:19 PM, parminder >>>> wrote: >>>> >> snip >>>> > >>>> >> Dear Google; Yes, the world indeed needs an open >>>> Internet, for >>>> >> which reason it is rather awful to note that you, >>>> meaning, Google; >>>> >> >>>> >> 1) Sold the entire net neutrality campaign down >>>> the drain in the >>>> >> US, by first assuming its leadership and then >>>> entering into a >>>> >> self-serving agreement with Verizon, whereby the >>>> main means of >>>> >> accessing the Internet in the future - mobiles - >>>> are exempted >>>> >> from net neutrality provisions. >>>> >> >>>> >> 2) Have recently entered into exclusive >>>> arrangements with telecos >>>> >> to provide Gmail, Google + and Google Search for >>>> free in some >>>> >> developing countries (Philippines) , and as a >>>> special low cost >>>> >> package exclusively of a few Internet services >>>> (and not the full, >>>> >> public Internet) in others (India), which makes a >>>> mockery of an >>>> >> open and net neutral Internet. >>>> > >>>> > BTW, is it a mere coincidence these new mobile based >>>> > non-net-neutral services seem to have something to >>>> do with the >>>> > betraying compromise that Google made that is >>>> mentioned in point 1 >>>> > above? >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> >> 3) Tweak your search results, which is >>>> increasingly the main way >>>> >> of accessing locations on the Internet, in >>>> non-transparent ways, >>>> >> with increasing evidence that this is done in a >>>> manner that >>>> >> merely serves your own commercial interests and >>>> goes against >>>> >> consumer/ public interest, and for which reasons >>>> Google is >>>> >> currently subject to regulatory investigations in >>>> the US and EU. >>>> >> >>>> >> ( There are hundreds of other outrages, big and >>>> small, including >>>> >> the fact that today I suddenly see my default >>>> browser getting >>>> >> set for "Chrome' when I prefer and have always >>>> used Mozilla >>>> >> Firefox and never asked for the change of default.) >>>> >> >>>> >> I cannot see anything other than effective >>>> regulation of the >>>> >> Internet to be able to check such excesses by >>>> Internet companies >>>> >> that are deeply compromising the openness of the >>>> Internet >>>> >> (sticking here to only to the subject of openness >>>> of the >>>> >> Internet, used in above appeal by Google). >>>> >> >>>> >> So, lets be honest, it is not about people versus >>>> ITU, not even, >>>> >> Google versus ITU, or even Google versus content >>>> regulation; it >>>> >> is Google versus any regulation of the Internet >>>> space so that >>>> >> Google, and similarly positioned dominant players, >>>> can have a >>>> >> free run over the economic, social and political >>>> resources of the >>>> >> world. >>>> >> >>>> >> It is very important to wage the needed struggles >>>> to keep >>>> >> In >>>> >>>> ______________________________**______________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> >>>> > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >>>> >>>> ______________________________**______________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >>>> >>> >>> ______________________________**______________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> P.O. Box 17862 >>> Suva >>> Fiji >>> >>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.**Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > ______________________________**______________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 22 19:17:28 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 05:47:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website Message-ID: Sir, when responding to any discussion, it is important to consider motivations that people have when making points, in order to address any points that are made. My sole point here has been that civil society organizations should not use propaganda as a substitute for reasoned argument, for example in the original email that I addressed, commenting on an anti wcit campaign by google, which chose to attack google's business practices rather than directly address any point that google had raised. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Michael Kende" To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Suresh Ramasubramanian" , "Riaz K Tayob" , "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Cc: "Andrea Glorioso (andrea at digitalpolicy.it)" Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2012 2:38 AM I just opened my email, and this is the first email that I read in this string and I have to say that when you read this last one first, it is not only fairly shocking, but almost impossible to imagine how we got here and why this needed to be said (frankly these days I tend to take it for granted that people have a distaste for all things Nazi, and as the son of a holocaust survivor, I know enough about the history). Sadly, reading the string from the bottom to the top is not much more illuminating as to how we got here. From my point of view, being relatively new to this list, a small group have begun to focus too much on why someone is saying something, rather than simply addressing what they are saying, and this quickly leads to ad hominem attacks and these types of diversions. Speaking at least for myself, and not knowing any of the participants except through this list, this is not very illuminating for those of us who are here to learn about Internet governance rather than why a particular participant is taking a particular position. Michael PS Andrea if this does not post, can I take you up on your kind offer to post this for me? -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 5:51 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob Subject: Re: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website For the record - I share the distaste Riaz expresses for hitler, the nazi party and its policies. As a student of history and political science, I still find the conditions behind their rise to power - widespread dissatisfaction and public anger, petty demagoguery, easy identification of hate groups rather than an attempt to reach out and be inclusive .. fascinating. Especially given that these were all the ingredients for their total destruction after world war II Riaz K Tayob [22/11/12 18:43 +0200]: >Sala > >For the record: > >1. I have no objection to Suresh's post (that is without any >endorsement of Nazi's or Mein Kampf that brought the world, jews, gays >and other minorities untold suffering; just as I do not endorse all the >views of the articles I post) as an individual. I would hasten to add >that from a third world perspective (and avoiding moral >relativism) while the Nazi's are unquotable a whole lot of other >colonial genocidiers (like John Steuart Mill etc) are held to be >politely quotable... a double standard that removes the functionality >of the ideas, throwing out the baby with the bathwater... (and lest I >be misconstrued as it is so easy when the word Nazi is mentioned - I >unequivocally denounce the actions of the Nazi's and the suffering >imposed on particularly the Jews in the industrial scale slaughter; and >that we all need to guard against especially as the crisis brings the >rising right wing tendency to full fore in Europe). > >2. Issues related to the tenor and content of the list are a >collective, and ought to take individual views into account, and hence >in moderator/s hands, so I am happy to defer should the >moderator/collective make such a decision. > >Riaz (personal) > > > > > >On 2012/11/22 06:02 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>Dear Suresh, >> >>Please refrain from using words like "Nazi" on this list. Dialogue on >>any of the Internet Governance issues and topics. This discussion has >>escalated off the relevant issues. Any more warnings and I will remove >>you from the list. Let this serve as a reminder to all to keep the >>discussions on Internet Governance issues. >> >> >> >>Regards, >> >>Salaniet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 22 19:42:31 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 06:12:31 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) Message-ID: The concerns of various governments about inappropriate content can vary widely, from faked YouTube videos of Muslims bring massacred (which set off riots in India) to blog posts critical of prominent politicians and religious figures, sites that belong to a religious group that a government is trying to suppress etc A substantial number of these end up being hosted in the USA or in other countries that have strong protections for free speech. So, in more than one case, the content does not get taken down, and IP data about who uploaded the content is not turned over to the authorities that request it. Cross border prosecutions are difficult and time consuming at all times, and especially so in cases like this, where the test of dual criminality is failed. This has generally led to arm twisting the local office of whichever content provider it is that is hosting the content, while they argue that they are merely a software development and tech support team, and the actual content is hosted by their US subsidiary and subject to US law. Which has then led to demands that all content these providers host for the countrys users must be hosted within the country's borders, subject to national law. However, that still does not fully explain the ITU push by governments for national control over their own numbering and resources. Another of several reasons is that telcos, traditionally a fairly powerful lobby, tend to influence a substantial part of a country's telecom policy. Especially government owned former monopolies that may be feeling the pinch of competition and would like to bring back some of that government monopoly on an ISP's raw material .. IP addresses and domains. This power play is particularly attractive as it may tilt the playing field back in the government owned telco's favor, and at any rate, will give the government unprecedented control over the local internet economy --srs (htc one x ) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Ian Peter" To: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" , "Lee W McKnight" , "michael gurstein" , Subject: AW: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2012 1:18 AM Thanks Wolfgang. I suspect the ITU meet will end not with a bang, but a whimper. No doubt then one side will tell us their campaign was a huge victory for internet freedom, the other will tell us that the campaign was a huge paranoic response to the opinions of some members, opinions not supported by the membership as a whole. And we will move on to the next chapter. But somewhere, sometime, the legitimate concerns of governments as regards inappropriate content have to be addressed by some sort of protocol or agreement. No, that's not ITU's role. Nor is it ICANN's. The protocol has to involve corporations, governments, and civil society. In the absence of such a protocol or agreement we will see a fracturing Internet and more and more attempts at national based controls over content and corporate actions. Having a great big campaign about ITU is not solving this problem one bit. This lack of governance, not ITU, is the reason we are facing a substantial fracturing of the Internet if nothing is done. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:05 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter ; Lee W McKnight ; michael gurstein ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: AW: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) Ian: I along with quite a few others here do not believe it is in civil society's interests to take sides in this decades old battle. By all means argue for ITU to open up its closed meetings, but I do not think an alignment of opposition to ITU per se is sensible strategically. Wolfgang: ITU does a good job in a number of important fields: frequency coordination, development, infrastructure, standards. ITU needs support to do this job good. But it should stick to its core business. Domain names and IP addresses are not the core business of ITU. I would not recommend that ICANN or the RIRs enter the field of frequency allocation and I do not recommend that ITU should enter the DNS space. Unfortunately since 1996 we have a cold war here. In Guadalajara (2010) there was a moment of "detenete" when for the first time in ITUs history an acronym like ICANN appeared in a ITU resolution (althoug it was only in a footnote). The recommendation was to enhance collaboration. But nothing has happened so far. To end the cold war would need a clear understanding of a division of labour. Since years the option of an ICANN-ITU MoU is discussed without any progress. Fadi and Toure had a "summit meeting" in form of a joint breakfest during the IGF in Baku in October 2012. Both sides were happy with the new level of "mutual understanding". Is this the start of a "new season"? I am not sure. It is very complex. It is not only the ITU Secretariat, it is also about "member states" and as long as member states do not have any interests in something like an ITU-ICANN peaceful coexistence on the basis of a collaborative division of labour we will see a continuation of a harmful arm twisting. Dubai is just the next step. More will come in Geneva (May 2013), in the ITU Plenipotentiary in 2014 and in the WSIS 10+ process (which will kick start in February in Paris) until a possible WSIS III in 2015. The only thing one can hope for is that this cold war will not affect too much the individual Internet user. But also this is nowadays questionable with national governments which want to extend their "national sovereignty" into cyberspace. Wolfgang -----Original Message----- From: Lee W McKnight Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 7:06 AM To: michael gurstein ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) I recommend the more nuanced (?) recent Hollywood B movie - 'Cowboys and Aliens.' In case you missed it, and sorry then for giving away the plot, Cowboys, of the black and white hat variety, and "Indians," all join together to battle the space invaders ; ) Lee ________________________________________ From: michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 2:26 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Lee W McKnight Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) Hmmm... Cowboys and ``Indians``... I like a good shoot-em-up especially when the good guys are all wearing white hats and the bad guys, black ones... Makes figuring out who to root for so much easier :) M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 10:45 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) The attachment is perhaps of interest to some, re WCIT, from old pal, and ex-FCC, ex-ITU, and ex-Verisigner Tony Rutkowski. ; ) Lee ________________________________________ From: David Farber [dave at farber.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:21 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: Any chance Date: November 21, 2012 9:57:20 AM EST To: "DAVID J. FARBER" Reply-To: trutkowski at netmagic.com Hi Dave, Does this do it for you? It should be popular. :-) For noting, I ran the secretariat for the last WCIT, and helped the Secretary-General at the time develop and negotiate the provisions in his hometown of Melbourne. I also led the ITU-T cybersecurity standards group over the past four years. The turf is all too familiar. cheers, tony ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 22 21:34:54 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 21:34:54 -0500 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: <50AE39A3.5050000@gmail.com> <792F7656-0E62-404A-9DA6-069FC71908FA@hserus.net> <08d301cdc8c7$3e588c50$bb09a4f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: *Sala,* On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Suresh, > > Please refrain from using words like "Nazi" on this list. > I don't think that IGC coordinators get to proclaim that there are words that are off-limits. One of the very first IG cases was about the online sale of Nazi memorabilia on Yahoo! As a reminder, here are the rules we have agreed to: *Suspension of posting rights* Failure to abide by posting rules may result in suspension or removal from the IGC list according to the following process:  The coordinators will first warn a subscriber privately of the problem  If the problem persists the coordinators will notify the subscriber publicly on the list of impending suspension from the list. Suspension will include only posting rights.  If the problem persists the subscriber's posting rights will be suspended for one (1) month.  Once the subscriber's posting rights are restored, any further problem will result in another public warning.  If the problem continues to persist after suspension and a second public warning, the coordinators will be permitted to either suspend the posting rights for three (3) months or to remove the subscriber from the list.  Any decision for suspension can be appealed. Any decision to remove someone from the list will call for an automatic appeal by the appeals team. -- 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Nov 22 22:33:05 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 16:33:05 +1300 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: <50AE39A3.5050000@gmail.com> <792F7656-0E62-404A-9DA6-069FC71908FA@hserus.net> <08d301cdc8c7$3e588c50$bb09a4f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear All, The reprimand was to serve as a warning to those who posted and also to those who are participating and is based on the nature of the derogatory comments/attacks that were made. There are participants on this list who have received numerous warnings in private from me on occasion and the matter was sorted/settled. The nature of the derogatory attack was too vulgar that it required a public remand so that a clear message is sent to the list on how to conduct oneself on the list. The matter being discussed has to relate to Internet Governance and I do not apologise for my stance. Kind Regards, Sala On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 3:34 PM, McTim wrote: > *Sala,* > On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Suresh, >> >> Please refrain from using words like "Nazi" on this list. >> > > > I don't think that IGC coordinators get to proclaim that there are words > that are off-limits. > > One of the very first IG cases was about the online sale of Nazi > memorabilia on Yahoo! > > As a reminder, here are the rules we have agreed to: > > *Suspension of posting rights* > > Failure to abide by posting rules may result in suspension or removal from > the IGC list according to the following process: > >  The coordinators will first warn a subscriber privately of the problem >  If the problem persists the coordinators will notify the subscriber > publicly on the list of impending suspension from the list. Suspension will > include only posting rights. >  If the problem persists the subscriber's posting rights will be > suspended for one (1) month. >  Once the subscriber's posting rights are restored, any further problem > will result in another public warning. >  If the problem continues to persist after suspension and a second public > warning, the coordinators will be permitted to either suspend the posting > rights for three (3) months or to remove the subscriber from the list. >  Any decision for suspension can be appealed. Any decision to remove > someone from the list will call for an automatic appeal by the appeals team. > -- > 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 P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji 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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 22 22:38:02 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:08:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website Message-ID: I am sorry but I will still emphatically reject your understanding of what I posted For the last time, I did not apply that epithet to anyone and my sole intention has been to decry the widespread use of propaganda as a tactic unsuitable to civil society organizations. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" To: "McTim" Cc: Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2012 9:03 AM Dear All, The reprimand was to serve as a warning to those who posted and also to those who are participating and is based on the nature of the derogatory comments/attacks that were made. There are participants on this list who have received numerous warnings in private from me on occasion and the matter was sorted/settled. The nature of the derogatory attack was too vulgar that it required a public remand so that a clear message is sent to the list on how to conduct oneself on the list. The matter being discussed has to relate to Internet Governance and I do not apologise for my stance. Kind Regards, Sala On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 3:34 PM, McTim wrote: > *Sala,* > On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Suresh, >> >> Please refrain from using words like "Nazi" on this list. >> > > > I don't think that IGC coordinators get to proclaim that there are words > that are off-limits. > > One of the very first IG cases was about the online sale of Nazi > memorabilia on Yahoo! > > As a reminder, here are the rules we have agreed to: > > *Suspension of posting rights* > > Failure to abide by posting rules may result in suspension or removal from > the IGC list according to the following process: > >  The coordinators will first warn a subscriber privately of the problem >  If the problem persists the coordinators will notify the subscriber > publicly on the list of impending suspension from the list. Suspension will > include only posting rights. >  If the problem persists the subscriber's posting rights will be > suspended for one (1) month. >  Once the subscriber's posting rights are restored, any further problem > will result in another public warning. >  If the problem continues to persist after suspension and a second public > warning, the coordinators will be permitted to either suspend the posting > rights for three (3) months or to remove the subscriber from the list. >  Any decision for suspension can be appealed. Any decision to remove > someone from the list will call for an automatic appeal by the appeals team. > -- > 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 P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji 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 Nov 22 22:47:46 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 16:47:46 +1300 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Suresh, The point is this. You can discuss things concerning Internet Governance. Your postings were off topic and as moderator and as a co-coordinator, I am exercising my discretion to notify you. Any other postings to you in relation to this matter will soon be offlist. Sala On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I am sorry but I will still emphatically reject your understanding of what > I posted > > For the last time, I did not apply that epithet to anyone and my sole > intention has been to decry the widespread use of propaganda as a tactic > unsuitable to civil society organizations. > > --srs (htc one x) > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > To: "McTim" > Cc: > Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website > Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2012 9:03 AM > > > Dear All, > > The reprimand was to serve as a warning to those who posted and also to > those who are participating and is based on the nature of the derogatory > comments/attacks that were made. > > There are participants on this list who have received numerous warnings in > private from me on occasion and the matter was sorted/settled. > > The nature of the derogatory attack was too vulgar that it required a > public remand so that a clear message is sent to the list on how to conduct > oneself on the list. > > The matter being discussed has to relate to Internet Governance and I do > not apologise for my stance. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 3:34 PM, McTim wrote: > > > *Sala,* > > > On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Dear Suresh, > >> > >> Please refrain from using words like "Nazi" on this list. > >> > > > > > > I don't think that IGC coordinators get to proclaim that there are words > > that are off-limits. > > > > One of the very first IG cases was about the online sale of Nazi > > memorabilia on Yahoo! > > > > As a reminder, here are the rules we have agreed to: > > > > *Suspension of posting rights* > > > > > Failure to abide by posting rules may result in suspension or removal > from > > the IGC list according to the following process: > > > >  The coordinators will first warn a subscriber privately of the problem > >  If the problem persists the coordinators will notify the subscriber > > publicly on the list of impending suspension from the list. Suspension > will > > include only posting rights. > >  If the problem persists the subscriber's posting rights will be > > suspended for one (1) month. > >  Once the subscriber's posting rights are restored, any further problem > > will result in another public warning. > >  If the problem continues to persist after suspension and a second > public > > warning, the coordinators will be permitted to either suspend the posting > > rights for three (3) months or to remove the subscriber from the list. > >  Any decision for suspension can be appealed. Any decision to remove > > someone from the list will call for an automatic appeal by the appeals > team. > > -- > > 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 > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji 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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 22 23:51:28 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 10:21:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes. And my point has been to decry the use of propaganda methods in civil society discourse about internet governance, by attacking the motives of other stakeholders rather than addressing the points that they have raised so far. I haven't yet seen you pointing that out to Parminder, though doubtless you've done so "offlist". You have made your point. I have made mine. Now, let us end this thread. --srs (iPad) On 23-Nov-2012, at 9:17, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: > Suresh, > > The point is this. You can discuss things concerning Internet Governance. Your postings were off topic and as moderator and as a co-coordinator, I am exercising my discretion to notify you. > > Any other postings to you in relation to this matter will soon be offlist. > > Sala > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> I am sorry but I will still emphatically reject your understanding of what I posted >> >> For the last time, I did not apply that epithet to anyone and my sole intention has been to decry the widespread use of propaganda as a tactic unsuitable to civil society organizations. >> >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >> To: "McTim" >> Cc: >> Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website >> Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2012 9:03 AM >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> The reprimand was to serve as a warning to those who posted and also to >> those who are participating and is based on the nature of the derogatory >> comments/attacks that were made. >> >> There are participants on this list who have received numerous warnings in >> private from me on occasion and the matter was sorted/settled. >> >> The nature of the derogatory attack was too vulgar that it required a >> public remand so that a clear message is sent to the list on how to conduct >> oneself on the list. >> >> The matter being discussed has to relate to Internet Governance and I do >> not apologise for my stance. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 3:34 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> > *Sala,* >> >> > On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Dear Suresh, >> >> >> >> Please refrain from using words like "Nazi" on this list. >> >> >> > >> > >> > I don't think that IGC coordinators get to proclaim that there are words >> > that are off-limits. >> > >> > One of the very first IG cases was about the online sale of Nazi >> > memorabilia on Yahoo! >> > >> > As a reminder, here are the rules we have agreed to: >> > >> > *Suspension of posting rights* >> >> > >> > Failure to abide by posting rules may result in suspension or removal from >> > the IGC list according to the following process: >> > >> >  The coordinators will first warn a subscriber privately of the problem >> >  If the problem persists the coordinators will notify the subscriber >> > publicly on the list of impending suspension from the list. Suspension will >> > include only posting rights. >> >  If the problem persists the subscriber's posting rights will be >> > suspended for one (1) month. >> >  Once the subscriber's posting rights are restored, any further problem >> > will result in another public warning. >> >  If the problem continues to persist after suspension and a second public >> > warning, the coordinators will be permitted to either suspend the posting >> > rights for three (3) months or to remove the subscriber from the list. >> >  Any decision for suspension can be appealed. Any decision to remove >> > someone from the list will call for an automatic appeal by the appeals team. >> > -- >> > 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 >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Tel: +679 3544828 >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji 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 tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Fri Nov 23 01:38:55 2012 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 08:38:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20121123063855.GA15823@tarvainen.info> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 05:47:28AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian (suresh at hserus.net) wrote: > Sir, when responding to any discussion, it is important to consider > motivations that people have when making points, in order to address > any points that are made. I must disagree here. It is often much better to explicitly ignore even obvious motivations and hidden agendas and respond only to the arguments explicitly made, following Socrates' dictum that the value of an argument does not depend on who said it - even though we of course know that in politics the opposite is usually closer to the truth. But in politics rhetorics trumps logic, there's rarely any real argumentation in public. But sticking to the point, to what is actually said, avoiding reading between the lines, tends to keep discussion more civil and constructive. Analyzing other people's motives in a debate generally makes sense only if you want to impress the audience rather than find a solution to the issue at hand. -- Tapani Tarvainen -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 23 01:59:26 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 12:29:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: <20121123063855.GA15823@tarvainen.info> References: <20121123063855.GA15823@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: I would agree with what you say if, and only if, the other side does not have politics confused with policy. If they're playing politics, then it will simply not be possible to engage in a constructive debate. Likewise if the discussion is held in a politically charged atmosphere. Anyway that's my absolute last post on this thread. My next post is going to be on something that's puzzling me considerably .. India's position in the WCIT - their DoT position (as expressed officially in their WCIT submission) and some statements made by Minister Sibal, quoted in a newspaper article today morning. --srs (iPad) On 23-Nov-2012, at 12:08, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 05:47:28AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian (suresh at hserus.net) wrote: > >> Sir, when responding to any discussion, it is important to consider >> motivations that people have when making points, in order to address >> any points that are made. > > I must disagree here. It is often much better to explicitly ignore > even obvious motivations and hidden agendas and respond only to > the arguments explicitly made, following Socrates' dictum that > the value of an argument does not depend on who said it - > even though we of course know that in politics the opposite is > usually closer to the truth. But in politics rhetorics trumps > logic, there's rarely any real argumentation in public. > > But sticking to the point, to what is actually said, avoiding > reading between the lines, tends to keep discussion more civil > and constructive. Analyzing other people's motives in a debate > generally makes sense only if you want to impress the audience > rather than find a solution to the issue at hand. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 23 02:09:46 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 12:39:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] Minister Sibal's comments vs India's WCIT position paper Message-ID: Like many of you here I'm sure, I was considerably surprised by India's submission to the WCIT - http://news.dot-nxt.com/itu/wcit/c21 It starts off by stating that it is based on multistakeholder consultation, but that does not seem to be the case, based on several statements by different industry organizations and civil society groups in India. The possible situation we have here is that the DoT has circulated their paper to a select set of people who are nominally industry or civil society, rather than engage in any form of more public consultation. Statements protesting these submissions are pouring in from several powerful industry bodies besides from civil society groups that actively track internet governance related issues in India. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/civil-society-industry-oppose-indias-plans-to-modify-itrs/article4124046.ece The article further includes these quotes from Minister Sibal and from India's top civil servant for telecom, Mr.Chandrashekhar. ---quote--- Mr. Sibal confirmed that while cyber security was an area of discussion with the ITU, “*the ITU does not have any role in Internet governance*.” According to him, either he or the Department will hold meetings on these issues with the industry to further evolve India’s position. Mr. Chandrashekhar further confirmed that similar to several global national delegations, the government would include media and industry experts as part of its delegation to Dubai ---end quote--- ^ note the absence of civil society in the delegation .. but even if they do include a broader cross section of industry, then the multiple strongly worded comments by Indian industry associations (quoted in the article) against the ITU gaining control of these will probably lead to a change in India's position. On the other hand, it is quite possible that India's position will absolutely not change, and these statements above are simply to mollify industry and civil society protests. Thoughts, please? --srs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Fri Nov 23 04:37:52 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 01:37:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: <20121123063855.GA15823@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <1353663472.32843.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> 'Is ITU wrong place to make decisions about the future of the Internet' ? Just to share with you: As BBC News reports, the ITU is holding a conference in Dubai next month where government representatives plan to tackle a new information and communications treaty -- one that at least some countries hope will shift some oversight responsibilities from US-based groups like ICANN to an international organization.     http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/22/google-says-itu-is-wrong-place-to-make-decisions-about-the-futu/  >________________________________ > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian >To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Tapani Tarvainen >Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012, 11:59 >Subject: Re: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website > >I would agree with what you say if, and only if, the other side does not have politics confused with policy.  If they're playing politics, then it will simply not be possible to engage in a constructive debate.  Likewise if the discussion is held in a politically charged atmosphere. > >Anyway that's my absolute last post on this thread.  My next post is going to be on something that's puzzling me considerably .. India's position in the WCIT - their DoT position (as expressed officially in their WCIT submission) and some statements made by Minister Sibal, quoted in a newspaper article today morning. > >--srs (iPad) > >On 23-Nov-2012, at 12:08, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 05:47:28AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian (suresh at hserus.net) wrote: >> >>> Sir, when responding to any discussion, it is important to consider >>> motivations that people have when making points, in order to address >>> any points that are made. >> >> I must disagree here. It is often much better to explicitly ignore >> even obvious motivations and hidden agendas and respond only to >> the arguments explicitly made, following Socrates' dictum that >> the value of an argument does not depend on who said it - >> even though we of course know that in politics the opposite is >> usually closer to the truth. But in politics rhetorics trumps >> logic, there's rarely any real argumentation in public. >> >> But sticking to the point, to what is actually said, avoiding >> reading between the lines, tends to keep discussion more civil >> and constructive. Analyzing other people's motives in a debate >> generally makes sense only if you want to impress the audience >> rather than find a solution to the issue at hand. >> >> -- >> Tapani Tarvainen >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 23 05:55:54 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 23:55:54 +1300 Subject: [governance] Reminder to Members and Subscribers [ Etiquette] Message-ID: Dear Members and Subscribers of IGC, We live in a world that is diverse, different contexts, landscapes and beliefs. We literally come from all over the world and whilst we converge to engage in discussions, dialogue and discussion, we do not have to forced to share the same view, belief etc. There is nothing stopping us from engaging in robust debate on the issues as this list is often known for but we must do so whilst addressing the issues and not launching in personal scathing attacks on individuals. It is healthy when there is diversity of views and perspectives and we should never feel threatened by this but learn to seek to understand where each of the perspectives are coming from in order to better understand where the perspective comes from. Here is a video to remind us that we all see in part, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBqgr5xZLz0 Where warnings have been issued and continued to be ignored, I will have no choice but to remove them off the list. Warm Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Nov 23 08:20:50 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 11:20:50 -0200 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: <50AE39A3.5050000@gmail.com> <792F7656-0E62-404A-9DA6-069FC71908FA@hserus.net> <08d301cdc8c7$3e588c50$bb09a4f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50AF7832.1060500@cafonso.ca> Good reminder, McTim! --c.a. On 11/23/2012 12:34 AM, McTim wrote: > *Sala,* > On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Suresh, >> >> Please refrain from using words like "Nazi" on this list. >> > > > I don't think that IGC coordinators get to proclaim that there are words > that are off-limits. > > One of the very first IG cases was about the online sale of Nazi > memorabilia on Yahoo! > > As a reminder, here are the rules we have agreed to: > > *Suspension of posting rights* > > Failure to abide by posting rules may result in suspension or removal from > the IGC list according to the following process: > >  The coordinators will first warn a subscriber privately of the problem >  If the problem persists the coordinators will notify the subscriber > publicly on the list of impending suspension from the list. Suspension will > include only posting rights. >  If the problem persists the subscriber's posting rights will be suspended > for one (1) month. >  Once the subscriber's posting rights are restored, any further problem > will result in another public warning. >  If the problem continues to persist after suspension and a second public > warning, the coordinators will be permitted to either suspend the posting > rights for three (3) months or to remove the subscriber from the list. >  Any decision for suspension can be appealed. Any decision to remove > someone from the list will call for an automatic appeal by the appeals team. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 23 08:24:03 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 11:24:03 -0200 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: <50AE39A3.5050000@gmail.com> <792F7656-0E62-404A-9DA6-069FC71908FA@hserus.net> <08d301cdc8c7$3e588c50$bb09a4f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50AF78F3.6060005@cafonso.ca> I would suggest in these delicate cases the coordinator be above all a moderator, not an executioner. Do we have an appeals team in place? If so, I think the coordinator should check with them first before posting menaces and "reprimands". frt rgds --c.a. On 11/23/2012 01:33 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > The reprimand was to serve as a warning to those who posted and also to > those who are participating and is based on the nature of the derogatory > comments/attacks that were made. > > There are participants on this list who have received numerous warnings in > private from me on occasion and the matter was sorted/settled. > > The nature of the derogatory attack was too vulgar that it required a > public remand so that a clear message is sent to the list on how to conduct > oneself on the list. > > The matter being discussed has to relate to Internet Governance and I do > not apologise for my stance. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 3:34 PM, McTim wrote: > >> *Sala,* >> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear Suresh, >>> >>> Please refrain from using words like "Nazi" on this list. >>> >> >> >> I don't think that IGC coordinators get to proclaim that there are words >> that are off-limits. >> >> One of the very first IG cases was about the online sale of Nazi >> memorabilia on Yahoo! >> >> As a reminder, here are the rules we have agreed to: >> >> *Suspension of posting rights* >> >> Failure to abide by posting rules may result in suspension or removal from >> the IGC list according to the following process: >> >>  The coordinators will first warn a subscriber privately of the problem >>  If the problem persists the coordinators will notify the subscriber >> publicly on the list of impending suspension from the list. Suspension will >> include only posting rights. >>  If the problem persists the subscriber's posting rights will be >> suspended for one (1) month. >>  Once the subscriber's posting rights are restored, any further problem >> will result in another public warning. >>  If the problem continues to persist after suspension and a second public >> warning, the coordinators will be permitted to either suspend the posting >> rights for three (3) months or to remove the subscriber from the list. >>  Any decision for suspension can be appealed. Any decision to remove >> someone from the list will call for an automatic appeal by the appeals team. >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route >> indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Nov 23 08:27:30 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 11:27:30 -0200 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50AF79C2.2090209@cafonso.ca> Sala and all, this list does not require that off-topics be banned. Otherwise, the accumulated set of messages would be reduced by probably 80% and we would lose one of the most relevant aspects of a democratic list -- flexibility in how each one treats each issue. I insist your role should be of a no-nonsense moderator. []s fraternos --c.a. On 11/23/2012 01:47 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Suresh, > > The point is this. You can discuss things concerning Internet Governance. > Your postings were off topic and as moderator and as a co-coordinator, I am > exercising my discretion to notify you. > > Any other postings to you in relation to this matter will soon be offlist. > > Sala > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > >> I am sorry but I will still emphatically reject your understanding of what >> I posted >> >> For the last time, I did not apply that epithet to anyone and my sole >> intention has been to decry the widespread use of propaganda as a tactic >> unsuitable to civil society organizations. >> >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> >> To: "McTim" >> Cc: >> Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website >> Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2012 9:03 AM >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> The reprimand was to serve as a warning to those who posted and also to >> those who are participating and is based on the nature of the derogatory >> comments/attacks that were made. >> >> There are participants on this list who have received numerous warnings in >> private from me on occasion and the matter was sorted/settled. >> >> The nature of the derogatory attack was too vulgar that it required a >> public remand so that a clear message is sent to the list on how to conduct >> oneself on the list. >> >> The matter being discussed has to relate to Internet Governance and I do >> not apologise for my stance. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 3:34 PM, McTim wrote: >> >>> *Sala,* >> >>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Suresh, >>>> >>>> Please refrain from using words like "Nazi" on this list. >>>> >>> >>> >>> I don't think that IGC coordinators get to proclaim that there are words >>> that are off-limits. >>> >>> One of the very first IG cases was about the online sale of Nazi >>> memorabilia on Yahoo! >>> >>> As a reminder, here are the rules we have agreed to: >>> >>> *Suspension of posting rights* >> >>> >>> Failure to abide by posting rules may result in suspension or removal >> from >>> the IGC list according to the following process: >>> >>>  The coordinators will first warn a subscriber privately of the problem >>>  If the problem persists the coordinators will notify the subscriber >>> publicly on the list of impending suspension from the list. Suspension >> will >>> include only posting rights. >>>  If the problem persists the subscriber's posting rights will be >>> suspended for one (1) month. >>>  Once the subscriber's posting rights are restored, any further problem >>> will result in another public warning. >>>  If the problem continues to persist after suspension and a second >> public >>> warning, the coordinators will be permitted to either suspend the posting >>> rights for three (3) months or to remove the subscriber from the list. >>>  Any decision for suspension can be appealed. Any decision to remove >>> someone from the list will call for an automatic appeal by the appeals >> team. >>> -- >>> 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 >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Tel: +679 3544828 >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 23 10:00:49 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 20:30:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [India-InfoSec] Large Sample Comprehensive Survey on Personal Privacy References: Message-ID: <7A82CF06-33CB-4518-B4EB-E941A84AAA95@hserus.net> --srs (iPad) Begin forwarded message: > From: Vickram Crishna > Date: 23 November 2012 14:33:07 IST > To: india-infosec > Subject: [India-InfoSec] Large Sample Comprehensive Survey on Personal Privacy > Reply-To: India-InfoSec at yahoogroups.com > > > > tinyurl.com/auqlppk > > The survey was conducted with the assistance of Privacy International and IDRC, with a team of academic researchers from the Indian Institute of Information Technology, Delhi led by Prof Ponnurangam K. > > It is probably the first such large survey undertaken to ascertain how aware people are of core issues relating to personal privacy in India. PK is one of the founders of this list, of course, and is known to many of us. His PreCog team at IIITD is making a name with their leading research and development activities. > > The results should make policy-makers and influencers sit up and note that Indians do not like to be taken for granted, even if they are mostly unaware of the true state of affairs, and immensely trusting of government. > > -- > Vickram > Fool On The Hill > "The cameras were all around. We've got you taped; you're in the play. > Here's your I.D. (Ideal for identifying one and all.) > Invest your life in the memory bank; ours the interest and we thank you." > Jethro Tull: A Passion Play (1973) > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 23 13:16:24 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 19:16:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy Message-ID: <20121123191624.456b1d9c@quill.bollow.ch> http://www.indianexpress.com/news/notion-of-privacy/1035453/ """ What do David Petraeus, Nicolas Sarkozy, nine million Greeks and one billion Facebook users have in common? All of them have had their personal data compromised in one form or another in recent days.... """ Is the privacy problem becoming a more mainstream issue? 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 Fri Nov 23 23:11:07 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 08:11:07 +0400 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: <50AF7832.1060500@cafonso.ca> References: <50AE39A3.5050000@gmail.com> <792F7656-0E62-404A-9DA6-069FC71908FA@hserus.net> <08d301cdc8c7$3e588c50$bb09a4f0$@gmail.com> <50AF7832.1060500@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <60B6FAB2-37B7-4E85-82A9-881D50EAC878@acm.org> +1 On 23 Nov 2012, at 17:20, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Good reminder, McTim! > > --c.a. > > On 11/23/2012 12:34 AM, McTim wrote: >> *Sala,* >> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear Suresh, >>> >>> Please refrain from using words like "Nazi" on this list. >>> >> >> >> I don't think that IGC coordinators get to proclaim that there are words >> that are off-limits. >> >> One of the very first IG cases was about the online sale of Nazi >> memorabilia on Yahoo! >> >> As a reminder, here are the rules we have agreed to: >> >> *Suspension of posting rights* >> >> Failure to abide by posting rules may result in suspension or removal from >> the IGC list according to the following process: >> >>  The coordinators will first warn a subscriber privately of the problem >>  If the problem persists the coordinators will notify the subscriber >> publicly on the list of impending suspension from the list. Suspension will >> include only posting rights. >>  If the problem persists the subscriber's posting rights will be suspended >> for one (1) month. >>  Once the subscriber's posting rights are restored, any further problem >> will result in another public warning. >>  If the problem continues to persist after suspension and a second public >> warning, the coordinators will be permitted to either suspend the posting >> rights for three (3) months or to remove the subscriber from the list. >>  Any decision for suspension can be appealed. Any decision to remove >> someone from the list will call for an automatic appeal by the appeals team. >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sat Nov 24 01:58:30 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 08:58:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy In-Reply-To: <20121123191624.456b1d9c@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20121123191624.456b1d9c@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: While I do have Facebook and Twitter accounts, I have not accessed any of them for quite a long time, and I do not use them. This is what one can expect when posting personal data online. However, if we look at things differently, who is not exposed (Internet users)? All our Internet traffic passes through the various Tier-1 ISPs in the USA and EU, and some of them might want to inspect traffic randomly as measures of "National Security". Fahd On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > http://www.indianexpress.com/news/notion-of-privacy/1035453/ > > """ > What do David Petraeus, Nicolas Sarkozy, nine million Greeks and one > billion Facebook users have in common? All of them have had their > personal data compromised in one form or another in recent days.... > """ > > Is the privacy problem becoming a more mainstream issue? > > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Sat Nov 24 02:34:05 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 13:04:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] Freedom of speech issue FB and Shaheen Dadha Message-ID: India is progressing, a bit at a time. Freedom of speech is being recognized on web media as a positive and appreciated by the community at large. If this of interest do feel free to sign the petition on change.org (link below). Best regards, Chaitanya ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mukut Ray Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 11:52 AM Subject: UPDATE: FBarrest To: chaitanyabd at gmail.com Dear Chaitanya, *Our pressure is working!* Following the widespread outrage, *Chief Minister* Prithviraj Chavan *ordered an enquiry* into the arrest of Shaheen & Renu for posting a comment on Facebook. The inquiry report has now been submitted to the DGP of Maharashtra, who has "forwarded it to the home department for necessary actions." *More than 19,000 people have signed the petition in just 4 days and this has added to the pressure on the authorities.* A group of concerned citizens are *trying to meet the Chief Minister before Monday* to submit the petition with your signaturesand urge him to drop the charges filed against Shaheen and Renu. *Can we get 50,000 signatures on the petition* to ensure the pressure is on the Chief Minister to drop the charges? *Forward this mail to your friends* and get more people to sign the petition. Thanks for taking action, Mukut Ray PS: You can also share the petition on Facebookor send a tweetabout it. News Source: Thackeray Facebook row: Cops who arrested Shaheen and her friend to face inquiry This email was sent by Change.org to chaitanyabd at gmail.com | Start a petition Unsubscribe.Edit your email notification settings. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 24 03:01:12 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 13:31:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] Freedom of speech issue FB and Shaheen Dadha Message-ID: Not particularly new and mostly driven by political parties trawling through fb for criticism of their leaders and randomly lodging police complaints... This is across the board and not particular to any one Indian political party --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Chaitanya Dhareshwar" To: Subject: [governance] Freedom of speech issue FB and Shaheen Dadha Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2012 1:04 PM India is progressing, a bit at a time. Freedom of speech is being recognized on web media as a positive and appreciated by the community at large. If this of interest do feel free to sign the petition on change.org (link below). Best regards, Chaitanya ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mukut Ray Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 11:52 AM Subject: UPDATE: FBarrest To: chaitanyabd at gmail.com Dear Chaitanya, *Our pressure is working!* Following the widespread outrage, *Chief Minister* Prithviraj Chavan *ordered an enquiry* into the arrest of Shaheen & Renu for posting a comment on Facebook. The inquiry report has now been submitted to the DGP of Maharashtra, who has "forwarded it to the home department for necessary actions." *More than 19,000 people have signed the petition in just 4 days and this has added to the pressure on the authorities.* A group of concerned citizens are *trying to meet the Chief Minister before Monday* to submit the petition with your signaturesand urge him to drop the charges filed against Shaheen and Renu. *Can we get 50,000 signatures on the petition* to ensure the pressure is on the Chief Minister to drop the charges? *Forward this mail to your friends* and get more people to sign the petition. Thanks for taking action, Mukut Ray PS: You can also share the petition on Facebookor send a tweetabout it. News Source: Thackeray Facebook row: Cops who arrested Shaheen and her friend to face inquiry This email was sent by Change.org to chaitanyabd at gmail.com | Start a petition Unsubscribe.Edit your email notification settings. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Sat Nov 24 03:10:41 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 13:40:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] Freedom of speech issue FB and Shaheen Dadha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: FYI Suresh, "Following the widespread outrage, *Chief Minister* Prithviraj Chavan *ordered an enquiry* into the arrest" - a major change from the status quo. Do also read the news coverage you'll note this is different from the earlier - what used to happen before is a general blind eye from the authorities. My point is that the government is becoming more online-media aware than ever before which is a huge step forward for India. -C On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Not particularly new and mostly driven by political parties trawling > through fb for criticism of their leaders and randomly lodging police > complaints... This is across the board and not particular to any one Indian > political party > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Chaitanya Dhareshwar" > To: > Subject: [governance] Freedom of speech issue FB and Shaheen Dadha > Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2012 1:04 PM > > > India is progressing, a bit at a time. Freedom of speech is being > recognized on web media as a positive and appreciated by the community at > large. > > If this of interest do feel free to sign the petition on change.org (link > below). > > Best regards, > Chaitanya > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Mukut Ray > Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 11:52 AM > Subject: UPDATE: FBarrest > To: chaitanyabd at gmail.com > > > Dear Chaitanya, > > *Our pressure is working!* > Following the widespread outrage, *Chief Minister* Prithviraj Chavan > *ordered > an enquiry* into the arrest of Shaheen & Renu for posting a comment on > > Facebook. The inquiry report has now been submitted to the DGP of > Maharashtra, who has "forwarded it to the home department for necessary > actions." > > *More than 19,000 people have signed the petition in just 4 days and this > > has added to the pressure on the > authorities.*< > http://www.change.org/petitions/drop-charges-against-shaheen-and-renu-for-comments-about-mumbai-shutdown-fbarrest?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=13920&alert_id=waWBhkkziA_gyfcmInHMp > > > > A group of concerned citizens are *trying to meet the Chief Minister before > Monday* to submit the petition with your > signatures< > http://www.change.org/petitions/drop-charges-against-shaheen-and-renu-for-comments-about-mumbai-shutdown-fbarrest?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=13920&alert_id=waWBhkkziA_gyfcmInHMp > >and > > urge him to drop the charges filed against Shaheen and Renu. > > *Can we get 50,000 signatures on the petition* to ensure the pressure is on > > the Chief Minister to drop the charges? > > *Forward this mail to your friends* and get more people to sign the > petition.< > http://www.change.org/petitions/drop-charges-against-shaheen-and-renu-for-comments-about-mumbai-shutdown-fbarrest?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=13920&alert_id=waWBhkkziA_gyfcmInHMp > > > > > Thanks for taking action, > > Mukut Ray > > PS: You can also share the petition on > Facebook< > http://j.mp/S1dSG3?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=13920&alert_id=waWBhkkziA_gyfcmInHMp > >or > send > a tweet< > http://j.mp/YbKxxp?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=13920&alert_id=waWBhkkziA_gyfcmInHMp > >about > > it. > > News Source: Thackeray Facebook row: Cops who arrested Shaheen and her > friend to face inquiry< > http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/thackeray-facebook-row-cops-arrest-shaheen-her-friend-arrested/1/234454.html?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=13920&alert_id=waWBhkkziA_gyfcmInHMp > > > > > This email was sent by Change.org to chaitanyabd at gmail.com | Start a > petition< > http://www.change.org/start-a-petition?source=footer&utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=13920&alert_id=waWBhkkziA_gyfcmInHMp > > > Unsubscribe.< > http://www.change.org/account_settings/action_alerts_opt_out?email_id=GYCQBGTCQEKSHGFOSYHT&utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=13920&alert_id=waWBhkkziA_gyfcmInHMp > >Edit > your email > notification settings< > http://www.change.org/account_settings/edit_email_preferences?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=13920&alert_id=waWBhkkziA_gyfcmInHMp > >. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 24 03:26:50 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 13:56:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] Freedom of speech issue FB and Shaheen Dadha Message-ID: Aware. I suppose suspending the police officers for a week or so and arresting the party goons that vandalized the hospital owned by one of the girls uncles before bailing them out is easier than amending the law Media and social media raising a stink about this case helped i guess --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Chaitanya Dhareshwar" To: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Subject: [governance] Freedom of speech issue FB and Shaheen Dadha Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2012 1:40 PM FYI Suresh, "Following the widespread outrage, *Chief Minister* Prithviraj Chavan *ordered an enquiry* into the arrest" - a major change from the status quo. Do also read the news coverage you'll note this is different from the earlier - what used to happen before is a general blind eye from the authorities. My point is that the government is becoming more online-media aware than ever before which is a huge step forward for India. -C On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Not particularly new and mostly driven by political parties trawling > through fb for criticism of their leaders and randomly lodging police > complaints... This is across the board and not particular to any one Indian > political party > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Chaitanya Dhareshwar" > To: > Subject: [governance] Freedom of speech issue FB and Shaheen Dadha > Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2012 1:04 PM > > > India is progressing, a bit at a time. Freedom of speech is being > recognized on web media as a positive and appreciated by the community at > large. > > If this of interest do feel free to sign the petition on change.org (link > below). > > Best regards, > Chaitanya > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Mukut Ray > Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 11:52 AM > Subject: UPDATE: FBarrest > To: chaitanyabd at gmail.com > > > Dear Chaitanya, > > *Our pressure is working!* > Following the widespread outrage, *Chief Minister* Prithviraj Chavan > *ordered > an enquiry* into the arrest of Shaheen & Renu for posting a comment on > > Facebook. The inquiry report has now been submitted to the DGP of > Maharashtra, who has "forwarded it to the home department for necessary > actions." > > *More than 19,000 people have signed the petition in just 4 days and this > > has added to the pressure on the > authorities.*< > http://www.change.org/petitions/drop-charges-against-shaheen-and-renu-for-comments-about-mumbai-shutdown-fbarrest?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=13920&alert_id=waWBhkkziA_gyfcmInHMp > > > > A group of concerned citizens are *trying to meet the Chief Minister before > Monday* to submit the petition with your > signatures< > http://www.change.org/petitions/drop-charges-against-shaheen-and-renu-for-comments-about-mumbai-shutdown-fbarrest?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=13920&alert_id=waWBhkkziA_gyfcmInHMp > >and > > urge him to drop the charges filed against Shaheen and Renu. > > *Can we get 50,000 signatures on the petition* to ensure the pressure is on > > the Chief Minister to drop the charges? > > *Forward this mail to your friends* and get more people to sign the > petition.< > http://www.change.org/petitions/drop-charges-against-shaheen-and-renu-for-comments-about-mumbai-shutdown-fbarrest?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=13920&alert_id=waWBhkkziA_gyfcmInHMp > > > > > Thanks for taking action, > > Mukut Ray > > PS: You can also share the petition on > Facebook< > http://j.mp/S1dSG3?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=13920&alert_id=waWBhkkziA_gyfcmInHMp > >or > send > a tweet< > http://j.mp/YbKxxp?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=13920&alert_id=waWBhkkziA_gyfcmInHMp > >about > > it. > > News Source: Thackeray Facebook row: Cops who arrested Shaheen and her > friend to face inquiry< > http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/thackeray-facebook-row-cops-arrest-shaheen-her-friend-arrested/1/234454.html?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=13920&alert_id=waWBhkkziA_gyfcmInHMp > > > > > This email was sent by Change.org to chaitanyabd at gmail.com | Start a > petition< > http://www.change.org/start-a-petition?source=footer&utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=13920&alert_id=waWBhkkziA_gyfcmInHMp > > > Unsubscribe.< > http://www.change.org/account_settings/action_alerts_opt_out?email_id=GYCQBGTCQEKSHGFOSYHT&utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=13920&alert_id=waWBhkkziA_gyfcmInHMp > >Edit > your email > notification settings< > http://www.change.org/account_settings/edit_email_preferences?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=13920&alert_id=waWBhkkziA_gyfcmInHMp > >. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Nov 24 03:40:04 2012 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 00:40:04 -0800 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: <50AE39A3.5050000@gmail.com> <792F7656-0E62-404A-9DA6-069FC71908FA@hserus.net> <08d301cdc8c7$3e588c50$bb09a4f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50B087E4.4060304@cavebear.com> On 11/22/2012 08:02 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear Suresh, > > Please refrain from using words like "Nazi" on this list. Dialogue on > any of the Internet Governance issues and topics. This discussion has > escalated off the relevant issues. Any more warnings and I will remove > you from the list. Let this serve as a reminder to all to keep the > discussions on Internet Governance issues. Really? What about words like "Taliban" or "Klu Klux Klan" that describe groups with similar characteristics or goals? During the late 1930's and early 1940's many of my family members and people bearing my family name suddenly vanished in the areas that are now Poland, Ukraine, and Germany. The evidence suggests that they died - were murdered - at the hands of the group that, by your rule, shall not be named. So I figure that I have a rather strong right to object to the word in question. Yet I refuse to object to that word when it is used to describe a regime or mode of thinking. I do, however, object to censorship. Censorship comes in many colors. One color is the kind of censorship in which those of delicate sensibilities try to insert a gag into the mouths of those with more robust vocabularies. In my nearly two decades of wandering through the world of internet governance I have seen this form of censorship taking root. We Americans tend to use words as hard as canon balls - it is our culture. We are often rather proud of it. There are other cultures on this planet that use softer tones and greater indirection. Neither form is superior to the other - these are simply differences. Those of us from strong-word cultures do need to respect those who speak more softly or deferentially. I, as is the case with many Americans, have not always carried my responsibility in that regard. Hopefully, in time we will learn. However, the road runs both ways. Those from cultures with softer modes of expression ought not to use their values as reasons to suppress those of us who chose more colored modes. --karl-- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Nov 24 07:36:45 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 04:36:45 -0800 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: <50B087E4.4060304@cavebear.com> References: <50AE39A3.5050000@gmail.com> <792F7656-0E62-404A-9DA6-069FC71908FA@hserus.net> <08d301cdc8c7$3e588c50$bb09a4f0$@gmail.com> <50B087E4.4060304@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <03cf01cdca40$6eaad6e0$4c0084a0$@gmail.com> I think there is a need for some multi-cultural balance here... think about the shouting "fire" in the crowded cinema restriction on "free speech"... that is, these things are contextual and while "fire" may be an outer limit of what is (free speech) acceptable in one context, it may be something different in another cultural context and given that we are engaged in a necessarily multicultural context we need to find some balance between contending forces/freedoms... I'm not sure quite how to do that but I know for sure that trying to impose one set of restrictions (or absence of restrictions) unilaterally across cultures is not the way to go. All that being said, Sala is trying to find that middle ground, perhaps with only human limitations as to a deep knowledge of the various cultural contexts from which we all spring. So, rather than criticizing her well meant efforts we might identify what the limits are or should be in our particular multicultural space and recognize that she has the unenviable task of riding herd on stampedes running in multiple directions at the same time some of which unfortunately may be wandering over a cliff or potentially causing damage to one or another of our fellows. And certainly pointing us back to the already in place rules of procedure as McTim has done is one very useful way to proceed. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Karl Auerbach Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 12:40 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website On 11/22/2012 08:02 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear Suresh, > > Please refrain from using words like "Nazi" on this list. Dialogue on > any of the Internet Governance issues and topics. This discussion has > escalated off the relevant issues. Any more warnings and I will remove > you from the list. Let this serve as a reminder to all to keep the > discussions on Internet Governance issues. Really? What about words like "Taliban" or "Klu Klux Klan" that describe groups with similar characteristics or goals? During the late 1930's and early 1940's many of my family members and people bearing my family name suddenly vanished in the areas that are now Poland, Ukraine, and Germany. The evidence suggests that they died - were murdered - at the hands of the group that, by your rule, shall not be named. So I figure that I have a rather strong right to object to the word in question. Yet I refuse to object to that word when it is used to describe a regime or mode of thinking. I do, however, object to censorship. Censorship comes in many colors. One color is the kind of censorship in which those of delicate sensibilities try to insert a gag into the mouths of those with more robust vocabularies. In my nearly two decades of wandering through the world of internet governance I have seen this form of censorship taking root. We Americans tend to use words as hard as canon balls - it is our culture. We are often rather proud of it. There are other cultures on this planet that use softer tones and greater indirection. Neither form is superior to the other - these are simply differences. Those of us from strong-word cultures do need to respect those who speak more softly or deferentially. I, as is the case with many Americans, have not always carried my responsibility in that regard. Hopefully, in time we will learn. However, the road runs both ways. Those from cultures with softer modes of expression ought not to use their values as reasons to suppress those of us who chose more colored modes. --karl-- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Nov 24 07:40:58 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 07:40:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy In-Reply-To: References: <20121123191624.456b1d9c@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: > While I do have Facebook and Twitter accounts, I have not accessed any of > them for quite a long time, and I do not use them. This is what one can > expect when posting personal data online. However, if we look at things > differently, who is not exposed (Internet users)? All our Internet traffic > passes through the various Tier-1 ISPs in the USA and EU > ALL, is a pretty strong statement. Do you have any evidence for it? , and some of them might want to inspect traffic randomly as measures of > "National Security". > None of them "want to", as it would impact business of passing packets. -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 24 07:56:20 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 18:26:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy In-Reply-To: References: <20121123191624.456b1d9c@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <779800DD-5AE1-41FA-A418-8380438C5F8D@hserus.net> So Fahd, it is a good thing your packets don't go past china or Saudi Arabia say. If you live in those countries, well, your packets pass through a "great firewall" before they reach fb or twitter. Both of which, I might add, are available over https. You might look up the due process of law for lawful intercept, which is quite useful to have around if only for the fact that criminals too are enthusiastic users of the Internet and early adopters of a lot of technology that its creators intended to help civil society communicate securely under a repressive regime. --srs (iPad) On 24-Nov-2012, at 18:10, McTim wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: >> While I do have Facebook and Twitter accounts, I have not accessed any of them for quite a long time, and I do not use them. This is what one can expect when posting personal data online. However, if we look at things differently, who is not exposed (Internet users)? All our Internet traffic passes through the various Tier-1 ISPs in the USA and EU > > > ALL, is a pretty strong statement. > > Do you have any evidence for it? > > > >> , and some of them might want to inspect traffic randomly as measures of "National Security". > > > None of them "want to", as it would impact business of passing packets. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sat Nov 24 08:11:32 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 15:11:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy In-Reply-To: References: <20121123191624.456b1d9c@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 2:40 PM, McTim wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh > wrote: > >> While I do have Facebook and Twitter accounts, I have not accessed any of >> them for quite a long time, and I do not use them. This is what one can >> expect when posting personal data online. However, if we look at things >> differently, who is not exposed (Internet users)? All our Internet traffic >> passes through the various Tier-1 ISPs in the USA and EU >> > > > ALL, is a pretty strong statement. > Well, we can exclude local traffic passing via IXPs or maybe within the same network, and maybe very sensitive data that move across the same Intranet, or maybe traffic that moves within censorship-driven countries. > > Do you have any evidence for it? > No one has evidence about either scenario (everything is monitored vs. something is monitored vs. nothing is monitored). But would you disagree that Internet traffic moving overseas does have to pass at access points based in Western countries? > > , and some of them might want to inspect traffic randomly as measures of >> "National Security". >> > > > None of them "want to", as it would impact business of passing packets. > Not really. Business is one aspect of the story, but national interests is another (especially Western countries that keep using the term "War on Terror"). Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sat Nov 24 08:15:26 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 15:15:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy In-Reply-To: <779800DD-5AE1-41FA-A418-8380438C5F8D@hserus.net> References: <20121123191624.456b1d9c@quill.bollow.ch> <779800DD-5AE1-41FA-A418-8380438C5F8D@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > So Fahd, it is a good thing your packets don't go past china or Saudi > Arabia say. > Who knows. Maybe if such countries are given Tier-1 routes for the majority of the international Internet traffic, they might change their policies (especially if there is a good business gain out of it). However, such countries are focus on other aspects (Saudi Arabia has lots of money that they - most probably - do not care, while China is busy trying to become the next super-power). Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sat Nov 24 08:17:56 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 15:17:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: <03cf01cdca40$6eaad6e0$4c0084a0$@gmail.com> References: <50AE39A3.5050000@gmail.com> <792F7656-0E62-404A-9DA6-069FC71908FA@hserus.net> <08d301cdc8c7$3e588c50$bb09a4f0$@gmail.com> <50B087E4.4060304@cavebear.com> <03cf01cdca40$6eaad6e0$4c0084a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: I think this is where Internet Diplomacy comes in hand. Fahd On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 2:36 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > I think there is a need for some multi-cultural balance here... think > about the shouting "fire" in the crowded cinema restriction on "free > speech"... that is, these things are contextual and while "fire" may be an > outer limit of what is (free speech) acceptable in one context, it may be > something different in another cultural context and given that we are > engaged in a necessarily multicultural context we need to find some balance > between contending forces/freedoms... I'm not sure quite how to do that but > I know for sure that trying to impose one set of restrictions (or absence > of restrictions) unilaterally across cultures is not the way to go. > > All that being said, Sala is trying to find that middle ground, perhaps > with only human limitations as to a deep knowledge of the various cultural > contexts from which we all spring. > > So, rather than criticizing her well meant efforts we might identify what > the limits are or should be in our particular multicultural space and > recognize that she has the unenviable task of riding herd on stampedes > running in multiple directions at the same time some of which unfortunately > may be wandering over a cliff or potentially causing damage to one or > another of our fellows. > > And certainly pointing us back to the already in place rules of procedure > as McTim has done is one very useful way to proceed. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Karl Auerbach > Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 12:40 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website > > On 11/22/2012 08:02 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Dear Suresh, > > > > Please refrain from using words like "Nazi" on this list. Dialogue on > > any of the Internet Governance issues and topics. This discussion has > > escalated off the relevant issues. Any more warnings and I will remove > > you from the list. Let this serve as a reminder to all to keep the > > discussions on Internet Governance issues. > > Really? What about words like "Taliban" or "Klu Klux Klan" that describe > groups with similar characteristics or goals? > > During the late 1930's and early 1940's many of my family members and > people bearing my family name suddenly vanished in the areas that are now > Poland, Ukraine, and Germany. The evidence suggests that they died > - were murdered - at the hands of the group that, by your rule, shall not > be named. > > So I figure that I have a rather strong right to object to the word in > question. > > Yet I refuse to object to that word when it is used to describe a regime > or mode of thinking. > > I do, however, object to censorship. > > Censorship comes in many colors. > > One color is the kind of censorship in which those of delicate > sensibilities try to insert a gag into the mouths of those with more robust > vocabularies. > > In my nearly two decades of wandering through the world of internet > governance I have seen this form of censorship taking root. > > We Americans tend to use words as hard as canon balls - it is our culture. > We are often rather proud of it. > > There are other cultures on this planet that use softer tones and greater > indirection. > > Neither form is superior to the other - these are simply differences. > > Those of us from strong-word cultures do need to respect those who speak > more softly or deferentially. I, as is the case with many Americans, have > not always carried my responsibility in that regard. Hopefully, in time we > will learn. > > However, the road runs both ways. Those from cultures with softer modes > of expression ought not to use their values as reasons to suppress those of > us who chose more colored modes. > > --karl-- > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 24 08:30:29 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 19:00:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy Message-ID: Even if your traffic does pass through a western country it would be because the destination is there unless your isp is unwise enough not to peer with other local isps --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Fahd A. Batayneh" To: "McTim" Cc: "IG Caucus" Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2012 6:41 PM On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 2:40 PM, McTim wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh > wrote: > >> While I do have Facebook and Twitter accounts, I have not accessed any of >> them for quite a long time, and I do not use them. This is what one can >> expect when posting personal data online. However, if we look at things >> differently, who is not exposed (Internet users)? All our Internet traffic >> passes through the various Tier-1 ISPs in the USA and EU >> > > > ALL, is a pretty strong statement. > Well, we can exclude local traffic passing via IXPs or maybe within the same network, and maybe very sensitive data that move across the same Intranet, or maybe traffic that moves within censorship-driven countries. > > Do you have any evidence for it? > No one has evidence about either scenario (everything is monitored vs. something is monitored vs. nothing is monitored). But would you disagree that Internet traffic moving overseas does have to pass at access points based in Western countries? > > , and some of them might want to inspect traffic randomly as measures of >> "National Security". >> > > > None of them "want to", as it would impact business of passing packets. > Not really. Business is one aspect of the story, but national interests is another (especially Western countries that keep using the term "War on Terror"). Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sat Nov 24 08:59:11 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 15:59:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Or maybe one's government does not understand the pros of having an IXP and the necessity of working with the various local Internet stakeholders. Fahd On Nov 24, 2012 4:30 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: > Even if your traffic does pass through a western country it would be > because the destination is there unless your isp is unwise enough not to > peer with other local isps > > --srs (htc one x) > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Fahd A. Batayneh" > To: "McTim" > Cc: "IG Caucus" > Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy > Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2012 6:41 PM > > > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 2:40 PM, McTim wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh < > fahd.batayneh at gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > >> While I do have Facebook and Twitter accounts, I have not accessed any > of > >> them for quite a long time, and I do not use them. This is what one can > >> expect when posting personal data online. However, if we look at things > >> differently, who is not exposed (Internet users)? All our Internet > traffic > >> passes through the various Tier-1 ISPs in the USA and EU > >> > > > > > > ALL, is a pretty strong statement. > > > > Well, we can exclude local traffic passing via IXPs or maybe within the > same network, and maybe very sensitive data that move across the same > Intranet, or maybe traffic that moves within censorship-driven countries. > > > > > > Do you have any evidence for it? > > > > No one has evidence about either scenario (everything is monitored vs. > something is monitored vs. nothing is monitored). But would you disagree > that Internet traffic moving overseas does have to pass at access points > based in Western countries? > > > > > > , and some of them might want to inspect traffic randomly as measures of > >> "National Security". > >> > > > > > > None of them "want to", as it would impact business of passing packets. > > > > Not really. Business is one aspect of the story, but national interests is > another (especially Western countries that keep using the term "War on > Terror"). > > Fahd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 24 09:05:55 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 19:35:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: <60B6FAB2-37B7-4E85-82A9-881D50EAC878@acm.org> References: <50AE39A3.5050000@gmail.com> <792F7656-0E62-404A-9DA6-069FC71908FA@hserus.net> <08d301cdc8c7$3e588c50$bb09a4f0$@gmail.com> <50AF7832.1060500@cafonso.ca> <60B6FAB2-37B7-4E85-82A9-881D50EAC878@acm.org> Message-ID: <50B0D443.6000304@itforchange.net> Hi All, I did not want to intervene in this exchange since I am an implicated party, and therefore my comments may not be taken as disinterested, which I will like to claim they in fact are. For the record, I would like to state that my interest here is not to press for further ticking off those who have made postings that have been recognised as offending by many members of the list. However, I think Sala's intervention as the IGC coordinator is being unfairly targeted and since no one (except Michael now) has risen to her defence I take it my duty to do so. I express my strong disagreement with the manner in which Sala is being chastised for what I see as an entirely fair carrying out of her responsibility as IGC coordinator. I think there may have been a misunderstanding among at least some of those who have commented negatively on Sala's warning email . Of course she did not mean that the word 'nazi' may not be used at all. That would be so strange to do; which should have been obvious to everyone. Her email has to be read in the background of the warning emails that she issued just a while earlier. She only meant that the manner in which one member (deliberately using the third person) was accused, inter alia, of habitually engaging in Nazi like propaganda was unacceptable... and of course it will be as unacceptable to make such inappropriate references citing taliban or ku klux klan... Most importantly, such an accusing personal remark wasnt made in a one off manner.... This inappropriate comment followed use of a great deal of inappropriate language involving direct personal attacks within just the last few days. It is in this specific background that Sala wrote the email about not using words like nazi, and issued the warning, which followed a warning issued only a few hours earlier. The comments made by the persons who got warned, over quite a few emails, in my view, do adversely attract the 'posting rule' provisions of IGC's charter. The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:  refrain from personal attacks, insults or slander  refrain from offensive or discriminating language  refrain from threats , including threats of legal action, on list or off list  refrain from excessive and repetitive posting Inappropriate postings to the IGC list include  Unsolicited bulk e-mail  Discussion of subjects unrelated to the IGC mission and objectives  Unprofessional or discourteous commentary, regardless of the general subject  Sequences of messages by one or more participants that cause an IGC list to become a hostile environment http://www.igcaucus.org/charter Perhaps Sala could have been more explicit on what specific kind of use of the Nazi term did she object to, but she simply took it that people had been reading the offending emails. On the other hand, if indeed those who have been chastising Sala for her warning think she has done a wrong thing, I would like to ask then if they instead expect the offended member to get into a slanging match with the person who got the repeated warnings! Would that not destroy the elist. Do note that there are about 10 emails within a day or two that seem to carry on a surprisingly sustained exercise of making personal attacks.... In judging the coordinator's conduct one will have to ask oneself how would they themselves react if they were at the receiving end of these attacks, and what would be their own expectation from the list coordinator in such a case. (And I not really not cribbing here for my own sake. I really can manage these kind of people and the kind of things they do. But what would happen to any new member who but tries to post something that does not suit the these people's taste. In fact the message has perhaps already been given to them. And now, unfortunately, the IGC coordinator is being given the message that she should simply let these things happen and not intervene.) parminder On Saturday 24 November 2012 09:41 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > +1 > > On 23 Nov 2012, at 17:20, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Good reminder, McTim! >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 11/23/2012 12:34 AM, McTim wrote: >>> *Sala,* >>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Suresh, >>>> >>>> Please refrain from using words like "Nazi" on this list. >>>> >>> >>> I don't think that IGC coordinators get to proclaim that there are words >>> that are off-limits. >>> >>> One of the very first IG cases was about the online sale of Nazi >>> memorabilia on Yahoo! >>> >>> As a reminder, here are the rules we have agreed to: >>> >>> *Suspension of posting rights* >>> >>> Failure to abide by posting rules may result in suspension or removal from >>> the IGC list according to the following process: >>> >>>  The coordinators will first warn a subscriber privately of the problem >>>  If the problem persists the coordinators will notify the subscriber >>> publicly on the list of impending suspension from the list. Suspension will >>> include only posting rights. >>>  If the problem persists the subscriber's posting rights will be suspended >>> for one (1) month. >>>  Once the subscriber's posting rights are restored, any further problem >>> will result in another public warning. >>>  If the problem continues to persist after suspension and a second public >>> warning, the coordinators will be permitted to either suspend the posting >>> rights for three (3) months or to remove the subscriber from the list. >>>  Any decision for suspension can be appealed. Any decision to remove >>> someone from the list will call for an automatic appeal by the appeals team. >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 24 09:11:58 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 19:41:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy Message-ID: Or equally it could be a cia plot to snoop on the citizens of that country? ;-) --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Fahd A. Batayneh" To: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2012 7:29 PM Or maybe one's government does not understand the pros of having an IXP and the necessity of working with the various local Internet stakeholders. Fahd On Nov 24, 2012 4:30 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: > Even if your traffic does pass through a western country it would be > because the destination is there unless your isp is unwise enough not to > peer with other local isps > > --srs (htc one x) > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Fahd A. Batayneh" > To: "McTim" > Cc: "IG Caucus" > Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy > Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2012 6:41 PM > > > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 2:40 PM, McTim wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh < > fahd.batayneh at gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > >> While I do have Facebook and Twitter accounts, I have not accessed any > of > >> them for quite a long time, and I do not use them. This is what one can > >> expect when posting personal data online. However, if we look at things > >> differently, who is not exposed (Internet users)? All our Internet > traffic > >> passes through the various Tier-1 ISPs in the USA and EU > >> > > > > > > ALL, is a pretty strong statement. > > > > Well, we can exclude local traffic passing via IXPs or maybe within the > same network, and maybe very sensitive data that move across the same > Intranet, or maybe traffic that moves within censorship-driven countries. > > > > > > Do you have any evidence for it? > > > > No one has evidence about either scenario (everything is monitored vs. > something is monitored vs. nothing is monitored). But would you disagree > that Internet traffic moving overseas does have to pass at access points > based in Western countries? > > > > > > , and some of them might want to inspect traffic randomly as measures of > >> "National Security". > >> > > > > > > None of them "want to", as it would impact business of passing packets. > > > > Not really. Business is one aspect of the story, but national interests is > another (especially Western countries that keep using the term "War on > Terror"). > > Fahd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Nov 24 09:15:39 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 09:15:39 -0500 Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy In-Reply-To: References: <20121123191624.456b1d9c@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 2:40 PM, McTim wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh < >> fahd.batayneh at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> While I do have Facebook and Twitter accounts, I have not accessed any >>> of them for quite a long time, and I do not use them. This is what one can >>> expect when posting personal data online. However, if we look at things >>> differently, who is not exposed (Internet users)? All our Internet traffic >>> passes through the various Tier-1 ISPs in the USA and EU >>> >> >> >> ALL, is a pretty strong statement. >> > > Well, we can exclude local traffic passing via IXPs or maybe within the > same network, and maybe very sensitive data that move across the same > Intranet, or maybe traffic that moves within censorship-driven countries. > > >> >> Do you have any evidence for it? >> > > No one has evidence about either scenario (everything is monitored vs. > something is monitored vs. nothing is monitored). But would you disagree > that Internet traffic moving overseas does have to pass at access points > based in Western countries? > Yes. There are major CDN nodes and IXPs where Tier1s (and Tier2s and 3s) peer around the globe. Your traffic does not have to go to US/EU. In fact it does not even have to transit a Tier1 provider. > > >> >> , and some of them might want to inspect traffic randomly as measures of >>> "National Security". >>> >> >> >> None of them "want to", as it would impact business of passing packets. >> > > Not really. Business is one aspect of the story, but national interests is > another (especially Western countries that keep using the term "War on > Terror"). > > Then that would be a "MUST" not a "WANT". -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 24 09:16:41 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 19:46:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website Message-ID: In reply to that rather long screed, I will simply say that your attacking Google in lieu of criticizing their anti WCIT advocacy is mere propaganda, and inappropriate for civil society to engage in. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "parminder" To: Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2012 7:35 PM Hi All, I did not want to intervene in this exchange since I am an implicated party, and therefore my comments may not be taken as disinterested, which I will like to claim they in fact are. For the record, I would like to state that my interest here is not to press for further ticking off those who have made postings that have been recognised as offending by many members of the list. However, I think Sala's intervention as the IGC coordinator is being unfairly targeted and since no one (except Michael now) has risen to her defence I take it my duty to do so. I express my strong disagreement with the manner in which Sala is being chastised for what I see as an entirely fair carrying out of her responsibility as IGC coordinator. I think there may have been a misunderstanding among at least some of those who have commented negatively on Sala's warning email . Of course she did not mean that the word 'nazi' may not be used at all. That would be so strange to do; which should have been obvious to everyone. Her email has to be read in the background of the warning emails that she issued just a while earlier. She only meant that the manner in which one member (deliberately using the third person) was accused, inter alia, of habitually engaging in Nazi like propaganda was unacceptable... and of course it will be as unacceptable to make such inappropriate references citing taliban or ku klux klan... Most importantly, such an accusing personal remark wasnt made in a one off manner.... This inappropriate comment followed use of a great deal of inappropriate language involving direct personal attacks within just the last few days. It is in this specific background that Sala wrote the email about not using words like nazi, and issued the warning, which followed a warning issued only a few hours earlier. The comments made by the persons who got warned, over quite a few emails, in my view, do adversely attract the 'posting rule' provisions of IGC's charter. The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:  refrain from personal attacks, insults or slander  refrain from offensive or discriminating language  refrain from threats , including threats of legal action, on list or off list  refrain from excessive and repetitive posting Inappropriate postings to the IGC list include  Unsolicited bulk e-mail  Discussion of subjects unrelated to the IGC mission and objectives  Unprofessional or discourteous commentary, regardless of the general subject  Sequences of messages by one or more participants that cause an IGC list to become a hostile environment http://www.igcaucus.org/charter Perhaps Sala could have been more explicit on what specific kind of use of the Nazi term did she object to, but she simply took it that people had been reading the offending emails. On the other hand, if indeed those who have been chastising Sala for her warning think she has done a wrong thing, I would like to ask then if they instead expect the offended member to get into a slanging match with the person who got the repeated warnings! Would that not destroy the elist. Do note that there are about 10 emails within a day or two that seem to carry on a surprisingly sustained exercise of making personal attacks.... In judging the coordinator's conduct one will have to ask oneself how would they themselves react if they were at the receiving end of these attacks, and what would be their own expectation from the list coordinator in such a case. (And I not really not cribbing here for my own sake. I really can manage these kind of people and the kind of things they do. But what would happen to any new member who but tries to post something that does not suit the these people's taste. In fact the message has perhaps already been given to them. And now, unfortunately, the IGC coordinator is being given the message that she should simply let these things happen and not intervene.) parminder On Saturday 24 November 2012 09:41 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > +1 > > On 23 Nov 2012, at 17:20, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Good reminder, McTim! >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 11/23/2012 12:34 AM, McTim wrote: >>> *Sala,* >>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Suresh, >>>> >>>> Please refrain from using words like "Nazi" on this list. >>>> >>> >>> I don't think that IGC coordinators get to proclaim that there are words >>> that are off-limits. >>> >>> One of the very first IG cases was about the online sale of Nazi >>> memorabilia on Yahoo! >>> >>> As a reminder, here are the rules we have agreed to: >>> >>> *Suspension of posting rights* >>> >>> Failure to abide by posting rules may result in suspension or removal from >>> the IGC list according to the following process: >>> >>>  The coordinators will first warn a subscriber privately of the problem >>>  If the problem persists the coordinators will notify the subscriber >>> publicly on the list of impending suspension from the list. Suspension will >>> include only posting rights. >>>  If the problem persists the subscriber's posting rights will be suspended >>> for one (1) month. >>>  Once the subscriber's posting rights are restored, any further problem >>> will result in another public warning. >>>  If the problem continues to persist after suspension and a second public >>> warning, the coordinators will be permitted to either suspend the posting >>> rights for three (3) months or to remove the subscriber from the list. >>>  Any decision for suspension can be appealed. Any decision to remove >>> someone from the list will call for an automatic appeal by the appeals team. >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sat Nov 24 10:37:59 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:37:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Think so? ;-) Fahd On Nov 24, 2012 5:12 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: > Or equally it could be a cia plot to snoop on the citizens of that > country? ;-) > > --srs (htc one x) > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Fahd A. Batayneh" > To: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy > Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2012 7:29 PM > > > Or maybe one's government does not understand the pros of having an IXP and > the necessity of working with the various local Internet stakeholders. > > Fahd > On Nov 24, 2012 4:30 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > wrote: > > > Even if your traffic does pass through a western country it would be > > because the destination is there unless your isp is unwise enough not to > > peer with other local isps > > > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > > > ----- Reply message ----- > > From: "Fahd A. Batayneh" > > To: "McTim" > > Cc: "IG Caucus" > > Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy > > Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2012 6:41 PM > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 2:40 PM, McTim wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh < > > fahd.batayneh at gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> While I do have Facebook and Twitter accounts, I have not accessed any > > of > > >> them for quite a long time, and I do not use them. This is what one > can > > >> expect when posting personal data online. However, if we look at > things > > >> differently, who is not exposed (Internet users)? All our Internet > > traffic > > >> passes through the various Tier-1 ISPs in the USA and EU > > >> > > > > > > > > > ALL, is a pretty strong statement. > > > > > > > Well, we can exclude local traffic passing via IXPs or maybe within the > > same network, and maybe very sensitive data that move across the same > > Intranet, or maybe traffic that moves within censorship-driven countries. > > > > > > > > > > Do you have any evidence for it? > > > > > > > No one has evidence about either scenario (everything is monitored vs. > > something is monitored vs. nothing is monitored). But would you disagree > > that Internet traffic moving overseas does have to pass at access points > > based in Western countries? > > > > > > > > > > , and some of them might want to inspect traffic randomly as measures > of > > >> "National Security". > > >> > > > > > > > > > None of them "want to", as it would impact business of passing packets. > > > > > > > Not really. Business is one aspect of the story, but national interests > is > > another (especially Western countries that keep using the term "War on > > Terror"). > > > > Fahd > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sat Nov 24 10:44:51 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:44:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy In-Reply-To: References: <20121123191624.456b1d9c@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Would say that it is true for developed countries, but not for developing and least developed where some benefit (financially) from peering to Western countries. Fahd On Nov 24, 2012 5:16 PM, "McTim" wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh > wrote: > >> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 2:40 PM, McTim wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh < >>> fahd.batayneh at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> While I do have Facebook and Twitter accounts, I have not accessed any >>>> of them for quite a long time, and I do not use them. This is what one can >>>> expect when posting personal data online. However, if we look at things >>>> differently, who is not exposed (Internet users)? All our Internet traffic >>>> passes through the various Tier-1 ISPs in the USA and EU >>>> >>> >>> >>> ALL, is a pretty strong statement. >>> >> >> Well, we can exclude local traffic passing via IXPs or maybe within the >> same network, and maybe very sensitive data that move across the same >> Intranet, or maybe traffic that moves within censorship-driven countries. >> >> >>> >>> Do you have any evidence for it? >>> >> >> No one has evidence about either scenario (everything is monitored vs. >> something is monitored vs. nothing is monitored). But would you disagree >> that Internet traffic moving overseas does have to pass at access points >> based in Western countries? >> > > > Yes. There are major CDN nodes and IXPs where Tier1s (and Tier2s and 3s) > peer around the globe. Your traffic does not have to go to US/EU. In fact > it does not even have to transit a Tier1 provider. > > > > > >> >> >>> >>> , and some of them might want to inspect traffic randomly as measures of >>>> "National Security". >>>> >>> >>> >>> None of them "want to", as it would impact business of passing packets. >>> >> >> Not really. Business is one aspect of the story, but national interests >> is another (especially Western countries that keep using the term "War on >> Terror"). >> >> > > Then that would be a "MUST" not a "WANT". > > -- > 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 suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 24 10:53:26 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 21:23:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2A7CC8C1-0F12-4395-A9E7-A6BDFECFB61C@hserus.net> There's an invisible black helicopter hovering over your apartment right about now :) More seriously, mctim is right in what he said earlier in this thread. --srs (iPad) On 24-Nov-2012, at 21:07, "Fahd A. Batayneh" wrote: > Think so? ;-) > > Fahd > > On Nov 24, 2012 5:12 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: >> Or equally it could be a cia plot to snoop on the citizens of that country? ;-) >> >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "Fahd A. Batayneh" >> To: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" >> Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >> Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy >> Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2012 7:29 PM >> >> >> Or maybe one's government does not understand the pros of having an IXP and >> the necessity of working with the various local Internet stakeholders. >> >> Fahd >> On Nov 24, 2012 4:30 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: >> >> > Even if your traffic does pass through a western country it would be >> > because the destination is there unless your isp is unwise enough not to >> > peer with other local isps >> > >> > --srs (htc one x) >> > >> > >> > ----- Reply message ----- >> > From: "Fahd A. Batayneh" >> > To: "McTim" >> > Cc: "IG Caucus" >> > Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy >> > Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2012 6:41 PM >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 2:40 PM, McTim wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh < >> > fahd.batayneh at gmail.com >> > > > wrote: >> > > >> > >> While I do have Facebook and Twitter accounts, I have not accessed any >> > of >> > >> them for quite a long time, and I do not use them. This is what one can >> > >> expect when posting personal data online. However, if we look at things >> > >> differently, who is not exposed (Internet users)? All our Internet >> > traffic >> > >> passes through the various Tier-1 ISPs in the USA and EU >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > ALL, is a pretty strong statement. >> > > >> > >> > Well, we can exclude local traffic passing via IXPs or maybe within the >> > same network, and maybe very sensitive data that move across the same >> > Intranet, or maybe traffic that moves within censorship-driven countries. >> > >> > >> > > >> > > Do you have any evidence for it? >> > > >> > >> > No one has evidence about either scenario (everything is monitored vs. >> > something is monitored vs. nothing is monitored). But would you disagree >> > that Internet traffic moving overseas does have to pass at access points >> > based in Western countries? >> > >> > >> > > >> > > , and some of them might want to inspect traffic randomly as measures of >> > >> "National Security". >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > None of them "want to", as it would impact business of passing packets. >> > > >> > >> > Not really. Business is one aspect of the story, but national interests is >> > another (especially Western countries that keep using the term "War on >> > Terror"). >> > >> > Fahd >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sat Nov 24 11:07:09 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 18:07:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ladies and gentleman, friends and colleagues, I am writing to you in my capacity as a member of this mailing list and regardless of who have replied to this rather long and time-expensive thread of e-mails regarding violating the charter. May we all remember that we come from diverse backgrounds and stakeholders, and it is extremely healthy to disagree on issues under debate. If we all agree on everything, then what's the point. I personally disagree at times on what is posted by some, but I tend to reflect back and try to make some sense of it all. If things do not fit right in my mind, I just leave it. If I find a thread to be expensive to follow, I just neglect it. Let us all agree to debate diplomatically without hurting or insulting any member or thought. Fahd On Nov 24, 2012 5:17 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: > In reply to that rather long screed, I will simply say that your attacking > Google in lieu of criticizing their anti WCIT advocacy is mere propaganda, > and inappropriate for civil society to engage in. > > --srs (htc one x) > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "parminder" > To: > Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website > Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2012 7:35 PM > > > Hi All, > > I did not want to intervene in this exchange since I am an implicated > party, and therefore my comments may not be taken as disinterested, > which I will like to claim they in fact are. For the record, I would > like to state that my interest here is not to press for further ticking > off those who have made postings that have been recognised as offending > by many members of the list. However, I think Sala's intervention as the > IGC coordinator is being unfairly targeted and since no one (except > Michael now) has risen to her defence I take it my duty to do so. I > express my strong disagreement with the manner in which Sala is being > chastised for what I see as an entirely fair carrying out of her > responsibility as IGC coordinator. > > I think there may have been a misunderstanding among at least some of > those who have commented negatively on Sala's warning email . Of course > she did not mean that the word 'nazi' may not be used at all. That would > be so strange to do; which should have been obvious to everyone. Her > email has to be read in the background of the warning emails that she > issued just a while earlier. She only meant that the manner in which one > member (deliberately using the third person) was accused, inter alia, of > habitually engaging in Nazi like propaganda was unacceptable... and of > course it will be as unacceptable to make such inappropriate references > citing taliban or ku klux klan... Most importantly, such an accusing > personal remark wasnt made in a one off manner.... This inappropriate > comment followed use of a great deal of inappropriate language involving > direct personal attacks within just the last few days. It is in this > specific background that Sala wrote the email about not using words like > nazi, and issued the warning, which followed a warning issued only a few > hours earlier. > > The comments made by the persons who got warned, over quite a few > emails, in my view, do adversely attract the 'posting rule' provisions > of IGC's charter. > > The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including: >  refrain from personal attacks, insults or slander >  refrain from offensive or discriminating language >  refrain from threats , including threats of legal action, on > list or off list >  refrain from excessive and repetitive posting > > Inappropriate postings to the IGC list include >  Unsolicited bulk e-mail >  Discussion of subjects unrelated to the IGC mission and objectives >  Unprofessional or discourteous commentary, regardless of the > general subject >  Sequences of messages by one or more participants that cause > an IGC list to become a hostile environment > > http://www.igcaucus.org/charter > > > Perhaps Sala could have been more explicit on what specific kind of > use of the Nazi term did she object to, but she simply took it that > people had been reading the offending emails. > > On the other hand, if indeed those who have been chastising Sala for her > warning think she has done a wrong thing, I would like to ask then if > they instead expect the offended member to get into a slanging match > with the person who got the repeated warnings! Would that not destroy > the elist. Do note that there are about 10 emails within a day or two > that seem to carry on a surprisingly sustained exercise of making > personal attacks.... In judging the coordinator's conduct one will have > to ask oneself how would they themselves react if they were at the > receiving end of these attacks, and what would be their own expectation > from the list coordinator in such a case. > > (And I not really not cribbing here for my own sake. I really can manage > these kind of people and the kind of things they do. But what would > happen to any new member who but tries to post something that does not > suit the these people's taste. In fact the message has perhaps already > been given to them. And now, unfortunately, the IGC coordinator is being > given the message that she should simply let these things happen and not > intervene.) > > parminder > > On Saturday 24 November 2012 09:41 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > +1 > > > > On 23 Nov 2012, at 17:20, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > > >> Good reminder, McTim! > >> > >> --c.a. > >> > >> On 11/23/2012 12:34 AM, McTim wrote: > >>> *Sala,* > >>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > >>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Dear Suresh, > >>>> > >>>> Please refrain from using words like "Nazi" on this list. > >>>> > >>> > >>> I don't think that IGC coordinators get to proclaim that there are > words > >>> that are off-limits. > >>> > >>> One of the very first IG cases was about the online sale of Nazi > >>> memorabilia on Yahoo! > >>> > >>> As a reminder, here are the rules we have agreed to: > >>> > >>> *Suspension of posting rights* > >>> > >>> Failure to abide by posting rules may result in suspension or removal > from > >>> the IGC list according to the following process: > >>> > >>>  The coordinators will first warn a subscriber privately of the > problem > >>>  If the problem persists the coordinators will notify the subscriber > >>> publicly on the list of impending suspension from the list. Suspension > will > >>> include only posting rights. > >>>  If the problem persists the subscriber's posting rights will be > suspended > >>> for one (1) month. > >>>  Once the subscriber's posting rights are restored, any further > problem > >>> will result in another public warning. > >>>  If the problem continues to persist after suspension and a second > public > >>> warning, the coordinators will be permitted to either suspend the > posting > >>> rights for three (3) months or to remove the subscriber from the list. > >>>  Any decision for suspension can be appealed. Any decision to remove > >>> someone from the list will call for an automatic appeal by the appeals > team. > >>> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 24 11:49:10 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:49:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] europarl resolution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > http://falkvinge.net/2012/11/22/european-parliament-unanimously-passed-resolution-against-itu-asserting-control-over-internet/ > > --srs (iPad) > > - - - Comment #7 following this article Anonymous November 22, 2012 - 21:39 well done to all. what is left to do now is: a) stop the USA from doing the same, using ‘treaties’ like TPP, CETA etc (which are as usual, only discussed behind closed doors, leaving out any representation for the people. b) stop the mainly USA entertainment industries (but others as well) from trying to do the same, using the US as the bow-spit and trying to apply their laws World-Wide, using threats and sanctions. c) stop anyone and everyone else from doing the same thing, as and when they feel their own particular industry is under threat, even though progress itself would be inhibited. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iliya.bazlyankov at uninet.bg Sat Nov 24 12:15:08 2012 From: iliya.bazlyankov at uninet.bg (Iliya Bazlyankov) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 19:15:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] Report of the first Bulgarian IGF discussions Message-ID: <50B1009C.7090009@uninet.bg> Dear All, Please find attached the report of the first Bulgarian IGF discussions. Kind regards, Iliya Bazlyankov --------------------------- The second Domain Forum and also the first Bulgarian Internet Governance Forum were held in Sofia, Bulgaria on 15 and 16 November 2012. This event is unique for the region of the Balkans. It gathered over 100 participants from ten countries, including a significant number of representatives from Bulgarian Ministry of transport, information technology and communication. Domain Forum – 15 November ---------------------------------- Owing to the huge interest in 2011 Domain Forum returned for a second time this year. Fourteen speakers presented the main topics in the domain industry: new gTLDs, participation in ICANN, domain market, technical issues. The community participated by asking questions and discussing the issues during the breaks. The new gTLDs were a dominant theme for all participants, introduced by the presentation on the passing from namespace to names market where the speaker compared the own TLDs with the well-known company representative buildings, made by Amadeu Abril i Abril. This topic was followed by the effect on new gTLDs on ICANN and its community by Stephane Van Gelder. The media published articles for the challenges and issues of new domains based on these discussions. Geo TLDs took a notable part in the discussions, and the community was encouraged by Dirk Krischenowski to work on '.sofia'. The European ccTLDs also received a detailed explanation and comparison from Wim Degezelle. The domain market was another strong thematic area, started by a presentation by Giovanni Seppia on the IDNs World Report by EURid and UNESCO and a topic regarding building synergies between Cyrillic-script TLDs from Werner Staub. The main conclusion is that it is essential for Cyrillic TLD registries to work together in order to promote the visibility of their TLDs. In a presentation by Leonid Todorov, Russia was given as an example of stable working domain market. The most expected was the legal presentation by Plamena Georgieva about dispute resolution in domain names, which included cases from Bulgarian law and court practice. Later Thomas Rickert focused on the international issue for the importance of RAA negotiations and their possible outcome and announced that Registrar Atlas 2013 will include data from Bulgaria. The community received an invitation to take part in the study. The Vice President of ICANN for Europe Nigel Hickson made a general update on ICANN projects, followed by a topic on the overview of the ICANN model and the possibility for participation by the Bulgarian interested parties by Dr. Olivier Crepin-Leblond. The first day concluded with technical presentations on IPv6 by Ferenc Csorba from RIPE NCC that included some statistics on the deployment in Bulgaria and other European countries and also an alternative authoritative DNS server that is fast, easy to configure and devoted to the community, given by Jan Kadlec from CZ.NIC Labs. Internet Governance Forum – 16 November ------------------------------------------------ The mail goal of the first Bulgarian Internet governance Forum is to introduce the most important topics to the Bulgarian community. Hristo Hristov, director of Directorate of Information Technology at the Ministry of transport, information technology and communication opened the second day discussions with an overview of the IT policies and projects of the Bulgarian government. He focused on the Bulgarian IDN ccTLD '.бг' and announced that the government will not close the Bulgarian application and will continue to participate in the PDP. This was one of the central topics discussed by the attendees and after that covered in the press. A focused discussion about the problems in the development of the Internet took part for the first time in Bulgaria. Members of the panel were Justine Toms, an online media and marketing expert; Bisera Zankova, Bulgarian representative in the Council of Europe; Metodi Drenovski, member of the board of the Bulgarian Web Association and Biser Ivanov, member of the board of the Bulgarian Association of Software Companies. The key elements of the discussion were: - More active involvement by the institutions with industry and business organizations in discussing and resolving fundamental issues for regulation and development of the Internet. For example, it was mentioned that the business could be advising to the Ministry of education regarding the exact experts they need. - Timely updating the educational programs and introduction of adequate time and training topics for using a computer - from kindergarten, primary school age to university because after five years, the business will have three times as many IT personnel needs than today. Even nowadays they are less than enough. - The need for a clearer self-regulation for the rights of people on the Internet; protection of the data and the information of a sensitive nature; enlightenment and education of the population. Then, James Lawson from the Council of Europe continued with their principles and strategies, and he put an emphasis on human rights. He was followed by a speech from Prof. Wolfgang Kleinwaechter about the basics of the Internet Governance process. After this presentation, the attendees learned about the Internet Governance policies in Romania and Russia from Dr. Eugenie Staicut of ICI Bucharest and Leonid Todorov of ccTLD.ru Finally, the event concluded with a discussion on the best legal framework for Internet development by Veni Markovski and the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) by Dr. Olivier Crepin-Leblond. The attendees expressed their views that the current model of Internet Governance is not perfect, but should not be changed. The topic of Internet Governance is entirely new for the Bulgarian community. It is essential to be discussed a lot further in order to be understood the necessity of it. We have put the beginning. Conclusion -------------------- The Bulgarian Domain Forum and IGF 2012 was extremely well-received by Bulgarian internet experts. The event woke an immense interest and led to a debate in the media and the personal websites of local bloggers. The Bulgarian Internet community had a lot of representatives at Domain Forum but is not fully active and visible yet. The complete list of Domain Forum's participants is available here: http://domainforum.bg/participants/ Bulgarian Domain Forum and IGF 2013 in perspective ----------------------------------------------------------- Bulgarian IGF 2013 will take place in November 2013 in Sofia, Bulgaria, and we will make an announcement as soon as the preparation starts. An official website will launch soon at http://www.igf.bg -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 24 19:30:57 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 06:00:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy In-Reply-To: References: <20121123191624.456b1d9c@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Sorry? How do their local ISPs benefit from peering with a western country when they don't peer locally? --srs (iPad) On 24-Nov-2012, at 21:14, "Fahd A. Batayneh" wrote: > Would say that it is true for developed countries, but not for developing and least developed where some benefit (financially) from peering to Western countries. > > Fahd > > On Nov 24, 2012 5:16 PM, "McTim" wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: >>> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 2:40 PM, McTim wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: >>>>> While I do have Facebook and Twitter accounts, I have not accessed any of them for quite a long time, and I do not use them. This is what one can expect when posting personal data online. However, if we look at things differently, who is not exposed (Internet users)? All our Internet traffic passes through the various Tier-1 ISPs in the USA and EU >>>> >>>> >>>> ALL, is a pretty strong statement. >>> >>> >>> Well, we can exclude local traffic passing via IXPs or maybe within the same network, and maybe very sensitive data that move across the same Intranet, or maybe traffic that moves within censorship-driven countries. >>> >>>> >>>> Do you have any evidence for it? >>> >>> >>> No one has evidence about either scenario (everything is monitored vs. something is monitored vs. nothing is monitored). But would you disagree that Internet traffic moving overseas does have to pass at access points based in Western countries? >> >> >> Yes. There are major CDN nodes and IXPs where Tier1s (and Tier2s and 3s) peer around the globe. Your traffic does not have to go to US/EU. In fact it does not even have to transit a Tier1 provider. >> >> >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> , and some of them might want to inspect traffic randomly as measures of "National Security". >>>> >>>> >>>> None of them "want to", as it would impact business of passing packets. >>> >>> Not really. Business is one aspect of the story, but national interests is another (especially Western countries that keep using the term "War on Terror"). >> >> >> Then that would be a "MUST" not a "WANT". >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 24 19:35:20 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 06:05:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] europarl resolution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3053B1B0-21C1-4CCC-A90B-C3A0F7333EF8@hserus.net> A poorly spelled set of conspiracy theories on world domination? And solely concerned with IP / copyright nforcememt, a rather narrow viewpoint, Do remember that bilateral treaties take far longer to work out across a significant number of countries, compare to any binding instrument signed at the UN --srs (iPad) On 24-Nov-2012, at 22:19, "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> http://falkvinge.net/2012/11/22/european-parliament-unanimously-passed-resolution-against-itu-asserting-control-over-internet/ >> >> --srs (iPad) >> > - - - > > Comment #7 following this article > > Anonymous > November 22, 2012 - 21:39 > > well done to all. what is left to do now is: > > a) stop the USA from doing the same, using ‘treaties’ like TPP, CETA etc (which are as usual, only discussed behind closed doors, leaving out any representation for the people. > > b) stop the mainly USA entertainment industries (but others as well) from trying to do the same, using the US as the bow-spit and trying to apply their laws World-Wide, using threats and sanctions. > > c) stop anyone and everyone else from doing the same thing, as and when they feel their own particular industry is under threat, even though progress itself would be inhibited. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 24 22:46:12 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 09:16:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website Message-ID: ITU view of Google's campaign http://itu4u.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/the-google-campaign-an-itu-view/ -srs (htc one x) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 24 22:58:08 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 19:58:08 -0800 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20121125035808.GA6524@hserus.net> The ITU statement here is that civil society and industry representation in various national delegations attending WCIT (with google included in the US delegation) equates to a truly multistakeholder process. And that google could become an ITU sector member to participate in this process. While i wouldnt pitch my opposition to wcit in the rather aggressive terms google has used, i do think it is a bit disingenuous to project the limited involvement of non government stskeholders described above as truly multistakeholder. Suresh Ramasubramanian [25/11/12 09:16 +0530]: >ITU view of Google's campaign > >http://itu4u.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/the-google-campaign-an-itu-view/ > > -srs (htc one x) > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your 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 Sat Nov 24 23:00:14 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:00:14 +1300 Subject: [governance] 2013 Preparations for MAG Message-ID: Dear All, We need to start preparing for issues and topics that we would like raised by current MAG members. The Secretariat has put up a call for contributions on the IGF website inviting stakeholders to submit written contributions taking stock of the 2012 Baku meeting and inviting suggestions on the themes and format of the IGF 2013 meeting. The deadline for contributions is *14 February 2012*. These inputs will be summarized in a synthesis paper that will act as an input into the discussions of the February meeting. The IGC Plan is as follows: 25 Nov 2012 - Issue Notice to IGC 25 Nov 2012 - 15 January, 2013 - Gather Feedback and formulate first draft 16-Jan -30 Jan 2013 - Review first Draft and gather feedback 31 Jan - 5th February 2013 - Produce 2nd Draft 6th Feb - 10th February - Finalise submissions from IGC 11th Feb - Send to IGF Secretariat and our representatives to the MAG It will be great to start discussions on what some of the themes we would like canvassed. Warm Regards -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Nov 24 23:28:03 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 09:28:03 +0500 Subject: [governance] 2013 Preparations for MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: To throw in some starters: 1. Should the IGF continue to hold meetings in countries with authoritative regimes and repressed political environments? People from certain neighboring countries were not able to participate while the fear factor of participating in an IGF where the host country was authoritarian was high. 2. IGF should put out a call for hosts country expression of interest instead of expecting someone will bid with clearly laid out principles and process for selection. 3. When do the MAG improvements actually happen with reference to the CSTD IGF improvements and when will they be reflected i.e. in future IGFs? 4. Logistical support interms of visa acquisition to attend open consultations or observe MAG meetings remains a challenge for people from developing countries and attention to detail is needed from the IGF secretariat. People from developed regions do have considerable advantage over this issue but do not represent the views and insights of developing country issues and inputs to the IGF. 5. The time allocated to Main Session should be significantly reduced to half and the majority of Main Sessions should be restricted to one day otherwise this is negatively impacting audience division and the numbers in Workshop participation. 6. Workshop planing detail should continue to receive more attention especially interms of quality and issue. The issue around achieving gender balance, multistakeholder balance and regional coverage are really not working. The IGF pre-events have to be revisited and should receive more attention in terms of planning and projection as these are receiving a lot of attention by participants. 7. The visa issue despite being well managed by the host country remained one of them most unclear aspects of the IGF and the IGF secretariat should give more emphasis on detailing out these issues with future host countries in the very beginning. 8. The venue planning needs to be carefully done as having venues outside the cities causes both stress and challenges to accessibility. 9. An Internet Connectivity Team should be assembled by the IGF Secretariat that should work beforehand on the ground to manage internet connectivity to cover remote participation, connectivity for over 2000 participants keeping in view that this may mean planning and connecting 2000 people x 6000 devices (laptops, cell phones, wi-fi enable cameras, tables etc). 10. The sudden shift of Open Consultations and MAG meetings from Geneva to France for February 2013 without open consultation and comments from the community puts a severe logistical pressure on participation for those that find it a challenge to already participate in such meetings. This shift enables only certain individuals to participate that can freely move around EU but for people that need to acquire visas to travel to Switzerland and participate from outside of Europe are posed with a big challenge. Should they apply to Swiss or to the French and how does one explain why one is taking the visa of one country to participate in the other and how does the IGF Secretariat plan to manage this? 11. The IGF still requires a great amount of work to be sensitive to developing country participation in terms of logistics, open consultation and MAG observation and improvements in its remote participation that really needs a backup overhaul. Best Fouad On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > We need to start preparing for issues and topics that we would like raised > by current MAG members. > > The Secretariat has put up a call for contributions on the IGF website > inviting stakeholders to submit written contributions taking stock of the > 2012 Baku meeting and inviting suggestions on the themes and format of the > IGF 2013 meeting. The deadline for contributions is 14 February 2012. These > inputs will be summarized in a synthesis paper that will act as an input > into the discussions of the February meeting. > > The IGC Plan is as follows: > > 25 Nov 2012 - Issue Notice to IGC > > 25 Nov 2012 - 15 January, 2013 - Gather Feedback and formulate first draft > > 16-Jan -30 Jan 2013 - Review first Draft and gather feedback > > 31 Jan - 5th February 2013 - Produce 2nd Draft > 6th Feb - 10th February - Finalise submissions from IGC > 11th Feb - Send to IGF Secretariat and our representatives to the MAG > > > It will be great to start discussions on what some of the themes we would > like canvassed. > > Warm Regards > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Nov 24 23:41:14 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 23:41:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > ITU view of Google's campaign > > http://itu4u.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/the-google-campaign-an-itu-view/ > > and the thinking behind that statement: https://www.google.nl/search?q=itu+retreat+wcit&oq=itu+retreat+wcit click on the 2nd link and then "Quick View" in order to see the document. All ironies recognised! -- 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Nov 24 23:44:41 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 12:44:41 +0800 Subject: [governance] 2013 Preparations for MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 09:28:03 +0500, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > 5. The time allocated to Main Session should be significantly reduced > to half and the majority of Main Sessions should be restricted to one > day otherwise this is negatively impacting audience division and the > numbers in Workshop participation. I would say the opposite. Workshops are a sideshow, main sessions are the main event (or should be). But I do agree that the schedule should be arranged so that workshops and main sessions don't overlap (I've said this before). Take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance events such as APRICOT, which are scheduled in this way. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers 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 YOUR RIGHTS, OUR MISSION - DOWNLOAD CI'S STRATEGY 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission [1] @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org [2] | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational [3] Read our email confidentiality notice [4]. Don't print this email unless necessary. Links: ------ [1] http://consint.info/RightsMission [2] http://www.consumersinternational.org [3] http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational [4] 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 suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 25 00:02:58 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 10:32:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] 2013 Preparations for MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7A609307-A39A-438D-A0C5-641F22D60373@hserus.net> Let me add some below, in line with Fouad, tagged [srs] These are entirely my opinion, from being on the management committee (till 2009) and fellowship committee (till now) of an asiapac wide network operators conference (APRICOT) for several years. On 25-Nov-2012, at 9:58, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > To throw in some starters: > > 1. Should the IGF continue to hold meetings in countries with > authoritative regimes and repressed political environments? People > from certain neighboring countries were not able to participate while > the fear factor of participating in an IGF where the host country was > authoritarian was high. > [srs] Should the IGF hold meetings in comparatively remote locations compared to major airline hubs with liberal visa regimes and excellent conference facilities? The point here is that such locations are more expensive to fly to than other locations on the same continent that are major airline hubs, with direct flights from more places around the world. They may, in most cases, have more suitable conference venues so we'd get far less issues with remote participation, wifi based collaboration in the venue, acoustics in the auditorium ... > 2. IGF should put out a call for hosts country expression of interest > instead of expecting someone will bid with clearly laid out principles > and process for selection. > [srs] Fully concur. Something on the lines of an RFP with clearly defined requirements for the host country, in terms of logistics as well as based on an evaluation of free speech rights in the country. > 3. When do the MAG improvements actually happen with reference to the > CSTD IGF improvements and when will they be reflected i.e. in future > IGFs? [srs] In other words, can we have some metrics on improvements already suggested and/or future improvements that are actually implemented, and make the leap from powerpoint / pdf to "ground realities"? > 4. Logistical support interms of visa acquisition to attend open > consultations or observe MAG meetings remains a challenge for people > from developing countries and attention to detail is needed from the > IGF secretariat. People from developed regions do have considerable > advantage over this issue but do not represent the views and insights > of developing country issues and inputs to the IGF. > [srs] In the first (Athens) IGF, as I recall, the visa process was very smooth, even expedited, so that a Schengen visa was issued with far less paperwork than I have experienced on business or vacation travel to other Schengen countries. For the rest, please see my response to point 1 above. A location like Hong Kong, that requires prior visas from I think three countries in the entire world and extends a free visa on arrival to all other countries, and moreover has direct flights from most regions of the world, would be much more suitable than either Athens, Hyderabad or Baku, to pick a few past venues. > 5. The time allocated to Main Session should be significantly reduced > to half and the majority of Main Sessions should be restricted to one > day otherwise this is negatively impacting audience division and the > numbers in Workshop participation. [srs] I wouldn't go that far However it makes sense to identify a specified time slot for the plenary / main session events every day, and structure workshops so that they feed into the main sessions. We also need to structure these main sessions so that not all of them become over-long panels by themselves, and have a significant number of rapporteur driven sessions which provide feedback from the workshops to the broader audience. > 6. Workshop planing detail should continue to receive more attention > especially interms of quality and issue. The issue around achieving > gender balance, multistakeholder balance and regional coverage are > really not working. The IGF pre-events have to be revisited and should > receive more attention in terms of planning and projection as these > are receiving a lot of attention by participants. > [srs] Fully agree. > 7. The visa issue despite being well managed by the host country > remained one of them most unclear aspects of the IGF and the IGF > secretariat should give more emphasis on detailing out these issues > with future host countries in the very beginning. > [srs] This goes back to my point about picking venues with liberal visa regimes, and/or venues that promise to expedite visas for bonafide conference delegates. However, from the host country's standpoint, I can say that there will be a significant threat of misuse of these visas by a small number of people (for example, I have personally seen, in that network operators conference, fellowship applications from what are obviously "advance fee fraud" scam artists looking for a free ticket to the event - if we grant such a fellowship, once in the country they simply "disappear" and overstay their visa, then our local hosts face some heat for this). So, nothing in this process should compromise on due diligence carried out by the country's visa authorities. > 8. The venue planning needs to be carefully done as having venues > outside the cities causes both stress and challenges to accessibility. > [srs] Fully agree, covered above > 9. An Internet Connectivity Team should be assembled by the IGF > Secretariat that should work beforehand on the ground to manage > internet connectivity to cover remote participation, connectivity for > over 2000 participants keeping in view that this may mean planning and > connecting 2000 people x 6000 devices (laptops, cell phones, wi-fi > enable cameras, tables etc). > [srs] It actually makes sense to hire and retain a professional vendor of conference networking services, such as Verilan, to provide the same (high, bound by SLA) standard of networking across events. Funding for this will remain an open question though, with the current model of the IGF. > 10. The sudden shift of Open Consultations and MAG meetings from > Geneva to France for February 2013 without open consultation and > comments from the community puts a severe logistical pressure on > participation for those that find it a challenge to already > participate in such meetings. This shift enables only certain [srs] This might have been true earlier, but Switzerland and France are both Schengen countries. So if you have already acquired a Swiss Schengen visa, you should certainly be able to use it for your travel to France. I do agree that if the venue had been shifted from, say, Washington DC to Toronto, I would have fully agreed with you, but in this case, it is moot. --srs (iPad) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 25 00:03:48 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 10:33:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] 2013 Preparations for MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: So jeremy, thank you very much for mentioning APRICOT as a model for this sort of event :) I hope you agree with my reply to Fouad. --srs (iPad) On 25-Nov-2012, at 10:14, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 09:28:03 +0500, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> 5. The time allocated to Main Session should be significantly reduced >> to half and the majority of Main Sessions should be restricted to one >> day otherwise this is negatively impacting audience division and the >> numbers in Workshop participation. > I would say the opposite. Workshops are a sideshow, main sessions are the main event (or should be). But I do agree that the schedule should be arranged so that workshops and main sessions don't overlap (I've said this before). Take a leaf out of the book of other Internet governance events such as APRICOT, which are scheduled in this way. > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > 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 > > Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | 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 apisan at unam.mx Sun Nov 25 00:14:12 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 05:14:12 +0000 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB1A378@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Tim, maybe the document you are pointing at is http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/Retreat2012.pdf which is the leaflet distributed to participants in a meeting earlier this year. It describes in detail what the ITU perceives as the battle around the ITRs as "US vs. us." Much of the ITU's media thrust can be found in the Twitter stream of Sarah Parkes, the ITU's media person, http://twitter.com/sarahparkesitu, which has pointers to the press articles they like. They are pitching things as a business catfight between Google and similar US companies vs. the "Internet ecosystem" as understood for example in the South Korean submission at http://www.itu.int/ml/lists/nomenu/arc/wcit-public/2012-11/msg00012.html well described in http://www.key4biz.it/News/2012/11/20/Policy/wcit12_itrs_korea_telecom_213952.html (in Italian), which uses even more colorful language than the ETNO's "sending party network pays", "beneficiary traffic generator pays." More press from the ITU tends to point to resources of the ITU itself on education, cybersecurity, health, etc. which quickly come to dead ends such as a big fuss, documents, and meetings which in the end fizzle down to "helping countries cooperate with other entities", i.e. hand-holding adults to meet the IETF, ICANN, CERTs, RIRs, APWG, and so many others. I think many of us have studied the WCIT documents, press releases, etc. seriously, to the best of our knowledge and in consultation with both ISOC, ICANN, etc. experts and with ITU old hands (that is my case at least; one of them chairs an ITU group to rewrite the Constitution) and have reached our own, independent conclusions. Mine is that we can peel off the commercial disputes and still find enough reasons for concern in the proposals before WCIT that can throw sand in the gearbox or even try to hijack the ongoing Internet revolution, and that we must oppose them decisively. The views expressed by the ITU spokespeople re transparency and access to the documents, as well as multistakeholder participation, are constantly denied by themselves. A stellar piece is one in which a pro-ITU writer sends you to read all WCIT documents... in Kieren McCarthy's dotnxtcon, which by the way is also available for paid subscribers only! We will always have WCITLeaks. Let me also underline that I do not subscribe the notion that "the UN is out to..." or opposing the UN as a whole in this process. That mantra is a great mobilizer in some countries, like the US, but I find it unfair and misguided, and also think that it causes unnecessary and unwarranted irritation among many who are both in favor of the UN in many ways and unfavorable to the proposed modifications of the ITRs. Vilifying the UN is not the way to go. This in my view should find agreement from Louis Pouzin and Jean-Louis Fullsack, despite other important - philosophical and practical - differences. A nuanced, objective, focussed analysis and strategy among dedicated people with more specialized knowledge may be at least as important as a simpler, massive campaign among a broader audience. That's where most of us should be. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Enviado el: sábado, 24 de noviembre de 2012 22:41 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian Asunto: Re: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: ITU view of Google's campaign http://itu4u.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/the-google-campaign-an-itu-view/ and the thinking behind that statement: https://www.google.nl/search?q=itu+retreat+wcit&oq=itu+retreat+wcit click on the 2nd link and then "Quick View" in order to see the document. All ironies recognised! -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 25 00:26:17 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 10:56:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB1A378@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB1A378@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: I will just point out that - from personal experience - registration to view the ITU documents in Kieren's dotnxt website is free. Beyond that, some parts of the leaflet seem to suffer from a rather major disconnect with ground realities. In particular the section on cybersecurity and cybersecurity partnerships. The other part is - "Most OECD countries" listed as the opposition for any change in the ITRs. If we see a situation where even 40/140 = about 35% of the countries in the world opt out of the ITRs, that is an essential split in the internet that would have catastrophic results. Also note the "countries for", "countries against" mathematic - which makes little or no mention of the lack of multistakeholderism inherent in this process, apart from a token protest against such mentions by various opponents [cast as "vicious criticism" among other colorful adjectives]. --srs (iPad) On 25-Nov-2012, at 10:44, "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" wrote: > Tim, > > maybe the document you are pointing at is http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/Retreat2012.pdf which is the leaflet distributed to participants in a meeting earlier this year. It describes in detail what the ITU perceives as the battle around the ITRs as "US vs. us." > > Much of the ITU's media thrust can be found in the Twitter stream of Sarah Parkes, the ITU's media person, http://twitter.com/sarahparkesitu, which has pointers to the press articles they like. They are pitching things as a business catfight between Google and similar US companies vs. the "Internet ecosystem" as understood for example in the South Korean submission at http://www.itu.int/ml/lists/nomenu/arc/wcit-public/2012-11/msg00012.html well described in http://www.key4biz.it/News/2012/11/20/Policy/wcit12_itrs_korea_telecom_213952.html (in Italian), which uses even more colorful language than the ETNO's "sending party network pays", "beneficiary traffic generator pays." > > More press from the ITU tends to point to resources of the ITU itself on education, cybersecurity, health, etc. which quickly come to dead ends such as a big fuss, documents, and meetings which in the end fizzle down to "helping countries cooperate with other entities", i.e. hand-holding adults to meet the IETF, ICANN, CERTs, RIRs, APWG, and so many others. > > I think many of us have studied the WCIT documents, press releases, etc. seriously, to the best of our knowledge and in consultation with both ISOC, ICANN, etc. experts and with ITU old hands (that is my case at least; one of them chairs an ITU group to rewrite the Constitution) and have reached our own, independent conclusions. > > Mine is that we can peel off the commercial disputes and still find enough reasons for concern in the proposals before WCIT that can throw sand in the gearbox or even try to hijack the ongoing Internet revolution, and that we must oppose them decisively. > > The views expressed by the ITU spokespeople re transparency and access to the documents, as well as multistakeholder participation, are constantly denied by themselves. A stellar piece is one in which a pro-ITU writer sends you to read all WCIT documents... in Kieren McCarthy's dotnxtcon, which by the way is also available for paid subscribers only! > > We will always have WCITLeaks. > > Let me also underline that I do not subscribe the notion that "the UN is out to..." or opposing the UN as a whole in this process. That mantra is a great mobilizer in some countries, like the US, but I find it unfair and misguided, and also think that it causes unnecessary and unwarranted irritation among many who are both in favor of the UN in many ways and unfavorable to the proposed modifications of the ITRs. Vilifying the UN is not the way to go. > > This in my view should find agreement from Louis Pouzin and Jean-Louis Fullsack, despite other important - philosophical and practical - differences. > > A nuanced, objective, focussed analysis and strategy among dedicated people with more specialized knowledge may be at least as important as a simpler, massive campaign among a broader audience. That's where most of us should be. > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] > Enviado el: sábado, 24 de noviembre de 2012 22:41 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian > Asunto: Re: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website > > > > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> ITU view of Google's campaign >> >> http://itu4u.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/the-google-campaign-an-itu-view/ > > and the thinking behind that statement: > > > https://www.google.nl/search?q=itu+retreat+wcit&oq=itu+retreat+wcit > > click on the 2nd link and then "Quick View" in order to see the document. > > All ironies recognised! > > -- > 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 apisan at unam.mx Sun Nov 25 00:32:38 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 05:32:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB1A378@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>, Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB1A562@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Suresh, I will test the links by dotnxtcon and am happy to stand corrected on their being free - good news. On ITU and cybersecurity, I know you've had some bad experience in that field, and guess you will agree that the IMPACT center is waaaaay away from useful. (Again am ready to stand corrected though I think I'll fight this one if evidence is not convincing.) Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: Suresh Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net] Enviado el: sábado, 24 de noviembre de 2012 23:26 Hasta: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; McTim Asunto: Re: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website I will just point out that - from personal experience - registration to view the ITU documents in Kieren's dotnxt website is free. Beyond that, some parts of the leaflet seem to suffer from a rather major disconnect with ground realities. In particular the section on cybersecurity and cybersecurity partnerships. The other part is - "Most OECD countries" listed as the opposition for any change in the ITRs. If we see a situation where even 40/140 = about 35% of the countries in the world opt out of the ITRs, that is an essential split in the internet that would have catastrophic results. Also note the "countries for", "countries against" mathematic - which makes little or no mention of the lack of multistakeholderism inherent in this process, apart from a token protest against such mentions by various opponents [cast as "vicious criticism" among other colorful adjectives]. --srs (iPad) On 25-Nov-2012, at 10:44, "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" > wrote: Tim, maybe the document you are pointing at is http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/Retreat2012.pdf which is the leaflet distributed to participants in a meeting earlier this year. It describes in detail what the ITU perceives as the battle around the ITRs as "US vs. us." Much of the ITU's media thrust can be found in the Twitter stream of Sarah Parkes, the ITU's media person, http://twitter.com/sarahparkesitu, which has pointers to the press articles they like. They are pitching things as a business catfight between Google and similar US companies vs. the "Internet ecosystem" as understood for example in the South Korean submission at http://www.itu.int/ml/lists/nomenu/arc/wcit-public/2012-11/msg00012.html well described in http://www.key4biz.it/News/2012/11/20/Policy/wcit12_itrs_korea_telecom_213952.html (in Italian), which uses even more colorful language than the ETNO's "sending party network pays", "beneficiary traffic generator pays." More press from the ITU tends to point to resources of the ITU itself on education, cybersecurity, health, etc. which quickly come to dead ends such as a big fuss, documents, and meetings which in the end fizzle down to "helping countries cooperate with other entities", i.e. hand-holding adults to meet the IETF, ICANN, CERTs, RIRs, APWG, and so many others. I think many of us have studied the WCIT documents, press releases, etc. seriously, to the best of our knowledge and in consultation with both ISOC, ICANN, etc. experts and with ITU old hands (that is my case at least; one of them chairs an ITU group to rewrite the Constitution) and have reached our own, independent conclusions. Mine is that we can peel off the commercial disputes and still find enough reasons for concern in the proposals before WCIT that can throw sand in the gearbox or even try to hijack the ongoing Internet revolution, and that we must oppose them decisively. The views expressed by the ITU spokespeople re transparency and access to the documents, as well as multistakeholder participation, are constantly denied by themselves. A stellar piece is one in which a pro-ITU writer sends you to read all WCIT documents... in Kieren McCarthy's dotnxtcon, which by the way is also available for paid subscribers only! We will always have WCITLeaks. Let me also underline that I do not subscribe the notion that "the UN is out to..." or opposing the UN as a whole in this process. That mantra is a great mobilizer in some countries, like the US, but I find it unfair and misguided, and also think that it causes unnecessary and unwarranted irritation among many who are both in favor of the UN in many ways and unfavorable to the proposed modifications of the ITRs. Vilifying the UN is not the way to go. This in my view should find agreement from Louis Pouzin and Jean-Louis Fullsack, despite other important - philosophical and practical - differences. A nuanced, objective, focussed analysis and strategy among dedicated people with more specialized knowledge may be at least as important as a simpler, massive campaign among a broader audience. That's where most of us should be. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Enviado el: sábado, 24 de noviembre de 2012 22:41 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian Asunto: Re: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: ITU view of Google's campaign http://itu4u.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/the-google-campaign-an-itu-view/ and the thinking behind that statement: https://www.google.nl/search?q=itu+retreat+wcit&oq=itu+retreat+wcit click on the 2nd link and then "Quick View" in order to see the document. All ironies recognised! -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 25 00:43:40 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 11:13:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB1A562@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB1A378@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB1A562@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <0BA3875C-46FE-46A5-A6BB-D3C97DFCF1F0@hserus.net> On 25-Nov-2012, at 11:02, "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" wrote: > I will test the links by dotnxtcon and am happy to stand corrected on their being free - good news. > http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/11/23/why-we-are-making-all-wcit-doc?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter Please see the section "Gaining Access" > On ITU and cybersecurity, I know you've had some bad experience in that field, and guess you will agree that the IMPACT center is waaaaay away from useful. (Again am ready to stand corrected though I think I'll fight this one if evidence is not convincing.) I will not disagree that there is considerable scope for improvement in ITU's cybersecurity activities. These were excellent (and quite multistakeholder) till around 2007-08. Till then, ITU organized several multistakeholder conferences and engaged experts from industry, civil society and academia to produce white papers, as part of WSIS Action Line C5. IMPACT happened after that, as an attempt - I will agree, not a particularly successful attempt - to "operationalize" everything and serve as a multistakeholder partnership organization for cybersecurity. --srs (iPad) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 25 00:46:16 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 00:46:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB1A378@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB1A378@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < apisan at unam.mx> wrote: > Tim, > > maybe the document you are pointing at is > http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/Retreat2012.pdf > That's the one, it was only available in the Google cache a few hours ago, but that may have been PEBKAC. > We will always have WCITLeaks. > > Let me also underline that I do not subscribe the notion that "the UN is > out to..." or opposing the UN as a whole in this process. That mantra is a > great mobilizer in some countries, like the US, but I find it unfair and > misguided, and also think that it causes unnecessary and unwarranted > irritation among many who are both in favor of the UN in many ways and > unfavorable to the proposed modifications of the ITRs. Vilifying the UN is > not the way to go. > > Agreed. > This in my view should find agreement from Louis Pouzin and Jean-Louis > Fullsack, despite other important - philosophical and practical - > differences. > > A nuanced, objective, focussed analysis and strategy among dedicated > people with more specialized knowledge may be at least as important as a > simpler, massive campaign among a broader audience. That's where most of us > should be. > > +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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 01:26:41 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 08:26:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Pure government-like press releases, but there is a strong message between the lines (such as Google not being a member and their 125 or so attendances). Fahd On Nov 25, 2012 6:46 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: > ITU view of Google's campaign > > http://itu4u.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/the-google-campaign-an-itu-view/ > > -srs (htc one x) > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 01:31:02 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 08:31:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB1A378@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB1A378@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Well said Alejandro. Fahd On Nov 25, 2012 8:14 AM, "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" wrote: > Tim, > > maybe the document you are pointing at is > http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/Retreat2012.pdf which is the leaflet > distributed to participants in a meeting earlier this year. It describes in > detail what the ITU perceives as the battle around the ITRs as "US vs. us." > > Much of the ITU's media thrust can be found in the Twitter stream of > Sarah Parkes, the ITU's media person, http://twitter.com/sarahparkesitu, which > has pointers to the press articles they like. They are pitching things as a > business catfight between Google and similar US companies vs. the "Internet > ecosystem" as understood for example in the South Korean submission at > http://www.itu.int/ml/lists/nomenu/arc/wcit-public/2012-11/msg00012.html well > described in > http://www.key4biz.it/News/2012/11/20/Policy/wcit12_itrs_korea_telecom_213952.html (in > Italian), which uses even more colorful language than the ETNO's "sending > party network pays", "beneficiary traffic generator pays." > > More press from the ITU tends to point to resources of the ITU itself on > education, cybersecurity, health, etc. which quickly come to dead ends such > as a big fuss, documents, and meetings which in the end fizzle down to > "helping countries cooperate with other entities", i.e. hand-holding adults > to meet the IETF, ICANN, CERTs, RIRs, APWG, and so many others. > > I think many of us have studied the WCIT documents, press releases, etc. > seriously, to the best of our knowledge and in consultation with both ISOC, > ICANN, etc. experts and with ITU old hands (that is my case at least; one > of them chairs an ITU group to rewrite the Constitution) and have reached > our own, independent conclusions. > > Mine is that we can peel off the commercial disputes and still find > enough reasons for concern in the proposals before WCIT that can throw sand > in the gearbox or even try to hijack the ongoing Internet revolution, and > that we must oppose them decisively. > > The views expressed by the ITU spokespeople re transparency and access > to the documents, as well as multistakeholder participation, are constantly > denied by themselves. A stellar piece is one in which a pro-ITU writer > sends you to read all WCIT documents... in Kieren McCarthy's dotnxtcon, > which by the way is also available for paid subscribers only! > > We will always have WCITLeaks. > > Let me also underline that I do not subscribe the notion that "the UN is > out to..." or opposing the UN as a whole in this process. That mantra is a > great mobilizer in some countries, like the US, but I find it unfair and > misguided, and also think that it causes unnecessary and unwarranted > irritation among many who are both in favor of the UN in many ways and > unfavorable to the proposed modifications of the ITRs. Vilifying the UN is > not the way to go. > > This in my view should find agreement from Louis Pouzin and Jean-Louis > Fullsack, despite other important - philosophical and practical - > differences. > > A nuanced, objective, focussed analysis and strategy among dedicated > people with more specialized knowledge may be at least as important as a > simpler, massive campaign among a broader audience. That's where most of us > should be. > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > ------------------------------ > *Desde:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de McTim [ > dogwallah at gmail.com] > *Enviado el:* sábado, 24 de noviembre de 2012 22:41 > *Hasta:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian > *Asunto:* Re: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website > > > > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian < > suresh at hserus.net> wrote: > >> ITU view of Google's campaign >> >> http://itu4u.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/the-google-campaign-an-itu-view/ >> >> > and the thinking behind that statement: > > > https://www.google.nl/search?q=itu+retreat+wcit&oq=itu+retreat+wcit > > click on the 2nd link and then "Quick View" in order to see the document. > > All ironies recognised! > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 01:35:21 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 08:35:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy In-Reply-To: References: <20121123191624.456b1d9c@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Bribes, perks, free travel, free consultancies... you name it. Fahd On Nov 25, 2012 3:31 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: > Sorry? How do their local ISPs benefit from peering with a western > country when they don't peer locally? > > --srs (iPad) > > On 24-Nov-2012, at 21:14, "Fahd A. Batayneh" > wrote: > > Would say that it is true for developed countries, but not for developing > and least developed where some benefit (financially) from peering to > Western countries. > > Fahd > On Nov 24, 2012 5:16 PM, "McTim" wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh < >> fahd.batayneh at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 2:40 PM, McTim wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh < >>>> fahd.batayneh at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> While I do have Facebook and Twitter accounts, I have not accessed any >>>>> of them for quite a long time, and I do not use them. This is what one can >>>>> expect when posting personal data online. However, if we look at things >>>>> differently, who is not exposed (Internet users)? All our Internet traffic >>>>> passes through the various Tier-1 ISPs in the USA and EU >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ALL, is a pretty strong statement. >>>> >>> >>> Well, we can exclude local traffic passing via IXPs or maybe within the >>> same network, and maybe very sensitive data that move across the same >>> Intranet, or maybe traffic that moves within censorship-driven countries. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Do you have any evidence for it? >>>> >>> >>> No one has evidence about either scenario (everything is monitored vs. >>> something is monitored vs. nothing is monitored). But would you disagree >>> that Internet traffic moving overseas does have to pass at access points >>> based in Western countries? >>> >> >> >> Yes. There are major CDN nodes and IXPs where Tier1s (and Tier2s and 3s) >> peer around the globe. Your traffic does not have to go to US/EU. In fact >> it does not even have to transit a Tier1 provider. >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> , and some of them might want to inspect traffic randomly as measures >>>>> of "National Security". >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> None of them "want to", as it would impact business of passing packets. >>>> >>> >>> Not really. Business is one aspect of the story, but national interests >>> is another (especially Western countries that keep using the term "War on >>> Terror"). >>> >>> >> >> Then that would be a "MUST" not a "WANT". >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route >> indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 25 01:45:38 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 12:15:38 +0530 Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy Message-ID: For buying transit maybe rather than for peering? --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Fahd A. Batayneh" To: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "McTim" Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy Date: Sun, Nov 25, 2012 12:05 PM Bribes, perks, free travel, free consultancies... you name it. Fahd On Nov 25, 2012 3:31 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: > Sorry? How do their local ISPs benefit from peering with a western > country when they don't peer locally? > > --srs (iPad) > > On 24-Nov-2012, at 21:14, "Fahd A. Batayneh" > wrote: > > Would say that it is true for developed countries, but not for developing > and least developed where some benefit (financially) from peering to > Western countries. > > Fahd > On Nov 24, 2012 5:16 PM, "McTim" wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh < >> fahd.batayneh at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 2:40 PM, McTim wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh < >>>> fahd.batayneh at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> While I do have Facebook and Twitter accounts, I have not accessed any >>>>> of them for quite a long time, and I do not use them. This is what one can >>>>> expect when posting personal data online. However, if we look at things >>>>> differently, who is not exposed (Internet users)? All our Internet traffic >>>>> passes through the various Tier-1 ISPs in the USA and EU >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ALL, is a pretty strong statement. >>>> >>> >>> Well, we can exclude local traffic passing via IXPs or maybe within the >>> same network, and maybe very sensitive data that move across the same >>> Intranet, or maybe traffic that moves within censorship-driven countries. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Do you have any evidence for it? >>>> >>> >>> No one has evidence about either scenario (everything is monitored vs. >>> something is monitored vs. nothing is monitored). But would you disagree >>> that Internet traffic moving overseas does have to pass at access points >>> based in Western countries? >>> >> >> >> Yes. There are major CDN nodes and IXPs where Tier1s (and Tier2s and 3s) >> peer around the globe. Your traffic does not have to go to US/EU. In fact >> it does not even have to transit a Tier1 provider. >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> , and some of them might want to inspect traffic randomly as measures >>>>> of "National Security". >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> None of them "want to", as it would impact business of passing packets. >>>> >>> >>> Not really. Business is one aspect of the story, but national interests >>> is another (especially Western countries that keep using the term "War on >>> Terror"). >>> >>> >> >> Then that would be a "MUST" not a "WANT". >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route >> indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 01:52:43 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 08:52:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mainly peering really. I forgot to mention political aspects as well. Fahd On Nov 25, 2012 9:45 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: > For buying transit maybe rather than for peering? > > --srs (htc one x) > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Fahd A. Batayneh" > To: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , > "McTim" > Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy > Date: Sun, Nov 25, 2012 12:05 PM > > > Bribes, perks, free travel, free consultancies... you name it. > > Fahd > On Nov 25, 2012 3:31 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > wrote: > > > Sorry? How do their local ISPs benefit from peering with a western > > country when they don't peer locally? > > > > --srs (iPad) > > > > On 24-Nov-2012, at 21:14, "Fahd A. Batayneh" > > wrote: > > > > Would say that it is true for developed countries, but not for developing > > and least developed where some benefit (financially) from peering to > > Western countries. > > > > Fahd > > On Nov 24, 2012 5:16 PM, "McTim" wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh < > >> fahd.batayneh at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 2:40 PM, McTim wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh < > >>>> fahd.batayneh at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> While I do have Facebook and Twitter accounts, I have not accessed > any > >>>>> of them for quite a long time, and I do not use them. This is what > one can > >>>>> expect when posting personal data online. However, if we look at > things > >>>>> differently, who is not exposed (Internet users)? All our Internet > traffic > >>>>> passes through the various Tier-1 ISPs in the USA and EU > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ALL, is a pretty strong statement. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Well, we can exclude local traffic passing via IXPs or maybe within the > >>> same network, and maybe very sensitive data that move across the same > >>> Intranet, or maybe traffic that moves within censorship-driven > countries. > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Do you have any evidence for it? > >>>> > >>> > >>> No one has evidence about either scenario (everything is monitored vs. > >>> something is monitored vs. nothing is monitored). But would you > disagree > >>> that Internet traffic moving overseas does have to pass at access > points > >>> based in Western countries? > >>> > >> > >> > >> Yes. There are major CDN nodes and IXPs where Tier1s (and Tier2s and 3s) > >> peer around the globe. Your traffic does not have to go to US/EU. In > fact > >> it does not even have to transit a Tier1 provider. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> , and some of them might want to inspect traffic randomly as measures > >>>>> of "National Security". > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> None of them "want to", as it would impact business of passing > packets. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Not really. Business is one aspect of the story, but national interests > >>> is another (especially Western countries that keep using the term "War > on > >>> Terror"). > >>> > >>> > >> > >> Then that would be a "MUST" not a "WANT". > >> > >> -- > >> Cheers, > >> > >> McTim > >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route > >> indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 25 02:43:58 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 13:13:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy Message-ID: Some examples would be lovely.. ASNs if you can cite them --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Fahd A. Batayneh" To: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy Date: Sun, Nov 25, 2012 12:22 PM Mainly peering really. I forgot to mention political aspects as well. Fahd On Nov 25, 2012 9:45 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: > For buying transit maybe rather than for peering? > > --srs (htc one x) > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Fahd A. Batayneh" > To: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , > "McTim" > Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy > Date: Sun, Nov 25, 2012 12:05 PM > > > Bribes, perks, free travel, free consultancies... you name it. > > Fahd > On Nov 25, 2012 3:31 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > wrote: > > > Sorry? How do their local ISPs benefit from peering with a western > > country when they don't peer locally? > > > > --srs (iPad) > > > > On 24-Nov-2012, at 21:14, "Fahd A. Batayneh" > > wrote: > > > > Would say that it is true for developed countries, but not for developing > > and least developed where some benefit (financially) from peering to > > Western countries. > > > > Fahd > > On Nov 24, 2012 5:16 PM, "McTim" wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh < > >> fahd.batayneh at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 2:40 PM, McTim wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh < > >>>> fahd.batayneh at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> While I do have Facebook and Twitter accounts, I have not accessed > any > >>>>> of them for quite a long time, and I do not use them. This is what > one can > >>>>> expect when posting personal data online. However, if we look at > things > >>>>> differently, who is not exposed (Internet users)? All our Internet > traffic > >>>>> passes through the various Tier-1 ISPs in the USA and EU > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ALL, is a pretty strong statement. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Well, we can exclude local traffic passing via IXPs or maybe within the > >>> same network, and maybe very sensitive data that move across the same > >>> Intranet, or maybe traffic that moves within censorship-driven > countries. > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Do you have any evidence for it? > >>>> > >>> > >>> No one has evidence about either scenario (everything is monitored vs. > >>> something is monitored vs. nothing is monitored). But would you > disagree > >>> that Internet traffic moving overseas does have to pass at access > points > >>> based in Western countries? > >>> > >> > >> > >> Yes. There are major CDN nodes and IXPs where Tier1s (and Tier2s and 3s) > >> peer around the globe. Your traffic does not have to go to US/EU. In > fact > >> it does not even have to transit a Tier1 provider. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> , and some of them might want to inspect traffic randomly as measures > >>>>> of "National Security". > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> None of them "want to", as it would impact business of passing > packets. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Not really. Business is one aspect of the story, but national interests > >>> is another (especially Western countries that keep using the term "War > on > >>> Terror"). > >>> > >>> > >> > >> Then that would be a "MUST" not a "WANT". > >> > >> -- > >> Cheers, > >> > >> McTim > >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route > >> indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Sun Nov 25 05:35:57 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 11:35:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] 2013 Preparations for MAG In-Reply-To: <7A609307-A39A-438D-A0C5-641F22D60373@hserus.net> References: <7A609307-A39A-438D-A0C5-641F22D60373@hserus.net> Message-ID: <587997D2-DDA2-46B1-817A-426246DBE729@uzh.ch> Hi Replies in line, sorry for the length, there's a lot to talk about. On Nov 25, 2012, at 6:02 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Let me add some below, in line with Fouad, tagged [srs] > > These are entirely my opinion, from being on the management committee (till 2009) and fellowship committee (till now) of an asiapac wide network operators conference (APRICOT) for several years. > > On 25-Nov-2012, at 9:58, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> To throw in some starters: >> >> 1. Should the IGF continue to hold meetings in countries with >> authoritative regimes and repressed political environments? People >> from certain neighboring countries were not able to participate while >> the fear factor of participating in an IGF where the host country was >> authoritarian was high. >> > > [srs] Should the IGF hold meetings in comparatively remote locations compared to major airline hubs with liberal visa regimes and excellent conference facilities? The point here is that such locations are more expensive to fly to than other locations on the same continent that are major airline hubs, with direct flights from more places around the world. They may, in most cases, have more suitable conference venues so we'd get far less issues with remote participation, wifi based collaboration in the venue, acoustics in the auditorium … As long as IGF's linked to the UN system, you get what you get. It's not like ICANN's site selection process. If a government stands up and says we'd like to host (either out of commitment to the process or to make use of a new convention center, fill hotels, tell locals that IGF is a UN seal of approval for its policies, etc) it's politically pretty difficult to say no, not to mention that hosting costs money that's in short supply and the line of suitors doesn't stretch down the block. On a separate note, one could debate whether holding meetings in such countries doesn't do some trickle down good; I tend to think it's a net plus, but others may calculate differently. That said, wherever we go, one would certainly like nicer venues with better amenities that are easier to get to. > >> 2. IGF should put out a call for hosts country expression of interest >> instead of expecting someone will bid with clearly laid out principles >> and process for selection. >> > > [srs] Fully concur. Something on the lines of an RFP with clearly defined requirements for the host country, in terms of logistics as well as based on an evaluation of free speech rights in the country. I strongly agree that conditions and requirements need to be laid down and there has to be a means to deal in real time and afterwards with nonconformance, or it's just paper. But depending on the circumstance, making that work might require more than sotto voce discussions with the secretariat, e.g. interventions from supportive governments and stakeholders. Could be dicey, merits thought. Either way, I think there is interest among some in the MAG in setting out such requirements, and it'd help them to sell it to peers if there were good stakeholder inputs on the point. So it would be useful if the IGC and others would take a crack at setting something out. > >> 3. When do the MAG improvements actually happen with reference to the >> CSTD IGF improvements and when will they be reflected i.e. in future >> IGFs? > > [srs] In other words, can we have some metrics on improvements already suggested and/or future improvements that are actually implemented, and make the leap from powerpoint / pdf to "ground realities"? The UN process has to work its way through, but in the meanwhile people in the MAG are definitely expressing interest in getting more proactive. > >> 4. Logistical support interms of visa acquisition to attend open >> consultations or observe MAG meetings remains a challenge for people >> from developing countries and attention to detail is needed from the >> IGF secretariat. People from developed regions do have considerable >> advantage over this issue but do not represent the views and insights >> of developing country issues and inputs to the IGF. >> > > [srs] In the first (Athens) IGF, as I recall, the visa process was very smooth, even expedited, so that a Schengen visa was issued with far less paperwork than I have experienced on business or vacation travel to other Schengen countries. For the rest, please see my response to point 1 above. A location like Hong Kong, that requires prior visas from I think three countries in the entire world and extends a free visa on arrival to all other countries, and moreover has direct flights from most regions of the world, would be much more suitable than either Athens, Hyderabad or Baku, to pick a few past venues. The UN can't force changes in national immigration policies but the above mentioned conditions and requirement could strongly urge the view that offering to host entails responsibilities etc. > >> 5. The time allocated to Main Session should be significantly reduced >> to half and the majority of Main Sessions should be restricted to one >> day otherwise this is negatively impacting audience division and the >> numbers in Workshop participation. > > [srs] I wouldn't go that far However it makes sense to identify a specified time slot for the plenary / main session events every day, and structure workshops so that they feed into the main sessions. We also need to structure these main sessions so that not all of them become over-long panels by themselves, and have a significant number of rapporteur driven sessions which provide feedback from the workshops to the broader audience. I strongly disagree with cutting the time for main sessions and think we should instead make them more useful to more people. I hope we can finally come to agreement that after seven years we don't have to be bound to the same old tired standardized generic session topics. MS should be able to vary per year to address truly "hot topics" that are on the tips of tongues everywhere. I proposed this at the Feb. 2012 meeting in the context of calling for a MS on human rights, and was immediately shot down by the "nothing can be changed" Greek chorus. But after the rather uneven performance of the MS this time, I sensed in the spontaneous partial MAG meeting at Baku greater openness to tinkering. Why shouldn't we be able to have a MS on enhanced cooperation and any gaps in the governance ecosystem, patterns of private sector governance, the role of online campaign mobilizations like we've seen around WCIT, the contestable boundary lines between telecom and Internet and their global governance, territoriality and jurisdiction, and so on—even if the "messages" coming out of the sessions were "views differed sharply" that would be ok. And why not vary the formats, e.g. by having some debates on juicy topics (could even do it with teams and audience show of hands on motions). If others agree that innovation in the MS would be desirable, an IGC input on this too would be a really helpful for CS participants to bring into the MAG discussion. > >> 6. Workshop planing detail should continue to receive more attention >> especially interms of quality and issue. The issue around achieving >> gender balance, multistakeholder balance and regional coverage are >> really not working. I tend toward the seemingly unpopular view that while there was much satisfied feedback on numerous Baku WS, the fact remains there were simply too many (running 11 tracks of 44 WS parallel to the days MS was nuts) and some were clearly less solid, well thought out, and properly personed (in terms of the above criteria, and others). I found it very frustrating that the MAG went through this whole exercise of ranking WS proposals, which in the first cut resulted in 2/3rd of applications being below the acceptance threshold and needing more work, and yet a great many of these ultimately made their way into the program seemingly irrespective of the extent to which they were revised and improved in accordance with MAG feedback. If we want a high quality and right sized program, sometimes we have to have the courage to say sorry no please try next year. We also had the curious phenomenon of people submitting late WS proposals purporting to be open forums. The OFs are supposed to be a specific thing, organizational show and tell, not a category to be used by late movers to smuggle in WS proposals. When the divergence between the OF format and the proposals was pointed out in MAG, some anyway got approved somehow as "side sessions," a category for which there are apparently no rules. We should nip that in the bud. Of course, the challenge here is that some attendees need to have their own event in order to get funding to come and participate, and obviously we don't want to suppress the numbers. On the other hand, many individuals and organizations habitually propose a large number of events. At a minimum, one would think we could adopt a rule that nobody can lead organize more than say two-three workshops. That ought to be sufficient to deal with any travel funding needs and visibility urges. In parallel, there seems to be some interest in MAG in the idea that no single person should appear on more than [x] WS and MS panels. There a cohort of usual suspects who ritualistically speak at 7, 10, 12 events. In part, this is fueled by the difficulty of identifying "new blood" that has committed to attend and would be perfect fits, so when someone's organizing a session and thinks oh I need a person from xyz region or SG the easy default is to turn to known and easily available folks. So we need to make a proactive effort to entice new and qualified attendees, particularly from the government side, and to tell the usual suspects to please accept only the [3-4] appearances you think most appropriate. Self regulation can play a role in the latter if the MAG can't manage to establish or enforce a rule. I know I'll be doing that. >> The IGF pre-events have to be revisited and should >> receive more attention in terms of planning and projection as these >> are receiving a lot of attention by participants. I think the explosion in pre-events is indicative of the need for more flexibility in formatting, including the main sessions. If you want to have a serious in depth discussion of a topic and the MS are all locked down with ye ole SOP etc, what other option is there? Although even if we reform the MS format some people will still want to do their own things their own ways... Maybe we should admit this is a feature not a bug and that the IGF really runs five days rather than four, and if there are more bottom up proposals than can be accommodated they should go through the MAG process…? >> > > [srs] Fully agree. > >> 7. The visa issue despite being well managed by the host country >> remained one of them most unclear aspects of the IGF and the IGF >> secretariat should give more emphasis on detailing out these issues >> with future host countries in the very beginning. >> > > [srs] This goes back to my point about picking venues with liberal visa regimes, and/or venues that promise to expedite visas for bonafide conference delegates. However, from the host country's standpoint, I can say that there will be a significant threat of misuse of these visas by a small number of people (for example, I have personally seen, in that network operators conference, fellowship applications from what are obviously "advance fee fraud" scam artists looking for a free ticket to the event - if we grant such a fellowship, once in the country they simply "disappear" and overstay their visa, then our local hosts face some heat for this). So, nothing in this process should compromise on due diligence carried out by the country's visa authorities. > >> 8. The venue planning needs to be carefully done as having venues >> outside the cities causes both stress and challenges to accessibility. >> > > [srs] Fully agree, covered above See 2 above > >> 9. An Internet Connectivity Team should be assembled by the IGF >> Secretariat that should work beforehand on the ground to manage >> internet connectivity to cover remote participation, connectivity for >> over 2000 participants keeping in view that this may mean planning and >> connecting 2000 people x 6000 devices (laptops, cell phones, wi-fi >> enable cameras, tables etc). >> > > [srs] It actually makes sense to hire and retain a professional vendor of conference networking services, such as Verilan, to provide the same (high, bound by SLA) standard of networking across events. Funding for this will remain an open question though, with the current model of the IGF. > >> 10. The sudden shift of Open Consultations and MAG meetings from >> Geneva to France for February 2013 without open consultation and >> comments from the community puts a severe logistical pressure on >> participation for those that find it a challenge to already >> participate in such meetings. This shift enables only certain > > [srs] This might have been true earlier, but Switzerland and France are both Schengen countries. So if you have already acquired a Swiss Schengen visa, you should certainly be able to use it for your travel to France. > > I do agree that if the venue had been shifted from, say, Washington DC to Toronto, I would have fully agreed with you, but in this case, it is moot. > We are having a related debate-lette in the MAG now on May. At present, the IGF consultation and MAG are scheduled in the same week (13-17 May) as not on only the WSIS Forum, per usual, but also the ITU's World Telecom Policy Forum on global Internet governance. I think it would be a disaster if stakeholders with an interest in IG were precluded from attending the WTPF by this scheduling. If the WCIT debates have shown anything, it is that it's really important that ITU member governments not be negotiating documents (even non-binding opinions, which set agendas and create mandates for future organizational action) without civil society, business and the technical community at least being in the room. The WTPF page http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/participation.aspx says that participation will be open to the public as observers. It's not clear yet whether this will be on the same terms and conditions as the 2009 forum in Lisbon, when members of the public had to submit to a staff beauty context and demonstrate their qualifications to attend, and if accepted were unable to speak; this has been asked of ITU but not answered. But either way, we should be there. If you look at the preparatory docs and national submissions (all freely accessible on the website) it is clear they will be getting into many of the most contentious issues of interest to us, so there will be a need to mobilize and weigh in somehow. Accordingly, a few of us have proposed that the IGF meetings be moved to the week before or after the WTPF, or else to the week before or after the CSTD (which, next year is inconveniently scheduled for 3-7 June…which not only means interested parties will have to come to Geneva twice, but conflicts with the EuroDIG too). The responses on the MAG list have been pretty scattered, with a couple expressions of support for moving, and others saying we should keep it as is in the name of travel cost savings—even if this means IG people can't go to an open ITU event on IG. One may speculate on the thinking behind the latter. Bottom line, here too it would be useful for the IGC to weigh in, quickly, if in fact people agree that the WTPF is a priority. A final point not mentioned so far—the outstanding issue of working groups and ongoing activities on matters of key concern. From the outset the IGC has maintained that IGF should be able to convene groups that include good government representation that are designed to undertake focused explorations of topics and have their outputs—even if it's some feel this, others feel that messages—feed into the MS. There's been much discussion of doing something around Enhanced Cooperation in this manner, although some forces have argued for focusing on the CSTD instead, which has inherent limitations with respect to multistakeholderism and governmental representation. Part of what makes this insoluble is the lack of a clearly laid out model of how WGs convened under the IGF could function. If the IGC could put forward a concrete proposal, preferably in coordination with business and the TC, that would be very helpful too. So in short, if IGC and other CS formations give the CS members of the MAG something to work with that we can point to and say our community strongly feels xyz, that could be really useful in moving some balls down field. Best, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 07:15:07 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:15:07 +0500 Subject: [governance] 2013 Preparations for MAG In-Reply-To: <587997D2-DDA2-46B1-817A-426246DBE729@uzh.ch> References: <7A609307-A39A-438D-A0C5-641F22D60373@hserus.net> <587997D2-DDA2-46B1-817A-426246DBE729@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Clarity, clarity, clarity. This is my input and I did not ask for justifications or clarifications. On the Visa issue, getting the Swiss visa is hard and the French visa is the worst. The French will keep your passport for months. Swiss will immediately reject it and unless the IGF secretariat intervenes, no visa. This happens for every stakeholder irrespective of govt or civil society in Pakistan. The Swiss had refused visa even for the May consultations and every time I had applied in the past 3 years.It was only when the Swiss Mission to the UN intervened on the request of the IGF Secretariat was the visa made available. The French continue to refuse visas when one tries to participate in UNESCO activities. We can continue to have as many focused and detailed discussions we want to and claim we do it on the behalf of developing country participation but the challenges remain. Seeing us smiling doesn't mean all is well. Best Disappointed.... On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 3:35 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Replies in line, sorry for the length, there's a lot to talk about. > > On Nov 25, 2012, at 6:02 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Let me add some below, in line with Fouad, tagged [srs] > > These are entirely my opinion, from being on the management committee (till > 2009) and fellowship committee (till now) of an asiapac wide network > operators conference (APRICOT) for several years. > > On 25-Nov-2012, at 9:58, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > To throw in some starters: > > > 1. Should the IGF continue to hold meetings in countries with > > authoritative regimes and repressed political environments? People > > from certain neighboring countries were not able to participate while > > the fear factor of participating in an IGF where the host country was > > authoritarian was high. > > > > [srs] Should the IGF hold meetings in comparatively remote locations > compared to major airline hubs with liberal visa regimes and excellent > conference facilities? The point here is that such locations are more > expensive to fly to than other locations on the same continent that are > major airline hubs, with direct flights from more places around the world. > They may, in most cases, have more suitable conference venues so we'd get > far less issues with remote participation, wifi based collaboration in the > venue, acoustics in the auditorium … > > > As long as IGF's linked to the UN system, you get what you get. It's not > like ICANN's site selection process. If a government stands up and says > we'd like to host (either out of commitment to the process or to make use of > a new convention center, fill hotels, tell locals that IGF is a UN seal of > approval for its policies, etc) it's politically pretty difficult to say no, > not to mention that hosting costs money that's in short supply and the line > of suitors doesn't stretch down the block. On a separate note, one could > debate whether holding meetings in such countries doesn't do some trickle > down good; I tend to think it's a net plus, but others may calculate > differently. That said, wherever we go, one would certainly like nicer > venues with better amenities that are easier to get to. > > > 2. IGF should put out a call for hosts country expression of interest > > instead of expecting someone will bid with clearly laid out principles > > and process for selection. > > > > [srs] Fully concur. Something on the lines of an RFP with clearly defined > requirements for the host country, in terms of logistics as well as based on > an evaluation of free speech rights in the country. > > > I strongly agree that conditions and requirements need to be laid down and > there has to be a means to deal in real time and afterwards with > nonconformance, or it's just paper. But depending on the circumstance, > making that work might require more than sotto voce discussions with the > secretariat, e.g. interventions from supportive governments and > stakeholders. Could be dicey, merits thought. > > Either way, I think there is interest among some in the MAG in setting out > such requirements, and it'd help them to sell it to peers if there were good > stakeholder inputs on the point. So it would be useful if the IGC and > others would take a crack at setting something out. > > > 3. When do the MAG improvements actually happen with reference to the > > CSTD IGF improvements and when will they be reflected i.e. in future > > IGFs? > > > [srs] In other words, can we have some metrics on improvements already > suggested and/or future improvements that are actually implemented, and make > the leap from powerpoint / pdf to "ground realities"? > > > The UN process has to work its way through, but in the meanwhile people in > the MAG are definitely expressing interest in getting more proactive. > > > 4. Logistical support interms of visa acquisition to attend open > > consultations or observe MAG meetings remains a challenge for people > > from developing countries and attention to detail is needed from the > > IGF secretariat. People from developed regions do have considerable > > advantage over this issue but do not represent the views and insights > > of developing country issues and inputs to the IGF. > > > > [srs] In the first (Athens) IGF, as I recall, the visa process was very > smooth, even expedited, so that a Schengen visa was issued with far less > paperwork than I have experienced on business or vacation travel to other > Schengen countries. For the rest, please see my response to point 1 above. > A location like Hong Kong, that requires prior visas from I think three > countries in the entire world and extends a free visa on arrival to all > other countries, and moreover has direct flights from most regions of the > world, would be much more suitable than either Athens, Hyderabad or Baku, to > pick a few past venues. > > > The UN can't force changes in national immigration policies but the above > mentioned conditions and requirement could strongly urge the view that > offering to host entails responsibilities etc. > > > 5. The time allocated to Main Session should be significantly reduced > > to half and the majority of Main Sessions should be restricted to one > > day otherwise this is negatively impacting audience division and the > > numbers in Workshop participation. > > > [srs] I wouldn't go that far However it makes sense to identify a > specified time slot for the plenary / main session events every day, and > structure workshops so that they feed into the main sessions. We also need > to structure these main sessions so that not all of them become over-long > panels by themselves, and have a significant number of rapporteur driven > sessions which provide feedback from the workshops to the broader audience. > > > I strongly disagree with cutting the time for main sessions and think we > should instead make them more useful to more people. I hope we can finally > come to agreement that after seven years we don't have to be bound to the > same old tired standardized generic session topics. MS should be able to > vary per year to address truly "hot topics" that are on the tips of tongues > everywhere. I proposed this at the Feb. 2012 meeting in the context of > calling for a MS on human rights, and was immediately shot down by the > "nothing can be changed" Greek chorus. But after the rather uneven > performance of the MS this time, I sensed in the spontaneous partial MAG > meeting at Baku greater openness to tinkering. Why shouldn't we be able to > have a MS on enhanced cooperation and any gaps in the governance ecosystem, > patterns of private sector governance, the role of online campaign > mobilizations like we've seen around WCIT, the contestable boundary lines > between telecom and Internet and their global governance, territoriality and > jurisdiction, and so on—even if the "messages" coming out of the sessions > were "views differed sharply" that would be ok. And why not vary the > formats, e.g. by having some debates on juicy topics (could even do it with > teams and audience show of hands on motions). > > If others agree that innovation in the MS would be desirable, an IGC input > on this too would be a really helpful for CS participants to bring into the > MAG discussion. > > > > 6. Workshop planing detail should continue to receive more attention > > especially interms of quality and issue. The issue around achieving > > gender balance, multistakeholder balance and regional coverage are > > really not working. > > > I tend toward the seemingly unpopular view that while there was much > satisfied feedback on numerous Baku WS, the fact remains there were simply > too many (running 11 tracks of 44 WS parallel to the days MS was nuts) and > some were clearly less solid, well thought out, and properly personed (in > terms of the above criteria, and others). I found it very frustrating that > the MAG went through this whole exercise of ranking WS proposals, which in > the first cut resulted in 2/3rd of applications being below the acceptance > threshold and needing more work, and yet a great many of these ultimately > made their way into the program seemingly irrespective of the extent to > which they were revised and improved in accordance with MAG feedback. If we > want a high quality and right sized program, sometimes we have to have the > courage to say sorry no please try next year. > > We also had the curious phenomenon of people submitting late WS proposals > purporting to be open forums. The OFs are supposed to be a specific thing, > organizational show and tell, not a category to be used by late movers to > smuggle in WS proposals. When the divergence between the OF format and the > proposals was pointed out in MAG, some anyway got approved somehow as "side > sessions," a category for which there are apparently no rules. We should > nip that in the bud. > > Of course, the challenge here is that some attendees need to have their own > event in order to get funding to come and participate, and obviously we > don't want to suppress the numbers. On the other hand, many individuals and > organizations habitually propose a large number of events. At a minimum, > one would think we could adopt a rule that nobody can lead organize more > than say two-three workshops. That ought to be sufficient to deal with any > travel funding needs and visibility urges. > > In parallel, there seems to be some interest in MAG in the idea that no > single person should appear on more than [x] WS and MS panels. There a > cohort of usual suspects who ritualistically speak at 7, 10, 12 events. In > part, this is fueled by the difficulty of identifying "new blood" that has > committed to attend and would be perfect fits, so when someone's organizing > a session and thinks oh I need a person from xyz region or SG the easy > default is to turn to known and easily available folks. So we need to make > a proactive effort to entice new and qualified attendees, particularly from > the government side, and to tell the usual suspects to please accept only > the [3-4] appearances you think most appropriate. Self regulation can play > a role in the latter if the MAG can't manage to establish or enforce a rule. > I know I'll be doing that. > > > The IGF pre-events have to be revisited and should > > receive more attention in terms of planning and projection as these > > are receiving a lot of attention by participants. > > > I think the explosion in pre-events is indicative of the need for more > flexibility in formatting, including the main sessions. If you want to have > a serious in depth discussion of a topic and the MS are all locked down with > ye ole SOP etc, what other option is there? Although even if we reform the > MS format some people will still want to do their own things their own > ways... Maybe we should admit this is a feature not a bug and that the IGF > really runs five days rather than four, and if there are more bottom up > proposals than can be accommodated they should go through the MAG process…? > > > > [srs] Fully agree. > > 7. The visa issue despite being well managed by the host country > > remained one of them most unclear aspects of the IGF and the IGF > > secretariat should give more emphasis on detailing out these issues > > with future host countries in the very beginning. > > > > [srs] This goes back to my point about picking venues with liberal visa > regimes, and/or venues that promise to expedite visas for bonafide > conference delegates. However, from the host country's standpoint, I can > say that there will be a significant threat of misuse of these visas by a > small number of people (for example, I have personally seen, in that network > operators conference, fellowship applications from what are obviously > "advance fee fraud" scam artists looking for a free ticket to the event - if > we grant such a fellowship, once in the country they simply "disappear" and > overstay their visa, then our local hosts face some heat for this). So, > nothing in this process should compromise on due diligence carried out by > the country's visa authorities. > > 8. The venue planning needs to be carefully done as having venues > > outside the cities causes both stress and challenges to accessibility. > > > > [srs] Fully agree, covered above > > > See 2 above > > > 9. An Internet Connectivity Team should be assembled by the IGF > > Secretariat that should work beforehand on the ground to manage > > internet connectivity to cover remote participation, connectivity for > > over 2000 participants keeping in view that this may mean planning and > > connecting 2000 people x 6000 devices (laptops, cell phones, wi-fi > > enable cameras, tables etc). > > > > [srs] It actually makes sense to hire and retain a professional vendor of > conference networking services, such as Verilan, to provide the same (high, > bound by SLA) standard of networking across events. Funding for this will > remain an open question though, with the current model of the IGF. > > 10. The sudden shift of Open Consultations and MAG meetings from > > Geneva to France for February 2013 without open consultation and > > comments from the community puts a severe logistical pressure on > > participation for those that find it a challenge to already > > participate in such meetings. This shift enables only certain > > > [srs] This might have been true earlier, but Switzerland and France are both > Schengen countries. So if you have already acquired a Swiss Schengen visa, > you should certainly be able to use it for your travel to France. > > I do agree that if the venue had been shifted from, say, Washington DC to > Toronto, I would have fully agreed with you, but in this case, it is moot. > > We are having a related debate-lette in the MAG now on May. At present, the > IGF consultation and MAG are scheduled in the same week (13-17 May) as not > on only the WSIS Forum, per usual, but also the ITU's World Telecom Policy > Forum on global Internet governance. I think it would be a disaster if > stakeholders with an interest in IG were precluded from attending the WTPF > by this scheduling. If the WCIT debates have shown anything, it is that > it's really important that ITU member governments not be negotiating > documents (even non-binding opinions, which set agendas and create mandates > for future organizational action) without civil society, business and the > technical community at least being in the room. The WTPF page > http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/participation.aspx says that > participation will be open to the public as observers. It's not clear yet > whether this will be on the same terms and conditions as the 2009 forum in > Lisbon, when members of the public had to submit to a staff beauty context > and demonstrate their qualifications to attend, and if accepted were unable > to speak; this has been asked of ITU but not answered. But either way, we > should be there. If you look at the preparatory docs and national > submissions (all freely accessible on the website) it is clear they will be > getting into many of the most contentious issues of interest to us, so there > will be a need to mobilize and weigh in somehow. > > Accordingly, a few of us have proposed that the IGF meetings be moved to the > week before or after the WTPF, or else to the week before or after the CSTD > (which, next year is inconveniently scheduled for 3-7 June…which not only > means interested parties will have to come to Geneva twice, but conflicts > with the EuroDIG too). The responses on the MAG list have been pretty > scattered, with a couple expressions of support for moving, and others > saying we should keep it as is in the name of travel cost savings—even if > this means IG people can't go to an open ITU event on IG. One may speculate > on the thinking behind the latter. > > Bottom line, here too it would be useful for the IGC to weigh in, quickly, > if in fact people agree that the WTPF is a priority. > > A final point not mentioned so far—the outstanding issue of working groups > and ongoing activities on matters of key concern. From the outset the IGC > has maintained that IGF should be able to convene groups that include good > government representation that are designed to undertake focused > explorations of topics and have their outputs—even if it's some feel this, > others feel that messages—feed into the MS. There's been much discussion of > doing something around Enhanced Cooperation in this manner, although some > forces have argued for focusing on the CSTD instead, which has inherent > limitations with respect to multistakeholderism and governmental > representation. Part of what makes this insoluble is the lack of a clearly > laid out model of how WGs convened under the IGF could function. If the IGC > could put forward a concrete proposal, preferably in coordination with > business and the TC, that would be very helpful too. > > So in short, if IGC and other CS formations give the CS members of the MAG > something to work with that we can point to and say our community strongly > feels xyz, that could be really useful in moving some balls down field. > > Best, > > Bill > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Sun Nov 25 07:22:11 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 13:22:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] 2013 Preparations for MAG In-Reply-To: References: <7A609307-A39A-438D-A0C5-641F22D60373@hserus.net> <587997D2-DDA2-46B1-817A-426246DBE729@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <6CC63218-98F0-40FB-A741-9B1670DE8949@uzh.ch> On Nov 25, 2012, at 1:15 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Clarity, clarity, clarity. This is my input and I did not ask for > justifications or clarifications. Oh, sorry. I'd assumed you were opening a conversation, not issuing a declaration. > > Disappointed…. That people replied to you? Gee, sorry. > > On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 3:35 PM, William Drake wrote: >> Hi >> >> Replies in line, sorry for the length, there's a lot to talk about. >> >> On Nov 25, 2012, at 6:02 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >> Let me add some below, in line with Fouad, tagged [srs] >> >> These are entirely my opinion, from being on the management committee (till >> 2009) and fellowship committee (till now) of an asiapac wide network >> operators conference (APRICOT) for several years. >> >> On 25-Nov-2012, at 9:58, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >> To throw in some starters: >> >> >> 1. Should the IGF continue to hold meetings in countries with >> >> authoritative regimes and repressed political environments? People >> >> from certain neighboring countries were not able to participate while >> >> the fear factor of participating in an IGF where the host country was >> >> authoritarian was high. >> >> >> >> [srs] Should the IGF hold meetings in comparatively remote locations >> compared to major airline hubs with liberal visa regimes and excellent >> conference facilities? The point here is that such locations are more >> expensive to fly to than other locations on the same continent that are >> major airline hubs, with direct flights from more places around the world. >> They may, in most cases, have more suitable conference venues so we'd get >> far less issues with remote participation, wifi based collaboration in the >> venue, acoustics in the auditorium … >> >> >> As long as IGF's linked to the UN system, you get what you get. It's not >> like ICANN's site selection process. If a government stands up and says >> we'd like to host (either out of commitment to the process or to make use of >> a new convention center, fill hotels, tell locals that IGF is a UN seal of >> approval for its policies, etc) it's politically pretty difficult to say no, >> not to mention that hosting costs money that's in short supply and the line >> of suitors doesn't stretch down the block. On a separate note, one could >> debate whether holding meetings in such countries doesn't do some trickle >> down good; I tend to think it's a net plus, but others may calculate >> differently. That said, wherever we go, one would certainly like nicer >> venues with better amenities that are easier to get to. >> >> >> 2. IGF should put out a call for hosts country expression of interest >> >> instead of expecting someone will bid with clearly laid out principles >> >> and process for selection. >> >> >> >> [srs] Fully concur. Something on the lines of an RFP with clearly defined >> requirements for the host country, in terms of logistics as well as based on >> an evaluation of free speech rights in the country. >> >> >> I strongly agree that conditions and requirements need to be laid down and >> there has to be a means to deal in real time and afterwards with >> nonconformance, or it's just paper. But depending on the circumstance, >> making that work might require more than sotto voce discussions with the >> secretariat, e.g. interventions from supportive governments and >> stakeholders. Could be dicey, merits thought. >> >> Either way, I think there is interest among some in the MAG in setting out >> such requirements, and it'd help them to sell it to peers if there were good >> stakeholder inputs on the point. So it would be useful if the IGC and >> others would take a crack at setting something out. >> >> >> 3. When do the MAG improvements actually happen with reference to the >> >> CSTD IGF improvements and when will they be reflected i.e. in future >> >> IGFs? >> >> >> [srs] In other words, can we have some metrics on improvements already >> suggested and/or future improvements that are actually implemented, and make >> the leap from powerpoint / pdf to "ground realities"? >> >> >> The UN process has to work its way through, but in the meanwhile people in >> the MAG are definitely expressing interest in getting more proactive. >> >> >> 4. Logistical support interms of visa acquisition to attend open >> >> consultations or observe MAG meetings remains a challenge for people >> >> from developing countries and attention to detail is needed from the >> >> IGF secretariat. People from developed regions do have considerable >> >> advantage over this issue but do not represent the views and insights >> >> of developing country issues and inputs to the IGF. >> >> >> >> [srs] In the first (Athens) IGF, as I recall, the visa process was very >> smooth, even expedited, so that a Schengen visa was issued with far less >> paperwork than I have experienced on business or vacation travel to other >> Schengen countries. For the rest, please see my response to point 1 above. >> A location like Hong Kong, that requires prior visas from I think three >> countries in the entire world and extends a free visa on arrival to all >> other countries, and moreover has direct flights from most regions of the >> world, would be much more suitable than either Athens, Hyderabad or Baku, to >> pick a few past venues. >> >> >> The UN can't force changes in national immigration policies but the above >> mentioned conditions and requirement could strongly urge the view that >> offering to host entails responsibilities etc. >> >> >> 5. The time allocated to Main Session should be significantly reduced >> >> to half and the majority of Main Sessions should be restricted to one >> >> day otherwise this is negatively impacting audience division and the >> >> numbers in Workshop participation. >> >> >> [srs] I wouldn't go that far However it makes sense to identify a >> specified time slot for the plenary / main session events every day, and >> structure workshops so that they feed into the main sessions. We also need >> to structure these main sessions so that not all of them become over-long >> panels by themselves, and have a significant number of rapporteur driven >> sessions which provide feedback from the workshops to the broader audience. >> >> >> I strongly disagree with cutting the time for main sessions and think we >> should instead make them more useful to more people. I hope we can finally >> come to agreement that after seven years we don't have to be bound to the >> same old tired standardized generic session topics. MS should be able to >> vary per year to address truly "hot topics" that are on the tips of tongues >> everywhere. I proposed this at the Feb. 2012 meeting in the context of >> calling for a MS on human rights, and was immediately shot down by the >> "nothing can be changed" Greek chorus. But after the rather uneven >> performance of the MS this time, I sensed in the spontaneous partial MAG >> meeting at Baku greater openness to tinkering. Why shouldn't we be able to >> have a MS on enhanced cooperation and any gaps in the governance ecosystem, >> patterns of private sector governance, the role of online campaign >> mobilizations like we've seen around WCIT, the contestable boundary lines >> between telecom and Internet and their global governance, territoriality and >> jurisdiction, and so on—even if the "messages" coming out of the sessions >> were "views differed sharply" that would be ok. And why not vary the >> formats, e.g. by having some debates on juicy topics (could even do it with >> teams and audience show of hands on motions). >> >> If others agree that innovation in the MS would be desirable, an IGC input >> on this too would be a really helpful for CS participants to bring into the >> MAG discussion. >> >> >> >> 6. Workshop planing detail should continue to receive more attention >> >> especially interms of quality and issue. The issue around achieving >> >> gender balance, multistakeholder balance and regional coverage are >> >> really not working. >> >> >> I tend toward the seemingly unpopular view that while there was much >> satisfied feedback on numerous Baku WS, the fact remains there were simply >> too many (running 11 tracks of 44 WS parallel to the days MS was nuts) and >> some were clearly less solid, well thought out, and properly personed (in >> terms of the above criteria, and others). I found it very frustrating that >> the MAG went through this whole exercise of ranking WS proposals, which in >> the first cut resulted in 2/3rd of applications being below the acceptance >> threshold and needing more work, and yet a great many of these ultimately >> made their way into the program seemingly irrespective of the extent to >> which they were revised and improved in accordance with MAG feedback. If we >> want a high quality and right sized program, sometimes we have to have the >> courage to say sorry no please try next year. >> >> We also had the curious phenomenon of people submitting late WS proposals >> purporting to be open forums. The OFs are supposed to be a specific thing, >> organizational show and tell, not a category to be used by late movers to >> smuggle in WS proposals. When the divergence between the OF format and the >> proposals was pointed out in MAG, some anyway got approved somehow as "side >> sessions," a category for which there are apparently no rules. We should >> nip that in the bud. >> >> Of course, the challenge here is that some attendees need to have their own >> event in order to get funding to come and participate, and obviously we >> don't want to suppress the numbers. On the other hand, many individuals and >> organizations habitually propose a large number of events. At a minimum, >> one would think we could adopt a rule that nobody can lead organize more >> than say two-three workshops. That ought to be sufficient to deal with any >> travel funding needs and visibility urges. >> >> In parallel, there seems to be some interest in MAG in the idea that no >> single person should appear on more than [x] WS and MS panels. There a >> cohort of usual suspects who ritualistically speak at 7, 10, 12 events. In >> part, this is fueled by the difficulty of identifying "new blood" that has >> committed to attend and would be perfect fits, so when someone's organizing >> a session and thinks oh I need a person from xyz region or SG the easy >> default is to turn to known and easily available folks. So we need to make >> a proactive effort to entice new and qualified attendees, particularly from >> the government side, and to tell the usual suspects to please accept only >> the [3-4] appearances you think most appropriate. Self regulation can play >> a role in the latter if the MAG can't manage to establish or enforce a rule. >> I know I'll be doing that. >> >> >> The IGF pre-events have to be revisited and should >> >> receive more attention in terms of planning and projection as these >> >> are receiving a lot of attention by participants. >> >> >> I think the explosion in pre-events is indicative of the need for more >> flexibility in formatting, including the main sessions. If you want to have >> a serious in depth discussion of a topic and the MS are all locked down with >> ye ole SOP etc, what other option is there? Although even if we reform the >> MS format some people will still want to do their own things their own >> ways... Maybe we should admit this is a feature not a bug and that the IGF >> really runs five days rather than four, and if there are more bottom up >> proposals than can be accommodated they should go through the MAG process…? >> >> >> >> [srs] Fully agree. >> >> 7. The visa issue despite being well managed by the host country >> >> remained one of them most unclear aspects of the IGF and the IGF >> >> secretariat should give more emphasis on detailing out these issues >> >> with future host countries in the very beginning. >> >> >> >> [srs] This goes back to my point about picking venues with liberal visa >> regimes, and/or venues that promise to expedite visas for bonafide >> conference delegates. However, from the host country's standpoint, I can >> say that there will be a significant threat of misuse of these visas by a >> small number of people (for example, I have personally seen, in that network >> operators conference, fellowship applications from what are obviously >> "advance fee fraud" scam artists looking for a free ticket to the event - if >> we grant such a fellowship, once in the country they simply "disappear" and >> overstay their visa, then our local hosts face some heat for this). So, >> nothing in this process should compromise on due diligence carried out by >> the country's visa authorities. >> >> 8. The venue planning needs to be carefully done as having venues >> >> outside the cities causes both stress and challenges to accessibility. >> >> >> >> [srs] Fully agree, covered above >> >> >> See 2 above >> >> >> 9. An Internet Connectivity Team should be assembled by the IGF >> >> Secretariat that should work beforehand on the ground to manage >> >> internet connectivity to cover remote participation, connectivity for >> >> over 2000 participants keeping in view that this may mean planning and >> >> connecting 2000 people x 6000 devices (laptops, cell phones, wi-fi >> >> enable cameras, tables etc). >> >> >> >> [srs] It actually makes sense to hire and retain a professional vendor of >> conference networking services, such as Verilan, to provide the same (high, >> bound by SLA) standard of networking across events. Funding for this will >> remain an open question though, with the current model of the IGF. >> >> 10. The sudden shift of Open Consultations and MAG meetings from >> >> Geneva to France for February 2013 without open consultation and >> >> comments from the community puts a severe logistical pressure on >> >> participation for those that find it a challenge to already >> >> participate in such meetings. This shift enables only certain >> >> >> [srs] This might have been true earlier, but Switzerland and France are both >> Schengen countries. So if you have already acquired a Swiss Schengen visa, >> you should certainly be able to use it for your travel to France. >> >> I do agree that if the venue had been shifted from, say, Washington DC to >> Toronto, I would have fully agreed with you, but in this case, it is moot. >> >> We are having a related debate-lette in the MAG now on May. At present, the >> IGF consultation and MAG are scheduled in the same week (13-17 May) as not >> on only the WSIS Forum, per usual, but also the ITU's World Telecom Policy >> Forum on global Internet governance. I think it would be a disaster if >> stakeholders with an interest in IG were precluded from attending the WTPF >> by this scheduling. If the WCIT debates have shown anything, it is that >> it's really important that ITU member governments not be negotiating >> documents (even non-binding opinions, which set agendas and create mandates >> for future organizational action) without civil society, business and the >> technical community at least being in the room. The WTPF page >> http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/participation.aspx says that >> participation will be open to the public as observers. It's not clear yet >> whether this will be on the same terms and conditions as the 2009 forum in >> Lisbon, when members of the public had to submit to a staff beauty context >> and demonstrate their qualifications to attend, and if accepted were unable >> to speak; this has been asked of ITU but not answered. But either way, we >> should be there. If you look at the preparatory docs and national >> submissions (all freely accessible on the website) it is clear they will be >> getting into many of the most contentious issues of interest to us, so there >> will be a need to mobilize and weigh in somehow. >> >> Accordingly, a few of us have proposed that the IGF meetings be moved to the >> week before or after the WTPF, or else to the week before or after the CSTD >> (which, next year is inconveniently scheduled for 3-7 June…which not only >> means interested parties will have to come to Geneva twice, but conflicts >> with the EuroDIG too). The responses on the MAG list have been pretty >> scattered, with a couple expressions of support for moving, and others >> saying we should keep it as is in the name of travel cost savings—even if >> this means IG people can't go to an open ITU event on IG. One may speculate >> on the thinking behind the latter. >> >> Bottom line, here too it would be useful for the IGC to weigh in, quickly, >> if in fact people agree that the WTPF is a priority. >> >> A final point not mentioned so far—the outstanding issue of working groups >> and ongoing activities on matters of key concern. From the outset the IGC >> has maintained that IGF should be able to convene groups that include good >> government representation that are designed to undertake focused >> explorations of topics and have their outputs—even if it's some feel this, >> others feel that messages—feed into the MS. There's been much discussion of >> doing something around Enhanced Cooperation in this manner, although some >> forces have argued for focusing on the CSTD instead, which has inherent >> limitations with respect to multistakeholderism and governmental >> representation. Part of what makes this insoluble is the lack of a clearly >> laid out model of how WGs convened under the IGF could function. If the IGC >> could put forward a concrete proposal, preferably in coordination with >> business and the TC, that would be very helpful too. >> >> So in short, if IGC and other CS formations give the CS members of the MAG >> something to work with that we can point to and say our community strongly >> feels xyz, that could be really useful in moving some balls down field. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Sun Nov 25 07:36:07 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 13:36:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] 2013 Preparations for MAG In-Reply-To: References: <7A609307-A39A-438D-A0C5-641F22D60373@hserus.net> <587997D2-DDA2-46B1-817A-426246DBE729@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Apropos of visas, would it be easier to get one for Germany or Belgium ? Louis - - - On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > [..] > On the Visa issue, getting the Swiss visa is hard and the French visa is > the worst. The French will keep your passport for months. Swiss will > immediately reject it and unless the IGF secretariat intervenes, no visa. > This happens for every stakeholder irrespective of govt or civil society in > Pakistan. The Swiss had refused visa even for the May consultations and > every time I had applied in the past 3 years.It was only when the Swiss > Mission to the UN intervened on the request of the IGF Secretariat was the > visa made available. The French continue to refuse visas when one tries to > participate in UNESCO activities. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 25 07:38:10 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 18:08:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] 2013 Preparations for MAG In-Reply-To: <587997D2-DDA2-46B1-817A-426246DBE729@uzh.ch> References: <7A609307-A39A-438D-A0C5-641F22D60373@hserus.net> <587997D2-DDA2-46B1-817A-426246DBE729@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <2F29BC88-2C82-4620-A38B-3F68352DA363@hserus.net> Well, lots of meat here. More inline, I will trim my and fouad's comments to focus on yours. On 25-Nov-2012, at 16:05, William Drake wrote: > As long as IGF's linked to the UN system, you get what you get. It's not like ICANN's site selection process. If a government stands up and says we'd like to host (either out of commitment to the process or to make use of a new convention center, fill hotels, tell locals that Even other conferences are not immune to this. It is just that if a conference manual with detailed requirements is put in place (substantially adopt one from inet, apricot, etc) and expressions of interest are accepted say two years in advance, there is a much better chance of success. And more time for the host country to prepare (though keep milestones in place and track them to avoid last minute rushes of activity because someone forgot something) Bali should be an excellent venue from what I have seen before, and Indonesia has a tourist friendly visa regime > I strongly agree that conditions and requirements need to be laid down and there has to be a means to deal in real time and afterwards with nonconformance, or it's just paper. But depending on the circumstance, making that work might require more than sotto voce discussions with the secretariat, e.g. interventions from supportive governments and stakeholders. Could be dicey, merits thought. Surely .. This involves a standing committee with representatives across stakeholder groups for meeting planning and logistics. On similar lines to the program committee that gets to vet workshop and side meeting proposals > The UN can't force changes in national immigration policies but the above mentioned conditions and requirement could strongly urge the view that offering to host entails responsibilities etc. Simply met by a line in the RFP document that says something on the order of "the host economy shall facilitate a smooth process for issue of visas to conference participants, and set up a help desk to supply the necessary visa paperwork and assist delegates with any individual visa issues, in accordance with their national immigration policy" > I strongly disagree with cutting the time for main sessions and think we should instead make them more useful to more people. I hope we can finally come to agreement that after seven years we don't have to be bound to the same old tired standardized generic session topics. MS My suggestion is not to cut down on the main session time, or to restrict what can or cannot be in a main session. It is to ensure that main sessions are held in a well defined time slot throughout the event, with no other session conflicting with them. And to have a clearly defined "parent" main session for each "cluster" of workshops. > "views differed sharply" that would be ok. And why not vary the formats, e.g. by having some debates on juicy topics (could even do it with teams and audience show of hands on motions). Agree. > I tend toward the seemingly unpopular view that while there was much satisfied feedback on numerous Baku WS, the fact remains there were simply too many (running 11 tracks of 44 WS parallel to the days MS was nuts) and some were clearly less solid, well thought out, and A program committee should certainly exert control and discipline over the content of an event. This does not mean capping the number of times someone can speak in a panel .. But a cap on the number or panels and workshops an individual organization can host is a definite option. As for side sessions take them entirely off the agenda. These by their very nature can get by with being publicised by the individual organizations .. And can take place a day before or after the IGF, at the event proposers own cost, > properly personed (in terms of the above criteria, and others). I found it very frustrating that the MAG went through this whole exercise of ranking WS proposals, which in the first cut resulted in 2/3rd of applications being below the acceptance threshold and needing more work, and yet a The program committee in that case has failed in their mandate. Such thresholds are useless if they are not adhered to. > We also had the curious phenomenon of people submitting late WS proposals purporting to be open forums. The OFs are supposed to be a specific thing, organizational show and tell, not a category to be used by late movers to smuggle in WS proposals. When the divergence Program committee slip up again. Such side meetings with apparently no rules .. Take them off the agenda and let the organisers work it out its the conference venue. Or alternatively have a slot every day for so called "lightning talks" .. Impromptu events set during lunch and coffee breaks (long and leisurely ones as it is the IGF) You could deal with late proposals by queuing them up for the next IGF and considering them alongside the proposals received for that. Of course the workshop proposers may edit their proposal to make it more topical for the next IGF, if the intervening months produce some drastic change in the situation that their workshop discusses. > Of course, the challenge here is that some attendees need to have their own event in order to get funding to come and participate, and obviously we don't want to suppress the numbers. On the other hand, many individuals and organizations habitually propose a large number of Two or three per organization works fine. The fact that some individuals only get funding if they are keynotes or workshop chairs ,, well, several of them can certainly also get the funding to host a side meeting at their organizations cost. > appear on more than [x] WS and MS panels. There a cohort of usual suspects who ritualistically speak at 7, 10, 12 events. In part, this is fueled by the difficulty of identifying "new blood" that has committed to attend and would be perfect fits, so when someone's organizing a See, this is chicken and egg. Several stakeholders do invest more time and effort to cultivate expertise and engage with other peer stakeholders and they might be more frequent speakers than the others. There is also the "token speaker" who has the same stock presentation that he or she uses for a dozen panels. We all know the type .. You should certainly get new blood. However restructuring the conference and capping the number of events a single organization can be the lead on will definitely self limit the number of token speakers. > I think the explosion in pre-events is indicative of the need for more flexibility in formatting, including the main sessions. If you want to have a serious in depth discussion of a topic and the Sure. However there will definitely be pre meetings for a variety of reasons. A good idea would be to have rapporteurs from these join the workshop rapporteurs in the main session. More days for the IGF means more costs for the local host and for the mag, participants etc. > We are having a related debate-lette in the MAG now on May. At present, the IGF consultation and MAG are scheduled in the same week (13-17 May) as not on only the WSIS Forum, per usual, but also the ITU's World Telecom Policy Forum on global Internet governance. I think it So how many of the people at IGF will also attend the whole wtpf? Or have colleagues (or in the case of civil society individual experts, have friends) who can attend on their behalf? There is always a plethora of other related meetings, and a conference calendar is a great aid for the logistics committee to determine dates. However once you get a date that conflicts with a minimum of other events, do stick to it. > A final point not mentioned so far—the outstanding issue of working groups and ongoing activities on matters of key concern. From the outset the IGC has maintained that IGF should be able to convene groups that include good government representation that are designed to These should b truly multistakeholder and civil society should definitely expand its horizons to include industry and the technical community. The problem is that a lot of civil society organixations appear to have an us versus them sort of attitude when it comes to looking for colleagues outside civil society .. and this militates against your goal above. --srs (iPad) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 25 07:45:49 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 18:15:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] 2013 Preparations for MAG In-Reply-To: References: <7A609307-A39A-438D-A0C5-641F22D60373@hserus.net> <587997D2-DDA2-46B1-817A-426246DBE729@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <8D708C11-4C9C-4AB8-B33F-0BD376A504F1@hserus.net> That is quite strange. At least in India, while all the Schengen states ask for a amount of personal data (such as photocopies of bank account statements and tax returns) that is truly scary for me to even think about how their data retention and disposal works, so that I just shut my brain down and comply .. But they do return your passport with an issued visa or an accompanying letter of rejection within a stipulated timeframe (like a week). There may be, say, extra national security or other considerations related to vetting of visa applications from some countries, that might cause unforeseen delays. However as bill pointed out, IGF can't bypass a country's existing visa policies. It can only work with the local host to facilitate your application as far as is consistent with a national visa policy. --srs (iPad) On 25-Nov-2012, at 17:45, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Clarity, clarity, clarity. This is my input and I did not ask for > justifications or clarifications. > > On the Visa issue, getting the Swiss visa is hard and the French visa > is the worst. The French will keep your passport for months. Swiss > will immediately reject it and unless the IGF secretariat intervenes, > no visa. This happens for every stakeholder irrespective of govt or > civil society in Pakistan. The Swiss had refused visa even for the May > consultations and every time I had applied in the past 3 years.It was > only when the Swiss Mission to the UN intervened on the request of the > IGF Secretariat was the visa made available. The French continue to > refuse visas when one tries to participate in UNESCO activities. > > We can continue to have as many focused and detailed discussions we > want to and claim we do it on the behalf of developing country > participation but the challenges remain. Seeing us smiling doesn't > mean all is well. > > Best > > Disappointed.... > > On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 3:35 PM, William Drake wrote: >> Hi >> >> Replies in line, sorry for the length, there's a lot to talk about. >> >> On Nov 25, 2012, at 6:02 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >> Let me add some below, in line with Fouad, tagged [srs] >> >> These are entirely my opinion, from being on the management committee (till >> 2009) and fellowship committee (till now) of an asiapac wide network >> operators conference (APRICOT) for several years. >> >> On 25-Nov-2012, at 9:58, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >> To throw in some starters: >> >> >> 1. Should the IGF continue to hold meetings in countries with >> >> authoritative regimes and repressed political environments? People >> >> from certain neighboring countries were not able to participate while >> >> the fear factor of participating in an IGF where the host country was >> >> authoritarian was high. >> >> >> >> [srs] Should the IGF hold meetings in comparatively remote locations >> compared to major airline hubs with liberal visa regimes and excellent >> conference facilities? The point here is that such locations are more >> expensive to fly to than other locations on the same continent that are >> major airline hubs, with direct flights from more places around the world. >> They may, in most cases, have more suitable conference venues so we'd get >> far less issues with remote participation, wifi based collaboration in the >> venue, acoustics in the auditorium … >> >> >> As long as IGF's linked to the UN system, you get what you get. It's not >> like ICANN's site selection process. If a government stands up and says >> we'd like to host (either out of commitment to the process or to make use of >> a new convention center, fill hotels, tell locals that IGF is a UN seal of >> approval for its policies, etc) it's politically pretty difficult to say no, >> not to mention that hosting costs money that's in short supply and the line >> of suitors doesn't stretch down the block. On a separate note, one could >> debate whether holding meetings in such countries doesn't do some trickle >> down good; I tend to think it's a net plus, but others may calculate >> differently. That said, wherever we go, one would certainly like nicer >> venues with better amenities that are easier to get to. >> >> >> 2. IGF should put out a call for hosts country expression of interest >> >> instead of expecting someone will bid with clearly laid out principles >> >> and process for selection. >> >> >> >> [srs] Fully concur. Something on the lines of an RFP with clearly defined >> requirements for the host country, in terms of logistics as well as based on >> an evaluation of free speech rights in the country. >> >> >> I strongly agree that conditions and requirements need to be laid down and >> there has to be a means to deal in real time and afterwards with >> nonconformance, or it's just paper. But depending on the circumstance, >> making that work might require more than sotto voce discussions with the >> secretariat, e.g. interventions from supportive governments and >> stakeholders. Could be dicey, merits thought. >> >> Either way, I think there is interest among some in the MAG in setting out >> such requirements, and it'd help them to sell it to peers if there were good >> stakeholder inputs on the point. So it would be useful if the IGC and >> others would take a crack at setting something out. >> >> >> 3. When do the MAG improvements actually happen with reference to the >> >> CSTD IGF improvements and when will they be reflected i.e. in future >> >> IGFs? >> >> >> [srs] In other words, can we have some metrics on improvements already >> suggested and/or future improvements that are actually implemented, and make >> the leap from powerpoint / pdf to "ground realities"? >> >> >> The UN process has to work its way through, but in the meanwhile people in >> the MAG are definitely expressing interest in getting more proactive. >> >> >> 4. Logistical support interms of visa acquisition to attend open >> >> consultations or observe MAG meetings remains a challenge for people >> >> from developing countries and attention to detail is needed from the >> >> IGF secretariat. People from developed regions do have considerable >> >> advantage over this issue but do not represent the views and insights >> >> of developing country issues and inputs to the IGF. >> >> >> >> [srs] In the first (Athens) IGF, as I recall, the visa process was very >> smooth, even expedited, so that a Schengen visa was issued with far less >> paperwork than I have experienced on business or vacation travel to other >> Schengen countries. For the rest, please see my response to point 1 above. >> A location like Hong Kong, that requires prior visas from I think three >> countries in the entire world and extends a free visa on arrival to all >> other countries, and moreover has direct flights from most regions of the >> world, would be much more suitable than either Athens, Hyderabad or Baku, to >> pick a few past venues. >> >> >> The UN can't force changes in national immigration policies but the above >> mentioned conditions and requirement could strongly urge the view that >> offering to host entails responsibilities etc. >> >> >> 5. The time allocated to Main Session should be significantly reduced >> >> to half and the majority of Main Sessions should be restricted to one >> >> day otherwise this is negatively impacting audience division and the >> >> numbers in Workshop participation. >> >> >> [srs] I wouldn't go that far However it makes sense to identify a >> specified time slot for the plenary / main session events every day, and >> structure workshops so that they feed into the main sessions. We also need >> to structure these main sessions so that not all of them become over-long >> panels by themselves, and have a significant number of rapporteur driven >> sessions which provide feedback from the workshops to the broader audience. >> >> >> I strongly disagree with cutting the time for main sessions and think we >> should instead make them more useful to more people. I hope we can finally >> come to agreement that after seven years we don't have to be bound to the >> same old tired standardized generic session topics. MS should be able to >> vary per year to address truly "hot topics" that are on the tips of tongues >> everywhere. I proposed this at the Feb. 2012 meeting in the context of >> calling for a MS on human rights, and was immediately shot down by the >> "nothing can be changed" Greek chorus. But after the rather uneven >> performance of the MS this time, I sensed in the spontaneous partial MAG >> meeting at Baku greater openness to tinkering. Why shouldn't we be able to >> have a MS on enhanced cooperation and any gaps in the governance ecosystem, >> patterns of private sector governance, the role of online campaign >> mobilizations like we've seen around WCIT, the contestable boundary lines >> between telecom and Internet and their global governance, territoriality and >> jurisdiction, and so on—even if the "messages" coming out of the sessions >> were "views differed sharply" that would be ok. And why not vary the >> formats, e.g. by having some debates on juicy topics (could even do it with >> teams and audience show of hands on motions). >> >> If others agree that innovation in the MS would be desirable, an IGC input >> on this too would be a really helpful for CS participants to bring into the >> MAG discussion. >> >> >> >> 6. Workshop planing detail should continue to receive more attention >> >> especially interms of quality and issue. The issue around achieving >> >> gender balance, multistakeholder balance and regional coverage are >> >> really not working. >> >> >> I tend toward the seemingly unpopular view that while there was much >> satisfied feedback on numerous Baku WS, the fact remains there were simply >> too many (running 11 tracks of 44 WS parallel to the days MS was nuts) and >> some were clearly less solid, well thought out, and properly personed (in >> terms of the above criteria, and others). I found it very frustrating that >> the MAG went through this whole exercise of ranking WS proposals, which in >> the first cut resulted in 2/3rd of applications being below the acceptance >> threshold and needing more work, and yet a great many of these ultimately >> made their way into the program seemingly irrespective of the extent to >> which they were revised and improved in accordance with MAG feedback. If we >> want a high quality and right sized program, sometimes we have to have the >> courage to say sorry no please try next year. >> >> We also had the curious phenomenon of people submitting late WS proposals >> purporting to be open forums. The OFs are supposed to be a specific thing, >> organizational show and tell, not a category to be used by late movers to >> smuggle in WS proposals. When the divergence between the OF format and the >> proposals was pointed out in MAG, some anyway got approved somehow as "side >> sessions," a category for which there are apparently no rules. We should >> nip that in the bud. >> >> Of course, the challenge here is that some attendees need to have their own >> event in order to get funding to come and participate, and obviously we >> don't want to suppress the numbers. On the other hand, many individuals and >> organizations habitually propose a large number of events. At a minimum, >> one would think we could adopt a rule that nobody can lead organize more >> than say two-three workshops. That ought to be sufficient to deal with any >> travel funding needs and visibility urges. >> >> In parallel, there seems to be some interest in MAG in the idea that no >> single person should appear on more than [x] WS and MS panels. There a >> cohort of usual suspects who ritualistically speak at 7, 10, 12 events. In >> part, this is fueled by the difficulty of identifying "new blood" that has >> committed to attend and would be perfect fits, so when someone's organizing >> a session and thinks oh I need a person from xyz region or SG the easy >> default is to turn to known and easily available folks. So we need to make >> a proactive effort to entice new and qualified attendees, particularly from >> the government side, and to tell the usual suspects to please accept only >> the [3-4] appearances you think most appropriate. Self regulation can play >> a role in the latter if the MAG can't manage to establish or enforce a rule. >> I know I'll be doing that. >> >> >> The IGF pre-events have to be revisited and should >> >> receive more attention in terms of planning and projection as these >> >> are receiving a lot of attention by participants. >> >> >> I think the explosion in pre-events is indicative of the need for more >> flexibility in formatting, including the main sessions. If you want to have >> a serious in depth discussion of a topic and the MS are all locked down with >> ye ole SOP etc, what other option is there? Although even if we reform the >> MS format some people will still want to do their own things their own >> ways... Maybe we should admit this is a feature not a bug and that the IGF >> really runs five days rather than four, and if there are more bottom up >> proposals than can be accommodated they should go through the MAG process…? >> >> >> >> [srs] Fully agree. >> >> 7. The visa issue despite being well managed by the host country >> >> remained one of them most unclear aspects of the IGF and the IGF >> >> secretariat should give more emphasis on detailing out these issues >> >> with future host countries in the very beginning. >> >> >> >> [srs] This goes back to my point about picking venues with liberal visa >> regimes, and/or venues that promise to expedite visas for bonafide >> conference delegates. However, from the host country's standpoint, I can >> say that there will be a significant threat of misuse of these visas by a >> small number of people (for example, I have personally seen, in that network >> operators conference, fellowship applications from what are obviously >> "advance fee fraud" scam artists looking for a free ticket to the event - if >> we grant such a fellowship, once in the country they simply "disappear" and >> overstay their visa, then our local hosts face some heat for this). So, >> nothing in this process should compromise on due diligence carried out by >> the country's visa authorities. >> >> 8. The venue planning needs to be carefully done as having venues >> >> outside the cities causes both stress and challenges to accessibility. >> >> >> >> [srs] Fully agree, covered above >> >> >> See 2 above >> >> >> 9. An Internet Connectivity Team should be assembled by the IGF >> >> Secretariat that should work beforehand on the ground to manage >> >> internet connectivity to cover remote participation, connectivity for >> >> over 2000 participants keeping in view that this may mean planning and >> >> connecting 2000 people x 6000 devices (laptops, cell phones, wi-fi >> >> enable cameras, tables etc). >> >> >> >> [srs] It actually makes sense to hire and retain a professional vendor of >> conference networking services, such as Verilan, to provide the same (high, >> bound by SLA) standard of networking across events. Funding for this will >> remain an open question though, with the current model of the IGF. >> >> 10. The sudden shift of Open Consultations and MAG meetings from >> >> Geneva to France for February 2013 without open consultation and >> >> comments from the community puts a severe logistical pressure on >> >> participation for those that find it a challenge to already >> >> participate in such meetings. This shift enables only certain >> >> >> [srs] This might have been true earlier, but Switzerland and France are both >> Schengen countries. So if you have already acquired a Swiss Schengen visa, >> you should certainly be able to use it for your travel to France. >> >> I do agree that if the venue had been shifted from, say, Washington DC to >> Toronto, I would have fully agreed with you, but in this case, it is moot. >> >> We are having a related debate-lette in the MAG now on May. At present, the >> IGF consultation and MAG are scheduled in the same week (13-17 May) as not >> on only the WSIS Forum, per usual, but also the ITU's World Telecom Policy >> Forum on global Internet governance. I think it would be a disaster if >> stakeholders with an interest in IG were precluded from attending the WTPF >> by this scheduling. If the WCIT debates have shown anything, it is that >> it's really important that ITU member governments not be negotiating >> documents (even non-binding opinions, which set agendas and create mandates >> for future organizational action) without civil society, business and the >> technical community at least being in the room. The WTPF page >> http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/participation.aspx says that >> participation will be open to the public as observers. It's not clear yet >> whether this will be on the same terms and conditions as the 2009 forum in >> Lisbon, when members of the public had to submit to a staff beauty context >> and demonstrate their qualifications to attend, and if accepted were unable >> to speak; this has been asked of ITU but not answered. But either way, we >> should be there. If you look at the preparatory docs and national >> submissions (all freely accessible on the website) it is clear they will be >> getting into many of the most contentious issues of interest to us, so there >> will be a need to mobilize and weigh in somehow. >> >> Accordingly, a few of us have proposed that the IGF meetings be moved to the >> week before or after the WTPF, or else to the week before or after the CSTD >> (which, next year is inconveniently scheduled for 3-7 June…which not only >> means interested parties will have to come to Geneva twice, but conflicts >> with the EuroDIG too). The responses on the MAG list have been pretty >> scattered, with a couple expressions of support for moving, and others >> saying we should keep it as is in the name of travel cost savings—even if >> this means IG people can't go to an open ITU event on IG. One may speculate >> on the thinking behind the latter. >> >> Bottom line, here too it would be useful for the IGC to weigh in, quickly, >> if in fact people agree that the WTPF is a priority. >> >> A final point not mentioned so far—the outstanding issue of working groups >> and ongoing activities on matters of key concern. From the outset the IGC >> has maintained that IGF should be able to convene groups that include good >> government representation that are designed to undertake focused >> explorations of topics and have their outputs—even if it's some feel this, >> others feel that messages—feed into the MS. There's been much discussion of >> doing something around Enhanced Cooperation in this manner, although some >> forces have argued for focusing on the CSTD instead, which has inherent >> limitations with respect to multistakeholderism and governmental >> representation. Part of what makes this insoluble is the lack of a clearly >> laid out model of how WGs convened under the IGF could function. If the IGC >> could put forward a concrete proposal, preferably in coordination with >> business and the TC, that would be very helpful too. >> >> So in short, if IGC and other CS formations give the CS members of the MAG >> something to work with that we can point to and say our community strongly >> feels xyz, that could be really useful in moving some balls down field. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 07:47:52 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:47:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: > Pure government-like press releases, but there is a strong message between > the lines (such as Google not being a member and their 125 or so > attendances). > Just to be clear, it's the US delegation which has 125 members, it's not Google sending 125 people. The message between the lines about Google NOT being an ITU member is that even if they were a ITU member, they could not vote as a Member State. In other words, the ITU would like Google to pay it ~50,000 per year, but not give them a real say in the proceedings. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 07:49:15 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:49:15 +0500 Subject: [governance] 2013 Preparations for MAG In-Reply-To: <6CC63218-98F0-40FB-A741-9B1670DE8949@uzh.ch> References: <7A609307-A39A-438D-A0C5-641F22D60373@hserus.net> <587997D2-DDA2-46B1-817A-426246DBE729@uzh.ch> <6CC63218-98F0-40FB-A741-9B1670DE8949@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Now these are discussions: Jeremy, I hold a different point of view. IF we want to carry on with the main sessions in the current format, they have to be innovated and innovated beyond the traditional notion of a main session. Having a bunch of people on the stage for three hours and talking in all directions inevitable is not a great achievement. The MAG fears session innovation, how is it going to implement any improvement thereof but I think otherwise that the MAG does have the potential to improve and innovate the main sessions. There is no binding to reducing the time Main Sessions. The MAG has done that in the past even when I was on it. Yes, the previous lost MAG was weak and handicapped because New York never gave clarity whether it was approved to be a valid MAG until the last moment, very political, you know all the chaotic management happening from 2010 to 2011 and thank goodness it has found its way after Feb 2012. On the note of the Main Session time duration. The time can be well reduced as was evident during the IG4D Main Session in Kenya where all other Main Sessions were following the 3 hour format and the IG4D Main Session had both a good audience and a series of meaningful contributions. Every time I passed by the Main Sessions this time, the very low numbers of audience present appeared disinterested, sleepy, bored and most of the time questions came from the usual faces. Don't believe me, lets revisit the transcripts. The Main Sessions should be completed in the first and second days, full stop. Leave the rest of the two days to well-attended and meaningful workshop participation. Btw, its time to open up to new Main Session Topics such as Human Rights, Internet Principles etc have to be brought in and I don't expect the present MAG to continue to fail like we did. How will you bring change if you don't even put your foot in the doorway? There has to be some organized. There is nothing wrong in organizing IGFs in developed countries. I heard a rumor that the Qatari's were interested for bidding on IGF'2014 and their Director General of Telecom was seen taking notes and having discussions with Arabian participants but still its a rumor! Imagine if an IGF was to be organized in Qatar (home of Al-Jazeera). The country is investing heavily in ICT and Internet infrastructure. It has a well established international Airline Link with the world, can issue visas on arrival and has the infrastructure to manage an IGF right next to the Airport and City! The region can still benefit from IGFs, ICANN Meetings, Internet Freedom Meetings etc. It is important that the interest host countries have a good participation in the IGFs. Egypt and Brazil are good examples of well attending countries during IGFs. The visa issue remains a challenge and this is where the MAG should request the IGF Secretariat to invite the Swiss Mission to IGF open consultations and observe MAG meetings so that issues related to developing country participation in the preparatory process can be well managed. Best Fouad On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 5:22 PM, William Drake wrote: > On Nov 25, 2012, at 1:15 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> Clarity, clarity, clarity. This is my input and I did not ask for >> justifications or clarifications. > > Oh, sorry. I'd assumed you were opening a conversation, not issuing a declaration. >> >> Disappointed…. > > That people replied to you? Gee, sorry. >> >> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 3:35 PM, William Drake wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> Replies in line, sorry for the length, there's a lot to talk about. >>> >>> On Nov 25, 2012, at 6:02 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> >>> Let me add some below, in line with Fouad, tagged [srs] >>> >>> These are entirely my opinion, from being on the management committee (till >>> 2009) and fellowship committee (till now) of an asiapac wide network >>> operators conference (APRICOT) for several years. >>> >>> On 25-Nov-2012, at 9:58, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>> >>> To throw in some starters: >>> >>> >>> 1. Should the IGF continue to hold meetings in countries with >>> >>> authoritative regimes and repressed political environments? People >>> >>> from certain neighboring countries were not able to participate while >>> >>> the fear factor of participating in an IGF where the host country was >>> >>> authoritarian was high. >>> >>> >>> >>> [srs] Should the IGF hold meetings in comparatively remote locations >>> compared to major airline hubs with liberal visa regimes and excellent >>> conference facilities? The point here is that such locations are more >>> expensive to fly to than other locations on the same continent that are >>> major airline hubs, with direct flights from more places around the world. >>> They may, in most cases, have more suitable conference venues so we'd get >>> far less issues with remote participation, wifi based collaboration in the >>> venue, acoustics in the auditorium … >>> >>> >>> As long as IGF's linked to the UN system, you get what you get. It's not >>> like ICANN's site selection process. If a government stands up and says >>> we'd like to host (either out of commitment to the process or to make use of >>> a new convention center, fill hotels, tell locals that IGF is a UN seal of >>> approval for its policies, etc) it's politically pretty difficult to say no, >>> not to mention that hosting costs money that's in short supply and the line >>> of suitors doesn't stretch down the block. On a separate note, one could >>> debate whether holding meetings in such countries doesn't do some trickle >>> down good; I tend to think it's a net plus, but others may calculate >>> differently. That said, wherever we go, one would certainly like nicer >>> venues with better amenities that are easier to get to. >>> >>> >>> 2. IGF should put out a call for hosts country expression of interest >>> >>> instead of expecting someone will bid with clearly laid out principles >>> >>> and process for selection. >>> >>> >>> >>> [srs] Fully concur. Something on the lines of an RFP with clearly defined >>> requirements for the host country, in terms of logistics as well as based on >>> an evaluation of free speech rights in the country. >>> >>> >>> I strongly agree that conditions and requirements need to be laid down and >>> there has to be a means to deal in real time and afterwards with >>> nonconformance, or it's just paper. But depending on the circumstance, >>> making that work might require more than sotto voce discussions with the >>> secretariat, e.g. interventions from supportive governments and >>> stakeholders. Could be dicey, merits thought. >>> >>> Either way, I think there is interest among some in the MAG in setting out >>> such requirements, and it'd help them to sell it to peers if there were good >>> stakeholder inputs on the point. So it would be useful if the IGC and >>> others would take a crack at setting something out. >>> >>> >>> 3. When do the MAG improvements actually happen with reference to the >>> >>> CSTD IGF improvements and when will they be reflected i.e. in future >>> >>> IGFs? >>> >>> >>> [srs] In other words, can we have some metrics on improvements already >>> suggested and/or future improvements that are actually implemented, and make >>> the leap from powerpoint / pdf to "ground realities"? >>> >>> >>> The UN process has to work its way through, but in the meanwhile people in >>> the MAG are definitely expressing interest in getting more proactive. >>> >>> >>> 4. Logistical support interms of visa acquisition to attend open >>> >>> consultations or observe MAG meetings remains a challenge for people >>> >>> from developing countries and attention to detail is needed from the >>> >>> IGF secretariat. People from developed regions do have considerable >>> >>> advantage over this issue but do not represent the views and insights >>> >>> of developing country issues and inputs to the IGF. >>> >>> >>> >>> [srs] In the first (Athens) IGF, as I recall, the visa process was very >>> smooth, even expedited, so that a Schengen visa was issued with far less >>> paperwork than I have experienced on business or vacation travel to other >>> Schengen countries. For the rest, please see my response to point 1 above. >>> A location like Hong Kong, that requires prior visas from I think three >>> countries in the entire world and extends a free visa on arrival to all >>> other countries, and moreover has direct flights from most regions of the >>> world, would be much more suitable than either Athens, Hyderabad or Baku, to >>> pick a few past venues. >>> >>> >>> The UN can't force changes in national immigration policies but the above >>> mentioned conditions and requirement could strongly urge the view that >>> offering to host entails responsibilities etc. >>> >>> >>> 5. The time allocated to Main Session should be significantly reduced >>> >>> to half and the majority of Main Sessions should be restricted to one >>> >>> day otherwise this is negatively impacting audience division and the >>> >>> numbers in Workshop participation. >>> >>> >>> [srs] I wouldn't go that far However it makes sense to identify a >>> specified time slot for the plenary / main session events every day, and >>> structure workshops so that they feed into the main sessions. We also need >>> to structure these main sessions so that not all of them become over-long >>> panels by themselves, and have a significant number of rapporteur driven >>> sessions which provide feedback from the workshops to the broader audience. >>> >>> >>> I strongly disagree with cutting the time for main sessions and think we >>> should instead make them more useful to more people. I hope we can finally >>> come to agreement that after seven years we don't have to be bound to the >>> same old tired standardized generic session topics. MS should be able to >>> vary per year to address truly "hot topics" that are on the tips of tongues >>> everywhere. I proposed this at the Feb. 2012 meeting in the context of >>> calling for a MS on human rights, and was immediately shot down by the >>> "nothing can be changed" Greek chorus. But after the rather uneven >>> performance of the MS this time, I sensed in the spontaneous partial MAG >>> meeting at Baku greater openness to tinkering. Why shouldn't we be able to >>> have a MS on enhanced cooperation and any gaps in the governance ecosystem, >>> patterns of private sector governance, the role of online campaign >>> mobilizations like we've seen around WCIT, the contestable boundary lines >>> between telecom and Internet and their global governance, territoriality and >>> jurisdiction, and so on—even if the "messages" coming out of the sessions >>> were "views differed sharply" that would be ok. And why not vary the >>> formats, e.g. by having some debates on juicy topics (could even do it with >>> teams and audience show of hands on motions). >>> >>> If others agree that innovation in the MS would be desirable, an IGC input >>> on this too would be a really helpful for CS participants to bring into the >>> MAG discussion. >>> >>> >>> >>> 6. Workshop planing detail should continue to receive more attention >>> >>> especially interms of quality and issue. The issue around achieving >>> >>> gender balance, multistakeholder balance and regional coverage are >>> >>> really not working. >>> >>> >>> I tend toward the seemingly unpopular view that while there was much >>> satisfied feedback on numerous Baku WS, the fact remains there were simply >>> too many (running 11 tracks of 44 WS parallel to the days MS was nuts) and >>> some were clearly less solid, well thought out, and properly personed (in >>> terms of the above criteria, and others). I found it very frustrating that >>> the MAG went through this whole exercise of ranking WS proposals, which in >>> the first cut resulted in 2/3rd of applications being below the acceptance >>> threshold and needing more work, and yet a great many of these ultimately >>> made their way into the program seemingly irrespective of the extent to >>> which they were revised and improved in accordance with MAG feedback. If we >>> want a high quality and right sized program, sometimes we have to have the >>> courage to say sorry no please try next year. >>> >>> We also had the curious phenomenon of people submitting late WS proposals >>> purporting to be open forums. The OFs are supposed to be a specific thing, >>> organizational show and tell, not a category to be used by late movers to >>> smuggle in WS proposals. When the divergence between the OF format and the >>> proposals was pointed out in MAG, some anyway got approved somehow as "side >>> sessions," a category for which there are apparently no rules. We should >>> nip that in the bud. >>> >>> Of course, the challenge here is that some attendees need to have their own >>> event in order to get funding to come and participate, and obviously we >>> don't want to suppress the numbers. On the other hand, many individuals and >>> organizations habitually propose a large number of events. At a minimum, >>> one would think we could adopt a rule that nobody can lead organize more >>> than say two-three workshops. That ought to be sufficient to deal with any >>> travel funding needs and visibility urges. >>> >>> In parallel, there seems to be some interest in MAG in the idea that no >>> single person should appear on more than [x] WS and MS panels. There a >>> cohort of usual suspects who ritualistically speak at 7, 10, 12 events. In >>> part, this is fueled by the difficulty of identifying "new blood" that has >>> committed to attend and would be perfect fits, so when someone's organizing >>> a session and thinks oh I need a person from xyz region or SG the easy >>> default is to turn to known and easily available folks. So we need to make >>> a proactive effort to entice new and qualified attendees, particularly from >>> the government side, and to tell the usual suspects to please accept only >>> the [3-4] appearances you think most appropriate. Self regulation can play >>> a role in the latter if the MAG can't manage to establish or enforce a rule. >>> I know I'll be doing that. >>> >>> >>> The IGF pre-events have to be revisited and should >>> >>> receive more attention in terms of planning and projection as these >>> >>> are receiving a lot of attention by participants. >>> >>> >>> I think the explosion in pre-events is indicative of the need for more >>> flexibility in formatting, including the main sessions. If you want to have >>> a serious in depth discussion of a topic and the MS are all locked down with >>> ye ole SOP etc, what other option is there? Although even if we reform the >>> MS format some people will still want to do their own things their own >>> ways... Maybe we should admit this is a feature not a bug and that the IGF >>> really runs five days rather than four, and if there are more bottom up >>> proposals than can be accommodated they should go through the MAG process…? >>> >>> >>> >>> [srs] Fully agree. >>> >>> 7. The visa issue despite being well managed by the host country >>> >>> remained one of them most unclear aspects of the IGF and the IGF >>> >>> secretariat should give more emphasis on detailing out these issues >>> >>> with future host countries in the very beginning. >>> >>> >>> >>> [srs] This goes back to my point about picking venues with liberal visa >>> regimes, and/or venues that promise to expedite visas for bonafide >>> conference delegates. However, from the host country's standpoint, I can >>> say that there will be a significant threat of misuse of these visas by a >>> small number of people (for example, I have personally seen, in that network >>> operators conference, fellowship applications from what are obviously >>> "advance fee fraud" scam artists looking for a free ticket to the event - if >>> we grant such a fellowship, once in the country they simply "disappear" and >>> overstay their visa, then our local hosts face some heat for this). So, >>> nothing in this process should compromise on due diligence carried out by >>> the country's visa authorities. >>> >>> 8. The venue planning needs to be carefully done as having venues >>> >>> outside the cities causes both stress and challenges to accessibility. >>> >>> >>> >>> [srs] Fully agree, covered above >>> >>> >>> See 2 above >>> >>> >>> 9. An Internet Connectivity Team should be assembled by the IGF >>> >>> Secretariat that should work beforehand on the ground to manage >>> >>> internet connectivity to cover remote participation, connectivity for >>> >>> over 2000 participants keeping in view that this may mean planning and >>> >>> connecting 2000 people x 6000 devices (laptops, cell phones, wi-fi >>> >>> enable cameras, tables etc). >>> >>> >>> >>> [srs] It actually makes sense to hire and retain a professional vendor of >>> conference networking services, such as Verilan, to provide the same (high, >>> bound by SLA) standard of networking across events. Funding for this will >>> remain an open question though, with the current model of the IGF. >>> >>> 10. The sudden shift of Open Consultations and MAG meetings from >>> >>> Geneva to France for February 2013 without open consultation and >>> >>> comments from the community puts a severe logistical pressure on >>> >>> participation for those that find it a challenge to already >>> >>> participate in such meetings. This shift enables only certain >>> >>> >>> [srs] This might have been true earlier, but Switzerland and France are both >>> Schengen countries. So if you have already acquired a Swiss Schengen visa, >>> you should certainly be able to use it for your travel to France. >>> >>> I do agree that if the venue had been shifted from, say, Washington DC to >>> Toronto, I would have fully agreed with you, but in this case, it is moot. >>> >>> We are having a related debate-lette in the MAG now on May. At present, the >>> IGF consultation and MAG are scheduled in the same week (13-17 May) as not >>> on only the WSIS Forum, per usual, but also the ITU's World Telecom Policy >>> Forum on global Internet governance. I think it would be a disaster if >>> stakeholders with an interest in IG were precluded from attending the WTPF >>> by this scheduling. If the WCIT debates have shown anything, it is that >>> it's really important that ITU member governments not be negotiating >>> documents (even non-binding opinions, which set agendas and create mandates >>> for future organizational action) without civil society, business and the >>> technical community at least being in the room. The WTPF page >>> http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/participation.aspx says that >>> participation will be open to the public as observers. It's not clear yet >>> whether this will be on the same terms and conditions as the 2009 forum in >>> Lisbon, when members of the public had to submit to a staff beauty context >>> and demonstrate their qualifications to attend, and if accepted were unable >>> to speak; this has been asked of ITU but not answered. But either way, we >>> should be there. If you look at the preparatory docs and national >>> submissions (all freely accessible on the website) it is clear they will be >>> getting into many of the most contentious issues of interest to us, so there >>> will be a need to mobilize and weigh in somehow. >>> >>> Accordingly, a few of us have proposed that the IGF meetings be moved to the >>> week before or after the WTPF, or else to the week before or after the CSTD >>> (which, next year is inconveniently scheduled for 3-7 June…which not only >>> means interested parties will have to come to Geneva twice, but conflicts >>> with the EuroDIG too). The responses on the MAG list have been pretty >>> scattered, with a couple expressions of support for moving, and others >>> saying we should keep it as is in the name of travel cost savings—even if >>> this means IG people can't go to an open ITU event on IG. One may speculate >>> on the thinking behind the latter. >>> >>> Bottom line, here too it would be useful for the IGC to weigh in, quickly, >>> if in fact people agree that the WTPF is a priority. >>> >>> A final point not mentioned so far—the outstanding issue of working groups >>> and ongoing activities on matters of key concern. From the outset the IGC >>> has maintained that IGF should be able to convene groups that include good >>> government representation that are designed to undertake focused >>> explorations of topics and have their outputs—even if it's some feel this, >>> others feel that messages—feed into the MS. There's been much discussion of >>> doing something around Enhanced Cooperation in this manner, although some >>> forces have argued for focusing on the CSTD instead, which has inherent >>> limitations with respect to multistakeholderism and governmental >>> representation. Part of what makes this insoluble is the lack of a clearly >>> laid out model of how WGs convened under the IGF could function. If the IGC >>> could put forward a concrete proposal, preferably in coordination with >>> business and the TC, that would be very helpful too. >>> >>> So in short, if IGC and other CS formations give the CS members of the MAG >>> something to work with that we can point to and say our community strongly >>> feels xyz, that could be really useful in moving some balls down field. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Bill >>> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 25 07:50:19 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 18:20:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] 2013 Preparations for MAG In-Reply-To: References: <7A609307-A39A-438D-A0C5-641F22D60373@hserus.net> <587997D2-DDA2-46B1-817A-426246DBE729@uzh.ch> Message-ID: I have found the French rather easier to get Schengen visas from in India, than the Germans, who require a German Schengen or other visa within the past few years to exempt you from a mandatory personal visa interview and biometrics collection rather than just submitting your visa paperwork at a local collection centre and then having your passport mailed back to you. Local visa policies for each country vary in minor (process related) details at the discretion of their local embassy or consulate, even given the same general visa regulations that they have to follow. --srs (iPad) On 25-Nov-2012, at 18:06, "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > Apropos of visas, would it be easier to get one for Germany or Belgium ? > > Louis > - - - > > On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> [..] >> On the Visa issue, getting the Swiss visa is hard and the French visa is the worst. The French will keep your passport for months. Swiss will immediately reject it and unless the IGF secretariat intervenes, no visa. This happens for every stakeholder irrespective of govt or civil society in Pakistan. The Swiss had refused visa even for the May consultations and every time I had applied in the past 3 years.It was only when the Swiss Mission to the UN intervened on the request of the IGF Secretariat was the visa made available. The French continue to refuse visas when one tries to participate in UNESCO activities. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 25 07:54:57 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 18:24:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <69AA34E9-F1F2-4EB3-A788-DBAF04D6E3E9@hserus.net> There's more. Becoming a sector member gives google some obligations that can be imposed on it by ITU. I can see why they might prefer to criticise ITU from the outside, in preference to becoming a sector member and paying the membership fee, which you will agree is relatively pocket change to google. --srs (iPad) On 25-Nov-2012, at 18:17, McTim wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: >> Pure government-like press releases, but there is a strong message between the lines (such as Google not being a member and their 125 or so attendances). >> > > > Just to be clear, it's the US delegation which has 125 members, it's not Google sending 125 people. > > The message between the lines about Google NOT being an ITU member is that even if they were a ITU member, they could not vote as a Member State. In other words, the ITU would like Google to pay it ~50,000 per year, but not give them a real say in the proceedings. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 08:13:25 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 08:13:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy In-Reply-To: References: <20121123191624.456b1d9c@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Fahd, On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: > Bribes, perks, free travel, free consultancies... you name it. > Suresh is correct, none of these are a by-product of peering arrangements in my experience. Some come about from buying transit though. -- 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 08:16:15 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 08:16:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: <69AA34E9-F1F2-4EB3-A788-DBAF04D6E3E9@hserus.net> References: <69AA34E9-F1F2-4EB3-A788-DBAF04D6E3E9@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > There's more. Becoming a sector member gives google some obligations that > can be imposed on it by ITU. I can see why they might prefer to criticise > ITU from the outside, in preference to becoming a sector member and paying > the membership fee, which you will agree is relatively pocket change to > google. > Agreed, that is about 45 seconds of revenue for them! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sun Nov 25 08:37:26 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 13:37:26 +0000 Subject: [governance] 2013 Preparations for MAG In-Reply-To: <2F29BC88-2C82-4620-A38B-3F68352DA363@hserus.net> References: <7A609307-A39A-438D-A0C5-641F22D60373@hserus.net> <587997D2-DDA2-46B1-817A-426246DBE729@uzh.ch> <2F29BC88-2C82-4620-A38B-3F68352DA363@hserus.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22849FF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> I find the discussions of main sessions to be interesting. I think we all realize that there is something missing with the way main sessions are done. We have 2000 people in a site who together constitute a big chunk of the most informed, most interested stakeholders from all over the world, and we really don't know what to do with them. but as yet I have not heard any useful suggestions for how to improve them. I was on the panel for the main session on CIR. I think it was as well-organized and substantive as it could possibly be, given that there were 9 panelists dealing with 3 very distinct issues (new TLDs, IP address markets, and WCIT). However, as good as that session was substantively, it was in effect little more than an extended, very large panel session from a conference. In other words, it discussed the issues, sometimes in interesting ways; in some ways, the discussion was more general and less deep on most issues simply because the audience is large and nonspecialized in the topic. Also, every main session I have seen has completely failed to build upon or do anything substantive with the so-called feeder workshops. Is it possible to make the content of plenaries/main sessions somehow reflect and build upon what has gone on before? You are not going to improve main sessions by fiddling with the time they take. Cutting the time, extending the time, etc. Those kinds of changes will change nothing. We need to ask main sessions to be doing different things, and re-design them around that. They key step that no one wants to take, and/or that no one knows how to make work, is to make the main sessions deliberative sessions which come up with "recommendations" or "resolutions." That would make them more like a formal voting body and of course I understand why significant numbers of people don't want to do that. But if main sessions don't do that, or something like it, what is the point of a plenary session? I have no brilliant resolutions of this puzzle to offer here. Maybe one of the main sessions could be devoted to a formal debate on one of the most pressing, substantive issues we face in internet governance, where one speaker or a team of 2 or 3 take on side and another team take the opposing view. Just a thought. Anyway, until something serious changes in the design of main sessions, they will continue to be mostly cavernously empty experiences in which most people vote with their feet for a workshop. > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 7:38 AM > To: William Drake > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Fouad Bajwa; Salanieta T. > Tamanikaiwaimaro > Subject: Re: [governance] 2013 Preparations for MAG > > Well, lots of meat here. More inline, I will trim my and fouad's > comments to focus on yours. > > On 25-Nov-2012, at 16:05, William Drake wrote: > > > As long as IGF's linked to the UN system, you get what you get. It's > not like ICANN's site selection process. If a government stands up and > says we'd like to host (either out of commitment to the process or to > make use of a new convention center, fill hotels, tell locals that > > Even other conferences are not immune to this. It is just that if a > conference manual with detailed requirements is put in place > (substantially adopt one from inet, apricot, etc) and expressions of > interest are accepted say two years in advance, there is a much better > chance of success. And more time for the host country to prepare > (though keep milestones in place and track them to avoid last minute > rushes of activity because someone forgot something) > > Bali should be an excellent venue from what I have seen before, and > Indonesia has a tourist friendly visa regime > > > I strongly agree that conditions and requirements need to be laid down > and there has to be a means to deal in real time and afterwards with > nonconformance, or it's just paper. But depending on the circumstance, > making that work might require more than sotto voce discussions with the > secretariat, e.g. interventions from supportive governments and > stakeholders. Could be dicey, merits thought. > > Surely .. This involves a standing committee with representatives across > stakeholder groups for meeting planning and logistics. On similar lines > to the program committee that gets to vet workshop and side meeting > proposals > > > The UN can't force changes in national immigration policies but the > above mentioned conditions and requirement could strongly urge the view > that offering to host entails responsibilities etc. > > Simply met by a line in the RFP document that says something on the > order of "the host economy shall facilitate a smooth process for issue > of visas to conference participants, and set up a help desk to supply > the necessary visa paperwork and assist delegates with any individual > visa issues, in accordance with their national immigration policy" > > > I strongly disagree with cutting the time for main sessions and think > we should instead make them more useful to more people. I hope we can > finally come to agreement that after seven years we don't have to be > bound to the same old tired standardized generic session topics. MS > > My suggestion is not to cut down on the main session time, or to > restrict what can or cannot be in a main session. It is to ensure that > main sessions are held in a well defined time slot throughout the event, > with no other session conflicting with them. And to have a clearly > defined "parent" main session for each "cluster" of workshops. > > > "views differed sharply" that would be ok. And why not vary the > formats, e.g. by having some debates on juicy topics (could even do it > with teams and audience show of hands on motions). > > Agree. > > > I tend toward the seemingly unpopular view that while there was much > satisfied feedback on numerous Baku WS, the fact remains there were > simply too many (running 11 tracks of 44 WS parallel to the days MS was > nuts) and some were clearly less solid, well thought out, and > > A program committee should certainly exert control and discipline over > the content of an event. > > This does not mean capping the number of times someone can speak in a > panel .. But a cap on the number or panels and workshops an individual > organization can host is a definite option. As for side sessions take > them entirely off the agenda. These by their very nature can get by > with being publicised by the individual organizations .. And can take > place a day before or after the IGF, at the event proposers own cost, > > > properly personed (in terms of the above criteria, and others). I > found it very frustrating that the MAG went through this whole exercise > of ranking WS proposals, which in the first cut resulted in 2/3rd of > applications being below the acceptance threshold and needing more work, > and yet a > > The program committee in that case has failed in their mandate. Such > thresholds are useless if they are not adhered to. > > > We also had the curious phenomenon of people submitting late WS > proposals purporting to be open forums. The OFs are supposed to be a > specific thing, organizational show and tell, not a category to be used > by late movers to smuggle in WS proposals. When the divergence > > Program committee slip up again. Such side meetings with apparently no > rules .. Take them off the agenda and let the organisers work it out its > the conference venue. Or alternatively have a slot every day for so > called "lightning talks" .. Impromptu events set during lunch and coffee > breaks (long and leisurely ones as it is the IGF) > > You could deal with late proposals by queuing them up for the next IGF > and considering them alongside the proposals received for that. Of > course the workshop proposers may edit their proposal to make it more > topical for the next IGF, if the intervening months produce some drastic > change in the situation that their workshop discusses. > > > Of course, the challenge here is that some attendees need to have > their own event in order to get funding to come and participate, and > obviously we don't want to suppress the numbers. On the other hand, > many individuals and organizations habitually propose a large number of > > Two or three per organization works fine. The fact that some > individuals only get funding if they are keynotes or workshop chairs ,, > well, several of them can certainly also get the funding to host a side > meeting at their organizations cost. > > > appear on more than [x] WS and MS panels. There a cohort of usual > suspects who ritualistically speak at 7, 10, 12 events. In part, this is > fueled by the difficulty of identifying "new blood" that has committed > to attend and would be perfect fits, so when someone's organizing a > > See, this is chicken and egg. Several stakeholders do invest more time > and effort to cultivate expertise and engage with other peer > stakeholders and they might be more frequent speakers than the others. > > There is also the "token speaker" who has the same stock presentation > that he or she uses for a dozen panels. We all know the type .. > > You should certainly get new blood. However restructuring the > conference and capping the number of events a single organization can be > the lead on will definitely self limit the number of token speakers. > > > I think the explosion in pre-events is indicative of the need for more > flexibility in formatting, including the main sessions. If you want to > have a serious in depth discussion of a topic and the > > Sure. However there will definitely be pre meetings for a variety of > reasons. A good idea would be to have rapporteurs from these join the > workshop rapporteurs in the main session. > > More days for the IGF means more costs for the local host and for the > mag, participants etc. > > > We are having a related debate-lette in the MAG now on May. At > present, the IGF consultation and MAG are scheduled in the same week > (13-17 May) as not on only the WSIS Forum, per usual, but also the ITU's > World Telecom Policy Forum on global Internet governance. I think it > > So how many of the people at IGF will also attend the whole wtpf? Or > have colleagues (or in the case of civil society individual experts, > have friends) who can attend on their behalf? > > There is always a plethora of other related meetings, and a conference > calendar is a great aid for the logistics committee to determine dates. > However once you get a date that conflicts with a minimum of other > events, do stick to it. > > > A final point not mentioned so far—the outstanding issue of working > groups and ongoing activities on matters of key concern. From the > outset the IGC has maintained that IGF should be able to convene groups > that include good government representation that are designed to > > These should b truly multistakeholder and civil society should > definitely expand its horizons to include industry and the technical > community. The problem is that a lot of civil society organixations > appear to have an us versus them sort of attitude when it comes to > looking for colleagues outside civil society .. and this militates > against your goal above. > > --srs (iPad) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 25 08:41:27 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 18:41:27 +0500 Subject: [governance] 2013 Preparations for MAG In-Reply-To: References: <7A609307-A39A-438D-A0C5-641F22D60373@hserus.net> <587997D2-DDA2-46B1-817A-426246DBE729@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Though this is not the core of the discussion but still visa remains a challenge though I haven't mentioned the funding handicap because in order to get the visa, the insurance costs, the ticket costs etc are contributors to distress. India and Pakistan are at different levels of HDI and the treatment of embassies vary due to the state of security and other foreign affairs. In Pakistan the Embassies just look at every citizen as a runaway candidate. IT would not take into consideration that I have been travelling for most part of my life and still return to Pakistan eachtime without violation of durations or extensions. It treats me in the same basket. The French Embassy in Pakistan deals with visa issues much harder than the US and British embassies. It engulfed my passport for more than 3 months without any notifications etc in 2009 and diplomatic help had to be sought from elsewhere in Islamabad to get my poor passport back. The final remark was that they had forgotten about it? Who takes a passport and forgets about it? And they also made me send them two dummy faxes stating that how much I needed my passport back......??????? At the moment, if I ask the Swiss to allow me to attend a meeting in France without staying in Switzerland is like asking India to issue me a visa without any reason. You have to apply to a Schengen region country's embassy where your stay will be the longest. In this case it would be France and we are back at point number one, no visa for you Mr. Bajwa! Anyways, that is insignificant because most of the usual faces and suspects (including myself but no visa this time) at IGF open consultations and MAG meetings can easily move about and wouldn't be a priority for them to address but heck, we can continue to ask like all the other things we ask for like improving the Main Sessions, managing workshops better, finding better venues that are accessible, improvements to the MAG, hire an Executive Coordinator and Elect a Chair of the MAG and still have less developing country representation, you know, those kind of things..... Best Fouad On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I have found the French rather easier to get Schengen visas from in India, > than the Germans, who require a German Schengen or other visa within the > past few years to exempt you from a mandatory personal visa interview and > biometrics collection rather than just submitting your visa paperwork at a > local collection centre and then having your passport mailed back to you. > > Local visa policies for each country vary in minor (process related) details > at the discretion of their local embassy or consulate, even given the same > general visa regulations that they have to follow. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 25-Nov-2012, at 18:06, "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > > Apropos of visas, would it be easier to get one for Germany or Belgium ? > > Louis > - - - > > On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >> [..] >> On the Visa issue, getting the Swiss visa is hard and the French visa is >> the worst. The French will keep your passport for months. Swiss will >> immediately reject it and unless the IGF secretariat intervenes, no visa. >> This happens for every stakeholder irrespective of govt or civil society in >> Pakistan. The Swiss had refused visa even for the May consultations and >> every time I had applied in the past 3 years.It was only when the Swiss >> Mission to the UN intervened on the request of the IGF Secretariat was the >> visa made available. The French continue to refuse visas when one tries to >> participate in UNESCO activities. > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 25 08:50:09 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 19:20:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] 2013 Preparations for MAG In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22849FF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <7A609307-A39A-438D-A0C5-641F22D60373@hserus.net> <587997D2-DDA2-46B1-817A-426246DBE729@uzh.ch> <2F29BC88-2C82-4620-A38B-3F68352DA363@hserus.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22849FF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I 100% agree with Milton especially on workshops feeding back content to the main sessions --srs (iPad) On 25-Nov-2012, at 19:07, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I find the discussions of main sessions to be interesting. > I think we all realize that there is something missing with the way main sessions are done. We have 2000 people in a site who together constitute a big chunk of the most informed, most interested stakeholders from all over the world, and we really don't know what to do with them. but as yet I have not heard any useful suggestions for how to improve them. > > I was on the panel for the main session on CIR. I think it was as well-organized and substantive as it could possibly be, given that there were 9 panelists dealing with 3 very distinct issues (new TLDs, IP address markets, and WCIT). However, as good as that session was substantively, it was in effect little more than an extended, very large panel session from a conference. In other words, it discussed the issues, sometimes in interesting ways; in some ways, the discussion was more general and less deep on most issues simply because the audience is large and nonspecialized in the topic. > > Also, every main session I have seen has completely failed to build upon or do anything substantive with the so-called feeder workshops. Is it possible to make the content of plenaries/main sessions somehow reflect and build upon what has gone on before? > > You are not going to improve main sessions by fiddling with the time they take. Cutting the time, extending the time, etc. Those kinds of changes will change nothing. We need to ask main sessions to be doing different things, and re-design them around that. > > They key step that no one wants to take, and/or that no one knows how to make work, is to make the main sessions deliberative sessions which come up with "recommendations" or "resolutions." That would make them more like a formal voting body and of course I understand why significant numbers of people don't want to do that. But if main sessions don't do that, or something like it, what is the point of a plenary session? I have no brilliant resolutions of this puzzle to offer here. > > Maybe one of the main sessions could be devoted to a formal debate on one of the most pressing, substantive issues we face in internet governance, where one speaker or a team of 2 or 3 take on side and another team take the opposing view. Just a thought. Anyway, until something serious changes in the design of main sessions, they will continue to be mostly cavernously empty experiences in which most people vote with their feet for a workshop. > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- >> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian >> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 7:38 AM >> To: William Drake >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Fouad Bajwa; Salanieta T. >> Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Subject: Re: [governance] 2013 Preparations for MAG >> >> Well, lots of meat here. More inline, I will trim my and fouad's >> comments to focus on yours. >> >> On 25-Nov-2012, at 16:05, William Drake wrote: >> >>> As long as IGF's linked to the UN system, you get what you get. It's >> not like ICANN's site selection process. If a government stands up and >> says we'd like to host (either out of commitment to the process or to >> make use of a new convention center, fill hotels, tell locals that >> >> Even other conferences are not immune to this. It is just that if a >> conference manual with detailed requirements is put in place >> (substantially adopt one from inet, apricot, etc) and expressions of >> interest are accepted say two years in advance, there is a much better >> chance of success. And more time for the host country to prepare >> (though keep milestones in place and track them to avoid last minute >> rushes of activity because someone forgot something) >> >> Bali should be an excellent venue from what I have seen before, and >> Indonesia has a tourist friendly visa regime >> >>> I strongly agree that conditions and requirements need to be laid down >> and there has to be a means to deal in real time and afterwards with >> nonconformance, or it's just paper. But depending on the circumstance, >> making that work might require more than sotto voce discussions with the >> secretariat, e.g. interventions from supportive governments and >> stakeholders. Could be dicey, merits thought. >> >> Surely .. This involves a standing committee with representatives across >> stakeholder groups for meeting planning and logistics. On similar lines >> to the program committee that gets to vet workshop and side meeting >> proposals >> >>> The UN can't force changes in national immigration policies but the >> above mentioned conditions and requirement could strongly urge the view >> that offering to host entails responsibilities etc. >> >> Simply met by a line in the RFP document that says something on the >> order of "the host economy shall facilitate a smooth process for issue >> of visas to conference participants, and set up a help desk to supply >> the necessary visa paperwork and assist delegates with any individual >> visa issues, in accordance with their national immigration policy" >> >>> I strongly disagree with cutting the time for main sessions and think >> we should instead make them more useful to more people. I hope we can >> finally come to agreement that after seven years we don't have to be >> bound to the same old tired standardized generic session topics. MS >> >> My suggestion is not to cut down on the main session time, or to >> restrict what can or cannot be in a main session. It is to ensure that >> main sessions are held in a well defined time slot throughout the event, >> with no other session conflicting with them. And to have a clearly >> defined "parent" main session for each "cluster" of workshops. >> >>> "views differed sharply" that would be ok. And why not vary the >> formats, e.g. by having some debates on juicy topics (could even do it >> with teams and audience show of hands on motions). >> >> Agree. >> >>> I tend toward the seemingly unpopular view that while there was much >> satisfied feedback on numerous Baku WS, the fact remains there were >> simply too many (running 11 tracks of 44 WS parallel to the days MS was >> nuts) and some were clearly less solid, well thought out, and >> >> A program committee should certainly exert control and discipline over >> the content of an event. >> >> This does not mean capping the number of times someone can speak in a >> panel .. But a cap on the number or panels and workshops an individual >> organization can host is a definite option. As for side sessions take >> them entirely off the agenda. These by their very nature can get by >> with being publicised by the individual organizations .. And can take >> place a day before or after the IGF, at the event proposers own cost, >> >>> properly personed (in terms of the above criteria, and others). I >> found it very frustrating that the MAG went through this whole exercise >> of ranking WS proposals, which in the first cut resulted in 2/3rd of >> applications being below the acceptance threshold and needing more work, >> and yet a >> >> The program committee in that case has failed in their mandate. Such >> thresholds are useless if they are not adhered to. >> >>> We also had the curious phenomenon of people submitting late WS >> proposals purporting to be open forums. The OFs are supposed to be a >> specific thing, organizational show and tell, not a category to be used >> by late movers to smuggle in WS proposals. When the divergence >> >> Program committee slip up again. Such side meetings with apparently no >> rules .. Take them off the agenda and let the organisers work it out its >> the conference venue. Or alternatively have a slot every day for so >> called "lightning talks" .. Impromptu events set during lunch and coffee >> breaks (long and leisurely ones as it is the IGF) >> >> You could deal with late proposals by queuing them up for the next IGF >> and considering them alongside the proposals received for that. Of >> course the workshop proposers may edit their proposal to make it more >> topical for the next IGF, if the intervening months produce some drastic >> change in the situation that their workshop discusses. >> >>> Of course, the challenge here is that some attendees need to have >> their own event in order to get funding to come and participate, and >> obviously we don't want to suppress the numbers. On the other hand, >> many individuals and organizations habitually propose a large number of >> >> Two or three per organization works fine. The fact that some >> individuals only get funding if they are keynotes or workshop chairs ,, >> well, several of them can certainly also get the funding to host a side >> meeting at their organizations cost. >> >>> appear on more than [x] WS and MS panels. There a cohort of usual >> suspects who ritualistically speak at 7, 10, 12 events. In part, this is >> fueled by the difficulty of identifying "new blood" that has committed >> to attend and would be perfect fits, so when someone's organizing a >> >> See, this is chicken and egg. Several stakeholders do invest more time >> and effort to cultivate expertise and engage with other peer >> stakeholders and they might be more frequent speakers than the others. >> >> There is also the "token speaker" who has the same stock presentation >> that he or she uses for a dozen panels. We all know the type .. >> >> You should certainly get new blood. However restructuring the >> conference and capping the number of events a single organization can be >> the lead on will definitely self limit the number of token speakers. >> >>> I think the explosion in pre-events is indicative of the need for more >> flexibility in formatting, including the main sessions. If you want to >> have a serious in depth discussion of a topic and the >> >> Sure. However there will definitely be pre meetings for a variety of >> reasons. A good idea would be to have rapporteurs from these join the >> workshop rapporteurs in the main session. >> >> More days for the IGF means more costs for the local host and for the >> mag, participants etc. >> >>> We are having a related debate-lette in the MAG now on May. At >> present, the IGF consultation and MAG are scheduled in the same week >> (13-17 May) as not on only the WSIS Forum, per usual, but also the ITU's >> World Telecom Policy Forum on global Internet governance. I think it >> >> So how many of the people at IGF will also attend the whole wtpf? Or >> have colleagues (or in the case of civil society individual experts, >> have friends) who can attend on their behalf? >> >> There is always a plethora of other related meetings, and a conference >> calendar is a great aid for the logistics committee to determine dates. >> However once you get a date that conflicts with a minimum of other >> events, do stick to it. >> >>> A final point not mentioned so far—the outstanding issue of working >> groups and ongoing activities on matters of key concern. From the >> outset the IGC has maintained that IGF should be able to convene groups >> that include good government representation that are designed to >> >> These should b truly multistakeholder and civil society should >> definitely expand its horizons to include industry and the technical >> community. The problem is that a lot of civil society organixations >> appear to have an us versus them sort of attitude when it comes to >> looking for colleagues outside civil society .. and this militates >> against your goal above. >> >> --srs (iPad) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 08:51:24 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 18:51:24 +0500 Subject: [governance] 2013 Preparations for MAG In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22849FF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <7A609307-A39A-438D-A0C5-641F22D60373@hserus.net> <587997D2-DDA2-46B1-817A-426246DBE729@uzh.ch> <2F29BC88-2C82-4620-A38B-3F68352DA363@hserus.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22849FF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton the challenge lies in the attributes of the Main Session and thats where the issue of timing and relevance comes in. The MAG does not like to do extra ordinary work and that is including the broader stakeholdership from the open consultations to help design meaningful main sessions. You may have a slight idea what a MAG member volunteering to coordinate a main session goes through. First they receive little or no support from the MAG to include members from outside the MAG. So somehow the MAG considers itself the ultimate expert of all issues. This is an insane understanding that clearly reflects in the Main Sessions and their contents. The meaningfulness or issues of depth you raise are bogged down by the politics within the MAG and its stakeholders. You mention CIR, one of the most opposed issues of the past and todays pleasant baby appears to be in the list of good shows but still has no start or end to it and what it intends to achieve is as unclear as all other main sessions except for taking stock and regional IGF feedbacks. It is only when you challenge the time issue that the MAG will reconsider what are the problems surrounding the relevance and meaningful depth of the Main Session topics. I was myself disappointed when the IG4D main session was reduced to 1.5 hours but then was somewhat unsatisfactorily satisfied to see development mainstreaming attempts the IGF in Kenya in connection to IG4D. If I were to deal with the IGF, the first Main Session would be setting the scene and leave that half day and the rest of the next two days to contribute to the last day Main Sessions through workshops. I would end workshops on the last day so that everyone could attend short, focused and meaningful main sessions all day. Best Fouad On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > was on the panel for the main session on CIR. I think it was as well-organized and substantive as it could possibly be, given that there were 9 panelists dealing with 3 very distinct issues (new TLDs, IP address markets, and WCIT). However, as good as that session was substantively, it was in effect little more than an extended, very large panel session from a conference. In other words, it discussed the issues, sometimes in interesting ways; in some ways, the discussion was more general and less -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 25 08:57:37 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 18:57:37 +0500 Subject: [governance] 2013 Preparations for MAG In-Reply-To: References: <7A609307-A39A-438D-A0C5-641F22D60373@hserus.net> <587997D2-DDA2-46B1-817A-426246DBE729@uzh.ch> <2F29BC88-2C82-4620-A38B-3F68352DA363@hserus.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22849FF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton's challenge is one of the most significant of all times that come from across the world but the iGF sits idle and ignorant to those, that, is to make the main sessions deliberative sessions which come up with "recommendations" or "resolutions." These are one of those issues that make the ITRs very dangerous, that encourage things like SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, CIRP etc to emerge because there is no space in the world to discuss or challenge these. The MAG would go lost the moment issues such as "recommendations" or "resolutions" pop up. Thats the twist that has been attempted to be countered by calling some of these intentions as mutually acceptable Internet Principles that can be agreed to in principle but not necessarily need abiding to. The issue of "recommendations" or "resolutions" is gonna shoot these discussions in to all directions I believe. Best Fouad On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I 100% agree with Milton especially on workshops feeding back content to the main sessions > > --srs (iPad) > > On 25-Nov-2012, at 19:07, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> I find the discussions of main sessions to be interesting. >> I think we all realize that there is something missing with the way main sessions are done. We have 2000 people in a site who together constitute a big chunk of the most informed, most interested stakeholders from all over the world, and we really don't know what to do with them. but as yet I have not heard any useful suggestions for how to improve them. >> >> I was on the panel for the main session on CIR. I think it was as well-organized and substantive as it could possibly be, given that there were 9 panelists dealing with 3 very distinct issues (new TLDs, IP address markets, and WCIT). However, as good as that session was substantively, it was in effect little more than an extended, very large panel session from a conference. In other words, it discussed the issues, sometimes in interesting ways; in some ways, the discussion was more general and less deep on most issues simply because the audience is large and nonspecialized in the topic. >> >> Also, every main session I have seen has completely failed to build upon or do anything substantive with the so-called feeder workshops. Is it possible to make the content of plenaries/main sessions somehow reflect and build upon what has gone on before? >> >> You are not going to improve main sessions by fiddling with the time they take. Cutting the time, extending the time, etc. Those kinds of changes will change nothing. We need to ask main sessions to be doing different things, and re-design them around that. >> >> They key step that no one wants to take, and/or that no one knows how to make work, is to make the main sessions deliberative sessions which come up with "recommendations" or "resolutions." That would make them more like a formal voting body and of course I understand why significant numbers of people don't want to do that. But if main sessions don't do that, or something like it, what is the point of a plenary session? I have no brilliant resolutions of this puzzle to offer here. >> >> Maybe one of the main sessions could be devoted to a formal debate on one of the most pressing, substantive issues we face in internet governance, where one speaker or a team of 2 or 3 take on side and another team take the opposing view. Just a thought. Anyway, until something serious changes in the design of main sessions, they will continue to be mostly cavernously empty experiences in which most people vote with their feet for a workshop. >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- >>> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian >>> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 7:38 AM >>> To: William Drake >>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Fouad Bajwa; Salanieta T. >>> Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Subject: Re: [governance] 2013 Preparations for MAG >>> >>> Well, lots of meat here. More inline, I will trim my and fouad's >>> comments to focus on yours. >>> >>> On 25-Nov-2012, at 16:05, William Drake wrote: >>> >>>> As long as IGF's linked to the UN system, you get what you get. It's >>> not like ICANN's site selection process. If a government stands up and >>> says we'd like to host (either out of commitment to the process or to >>> make use of a new convention center, fill hotels, tell locals that >>> >>> Even other conferences are not immune to this. It is just that if a >>> conference manual with detailed requirements is put in place >>> (substantially adopt one from inet, apricot, etc) and expressions of >>> interest are accepted say two years in advance, there is a much better >>> chance of success. And more time for the host country to prepare >>> (though keep milestones in place and track them to avoid last minute >>> rushes of activity because someone forgot something) >>> >>> Bali should be an excellent venue from what I have seen before, and >>> Indonesia has a tourist friendly visa regime >>> >>>> I strongly agree that conditions and requirements need to be laid down >>> and there has to be a means to deal in real time and afterwards with >>> nonconformance, or it's just paper. But depending on the circumstance, >>> making that work might require more than sotto voce discussions with the >>> secretariat, e.g. interventions from supportive governments and >>> stakeholders. Could be dicey, merits thought. >>> >>> Surely .. This involves a standing committee with representatives across >>> stakeholder groups for meeting planning and logistics. On similar lines >>> to the program committee that gets to vet workshop and side meeting >>> proposals >>> >>>> The UN can't force changes in national immigration policies but the >>> above mentioned conditions and requirement could strongly urge the view >>> that offering to host entails responsibilities etc. >>> >>> Simply met by a line in the RFP document that says something on the >>> order of "the host economy shall facilitate a smooth process for issue >>> of visas to conference participants, and set up a help desk to supply >>> the necessary visa paperwork and assist delegates with any individual >>> visa issues, in accordance with their national immigration policy" >>> >>>> I strongly disagree with cutting the time for main sessions and think >>> we should instead make them more useful to more people. I hope we can >>> finally come to agreement that after seven years we don't have to be >>> bound to the same old tired standardized generic session topics. MS >>> >>> My suggestion is not to cut down on the main session time, or to >>> restrict what can or cannot be in a main session. It is to ensure that >>> main sessions are held in a well defined time slot throughout the event, >>> with no other session conflicting with them. And to have a clearly >>> defined "parent" main session for each "cluster" of workshops. >>> >>>> "views differed sharply" that would be ok. And why not vary the >>> formats, e.g. by having some debates on juicy topics (could even do it >>> with teams and audience show of hands on motions). >>> >>> Agree. >>> >>>> I tend toward the seemingly unpopular view that while there was much >>> satisfied feedback on numerous Baku WS, the fact remains there were >>> simply too many (running 11 tracks of 44 WS parallel to the days MS was >>> nuts) and some were clearly less solid, well thought out, and >>> >>> A program committee should certainly exert control and discipline over >>> the content of an event. >>> >>> This does not mean capping the number of times someone can speak in a >>> panel .. But a cap on the number or panels and workshops an individual >>> organization can host is a definite option. As for side sessions take >>> them entirely off the agenda. These by their very nature can get by >>> with being publicised by the individual organizations .. And can take >>> place a day before or after the IGF, at the event proposers own cost, >>> >>>> properly personed (in terms of the above criteria, and others). I >>> found it very frustrating that the MAG went through this whole exercise >>> of ranking WS proposals, which in the first cut resulted in 2/3rd of >>> applications being below the acceptance threshold and needing more work, >>> and yet a >>> >>> The program committee in that case has failed in their mandate. Such >>> thresholds are useless if they are not adhered to. >>> >>>> We also had the curious phenomenon of people submitting late WS >>> proposals purporting to be open forums. The OFs are supposed to be a >>> specific thing, organizational show and tell, not a category to be used >>> by late movers to smuggle in WS proposals. When the divergence >>> >>> Program committee slip up again. Such side meetings with apparently no >>> rules .. Take them off the agenda and let the organisers work it out its >>> the conference venue. Or alternatively have a slot every day for so >>> called "lightning talks" .. Impromptu events set during lunch and coffee >>> breaks (long and leisurely ones as it is the IGF) >>> >>> You could deal with late proposals by queuing them up for the next IGF >>> and considering them alongside the proposals received for that. Of >>> course the workshop proposers may edit their proposal to make it more >>> topical for the next IGF, if the intervening months produce some drastic >>> change in the situation that their workshop discusses. >>> >>>> Of course, the challenge here is that some attendees need to have >>> their own event in order to get funding to come and participate, and >>> obviously we don't want to suppress the numbers. On the other hand, >>> many individuals and organizations habitually propose a large number of >>> >>> Two or three per organization works fine. The fact that some >>> individuals only get funding if they are keynotes or workshop chairs ,, >>> well, several of them can certainly also get the funding to host a side >>> meeting at their organizations cost. >>> >>>> appear on more than [x] WS and MS panels. There a cohort of usual >>> suspects who ritualistically speak at 7, 10, 12 events. In part, this is >>> fueled by the difficulty of identifying "new blood" that has committed >>> to attend and would be perfect fits, so when someone's organizing a >>> >>> See, this is chicken and egg. Several stakeholders do invest more time >>> and effort to cultivate expertise and engage with other peer >>> stakeholders and they might be more frequent speakers than the others. >>> >>> There is also the "token speaker" who has the same stock presentation >>> that he or she uses for a dozen panels. We all know the type .. >>> >>> You should certainly get new blood. However restructuring the >>> conference and capping the number of events a single organization can be >>> the lead on will definitely self limit the number of token speakers. >>> >>>> I think the explosion in pre-events is indicative of the need for more >>> flexibility in formatting, including the main sessions. If you want to >>> have a serious in depth discussion of a topic and the >>> >>> Sure. However there will definitely be pre meetings for a variety of >>> reasons. A good idea would be to have rapporteurs from these join the >>> workshop rapporteurs in the main session. >>> >>> More days for the IGF means more costs for the local host and for the >>> mag, participants etc. >>> >>>> We are having a related debate-lette in the MAG now on May. At >>> present, the IGF consultation and MAG are scheduled in the same week >>> (13-17 May) as not on only the WSIS Forum, per usual, but also the ITU's >>> World Telecom Policy Forum on global Internet governance. I think it >>> >>> So how many of the people at IGF will also attend the whole wtpf? Or >>> have colleagues (or in the case of civil society individual experts, >>> have friends) who can attend on their behalf? >>> >>> There is always a plethora of other related meetings, and a conference >>> calendar is a great aid for the logistics committee to determine dates. >>> However once you get a date that conflicts with a minimum of other >>> events, do stick to it. >>> >>>> A final point not mentioned so far—the outstanding issue of working >>> groups and ongoing activities on matters of key concern. From the >>> outset the IGC has maintained that IGF should be able to convene groups >>> that include good government representation that are designed to >>> >>> These should b truly multistakeholder and civil society should >>> definitely expand its horizons to include industry and the technical >>> community. The problem is that a lot of civil society organixations >>> appear to have an us versus them sort of attitude when it comes to >>> looking for colleagues outside civil society .. and this militates >>> against your goal above. >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 kovenronald at aol.com Sun Nov 25 09:04:30 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 09:04:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] 2013 Preparations for MAG In-Reply-To: <587997D2-DDA2-46B1-817A-426246DBE729@uzh.ch> References: <7A609307-A39A-438D-A0C5-641F22D60373@hserus.net> <587997D2-DDA2-46B1-817A-426246DBE729@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <8CF992CEBE9FC1E-1AF0-14032@webmail-d126.sysops.aol.com> Dear Bill and All -- It would be really nice if y'all stopped speaking in acronyms, as if this were exclusively a discussion in jargon for the initiate. Bill even invents private new head scratcher acronyms, like MS (I assume for Main Session, not for some medical condition). Why not a common-sensical ease for comprehension standard that names of things be spelled out the first time they appear in a message, followed by the acronym in parentheses ? Bests, Rony Koven -----Original Message----- From: William Drake To: governance ; Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: Fouad Bajwa ; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Sun, Nov 25, 2012 11:36 am Subject: Re: [governance] 2013 Preparations for MAG Hi Replies in line, sorry for the length, there's a lot to talk about. On Nov 25, 2012, at 6:02 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Let me add some below, in line with Fouad, tagged [srs] These are entirely my opinion, from being on the management committee (till 2009) and fellowship committee (till now) of an asiapac wide network operators conference (APRICOT) for several years. On 25-Nov-2012, at 9:58, Fouad Bajwa wrote: To throw in some starters: 1. Should the IGF continue to hold meetings in countries with authoritative regimes and repressed political environments? People from certain neighboring countries were not able to participate while the fear factor of participating in an IGF where the host country was authoritarian was high. [srs] Should the IGF hold meetings in comparatively remote locations compared to major airline hubs with liberal visa regimes and excellent conference facilities? The point here is that such locations are more expensive to fly to than other locations on the same continent that are major airline hubs, with direct flights from more places around the world. They may, in most cases, have more suitable conference venues so we'd get far less issues with remote participation, wifi based collaboration in the venue, acoustics in the auditorium … As long as IGF's linked to the UN system, you get what you get. It's not like ICANN's site selection process. If a government stands up and says we'd like to host (either out of commitment to the process or to make use of a new convention center, fill hotels, tell locals that IGF is a UN seal of approval for its policies, etc) it's politically pretty difficult to say no, not to mention that hosting costs money that's in short supply and the line of suitors doesn't stretch down the block. On a separate note, one could debate whether holding meetings in such countries doesn't do some trickle down good; I tend to think it's a net plus, but others may calculate differently. That said, wherever we go, one would certainly like nicer venues with better amenities that are easier to get to. 2. IGF should put out a call for hosts country expression of interest instead of expecting someone will bid with clearly laid out principles and process for selection. [srs] Fully concur. Something on the lines of an RFP with clearly defined requirements for the host country, in terms of logistics as well as based on an evaluation of free speech rights in the country. I strongly agree that conditions and requirements need to be laid down and there has to be a means to deal in real time and afterwards with nonconformance, or it's just paper. But depending on the circumstance, making that work might require more than sotto voce discussions with the secretariat, e.g. interventions from supportive governments and stakeholders. Could be dicey, merits thought. Either way, I think there is interest among some in the MAG in setting out such requirements, and it'd help them to sell it to peers if there were good stakeholder inputs on the point. So it would be useful if the IGC and others would take a crack at setting something out. 3. When do the MAG improvements actually happen with reference to the CSTD IGF improvements and when will they be reflected i.e. in future IGFs? [srs] In other words, can we have some metrics on improvements already suggested and/or future improvements that are actually implemented, and make the leap from powerpoint / pdf to "ground realities"? The UN process has to work its way through, but in the meanwhile people in the MAG are definitely expressing interest in getting more proactive. 4. Logistical support interms of visa acquisition to attend open consultations or observe MAG meetings remains a challenge for people from developing countries and attention to detail is needed from the IGF secretariat. People from developed regions do have considerable advantage over this issue but do not represent the views and insights of developing country issues and inputs to the IGF. [srs] In the first (Athens) IGF, as I recall, the visa process was very smooth, even expedited, so that a Schengen visa was issued with far less paperwork than I have experienced on business or vacation travel to other Schengen countries. For the rest, please see my response to point 1 above. A location like Hong Kong, that requires prior visas from I think three countries in the entire world and extends a free visa on arrival to all other countries, and moreover has direct flights from most regions of the world, would be much more suitable than either Athens, Hyderabad or Baku, to pick a few past venues. The UN can't force changes in national immigration policies but the above mentioned conditions and requirement could strongly urge the view that offering to host entails responsibilities etc. 5. The time allocated to Main Session should be significantly reduced to half and the majority of Main Sessions should be restricted to one day otherwise this is negatively impacting audience division and the numbers in Workshop participation. [srs] I wouldn't go that far However it makes sense to identify a specified time slot for the plenary / main session events every day, and structure workshops so that they feed into the main sessions. We also need to structure these main sessions so that not all of them become over-long panels by themselves, and have a significant number of rapporteur driven sessions which provide feedback from the workshops to the broader audience. I strongly disagree with cutting the time for main sessions and think we should instead make them more useful to more people. I hope we can finally come to agreement that after seven years we don't have to be bound to the same old tired standardized generic session topics. MS should be able to vary per year to address truly "hot topics" that are on the tips of tongues everywhere. I proposed this at the Feb. 2012 meeting in the context of calling for a MS on human rights, and was immediately shot down by the "nothing can be changed" Greek chorus. But after the rather uneven performance of the MS this time, I sensed in the spontaneous partial MAG meeting at Baku greater openness to tinkering. Why shouldn't we be able to have a MS on enhanced cooperation and any gaps in the governance ecosystem, patterns of private sector governance, the role of online campaign mobilizations like we've seen around WCIT, the contestable boundary lines between telecom and Internet and their global governance, territoriality and jurisdiction, and so on—even if the "messages" coming out of the sessions were "views differed sharply" that would be ok. And why not vary the formats, e.g. by having some debates on juicy topics (could even do it with teams and audience show of hands on motions). If others agree that innovation in the MS would be desirable, an IGC input on this too would be a really helpful for CS participants to bring into the MAG discussion. 6. Workshop planing detail should continue to receive more attention especially interms of quality and issue. The issue around achieving gender balance, multistakeholder balance and regional coverage are really not working. I tend toward the seemingly unpopular view that while there was much satisfied feedback on numerous Baku WS, the fact remains there were simply too many (running 11 tracks of 44 WS parallel to the days MS was nuts) and some were clearly less solid, well thought out, and properly personed (in terms of the above criteria, and others). I found it very frustrating that the MAG went through this whole exercise of ranking WS proposals, which in the first cut resulted in 2/3rd of applications being below the acceptance threshold and needing more work, and yet a great many of these ultimately made their way into the program seemingly irrespective of the extent to which they were revised and improved in accordance with MAG feedback. If we want a high quality and right sized program, sometimes we have to have the courage to say sorry no please try next year. We also had the curious phenomenon of people submitting late WS proposals purporting to be open forums. The OFs are supposed to be a specific thing, organizational show and tell, not a category to be used by late movers to smuggle in WS proposals. When the divergence between the OF format and the proposals was pointed out in MAG, some anyway got approved somehow as "side sessions," a category for which there are apparently no rules. We should nip that in the bud. Of course, the challenge here is that some attendees need to have their own event in order to get funding to come and participate, and obviously we don't want to suppress the numbers. On the other hand, many individuals and organizations habitually propose a large number of events. At a minimum, one would think we could adopt a rule that nobody can lead organize more than say two-three workshops. That ought to be sufficient to deal with any travel funding needs and visibility urges. In parallel, there seems to be some interest in MAG in the idea that no single person should appear on more than [x] WS and MS panels. There a cohort of usual suspects who ritualistically speak at 7, 10, 12 events. In part, this is fueled by the difficulty of identifying "new blood" that has committed to attend and would be perfect fits, so when someone's organizing a session and thinks oh I need a person from xyz region or SG the easy default is to turn to known and easily available folks. So we need to make a proactive effort to entice new and qualified attendees, particularly from the government side, and to tell the usual suspects to please accept only the [3-4] appearances you think most appropriate. Self regulation can play a role in the latter if the MAG can't manage to establish or enforce a rule. I know I'll be doing that. The IGF pre-events have to be revisited and should receive more attention in terms of planning and projection as these are receiving a lot of attention by participants. I think the explosion in pre-events is indicative of the need for more flexibility in formatting, including the main sessions. If you want to have a serious in depth discussion of a topic and the MS are all locked down with ye ole SOP etc, what other option is there? Although even if we reform the MS format some people will still want to do their own things their own ways... Maybe we should admit this is a feature not a bug and that the IGF really runs five days rather than four, and if there are more bottom up proposals than can be accommodated they should go through the MAG process…? [srs] Fully agree. 7. The visa issue despite being well managed by the host country remained one of them most unclear aspects of the IGF and the IGF secretariat should give more emphasis on detailing out these issues with future host countries in the very beginning. [srs] This goes back to my point about picking venues with liberal visa regimes, and/or venues that promise to expedite visas for bonafide conference delegates. However, from the host country's standpoint, I can say that there will be a significant threat of misuse of these visas by a small number of people (for example, I have personally seen, in that network operators conference, fellowship applications from what are obviously "advance fee fraud" scam artists looking for a free ticket to the event - if we grant such a fellowship, once in the country they simply "disappear" and overstay their visa, then our local hosts face some heat for this). So, nothing in this process should compromise on due diligence carried out by the country's visa authorities. 8. The venue planning needs to be carefully done as having venues outside the cities causes both stress and challenges to accessibility. [srs] Fully agree, covered above See 2 above 9. An Internet Connectivity Team should be assembled by the IGF Secretariat that should work beforehand on the ground to manage internet connectivity to cover remote participation, connectivity for over 2000 participants keeping in view that this may mean planning and connecting 2000 people x 6000 devices (laptops, cell phones, wi-fi enable cameras, tables etc). [srs] It actually makes sense to hire and retain a professional vendor of conference networking services, such as Verilan, to provide the same (high, bound by SLA) standard of networking across events. Funding for this will remain an open question though, with the current model of the IGF. 10. The sudden shift of Open Consultations and MAG meetings from Geneva to France for February 2013 without open consultation and comments from the community puts a severe logistical pressure on participation for those that find it a challenge to already participate in such meetings. This shift enables only certain [srs] This might have been true earlier, but Switzerland and France are both Schengen countries. So if you have already acquired a Swiss Schengen visa, you should certainly be able to use it for your travel to France. I do agree that if the venue had been shifted from, say, Washington DC to Toronto, I would have fully agreed with you, but in this case, it is moot. We are having a related debate-lette in the MAG now on May. At present, the IGF consultation and MAG are scheduled in the same week (13-17 May) as not on only the WSIS Forum, per usual, but also the ITU's World Telecom Policy Forum on global Internet governance. I think it would be a disaster if stakeholders with an interest in IG were precluded from attending the WTPF by this scheduling. If the WCIT debates have shown anything, it is that it's really important that ITU member governments not be negotiating documents (even non-binding opinions, which set agendas and create mandates for future organizational action) without civil society, business and the technical community at least being in the room. The WTPF page http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/participation.aspx says that participation will be open to the public as observers. It's not clear yet whether this will be on the same terms and conditions as the 2009 forum in Lisbon, when members of the public had to submit to a staff beauty context and demonstrate their qualifications to attend, and if accepted were unable to speak; this has been asked of ITU but not answered. But either way, we should be there. If you look at the preparatory docs and national submissions (all freely accessible on the website) it is clear they will be getting into many of the most contentious issues of interest to us, so there will be a need to mobilize and weigh in somehow. Accordingly, a few of us have proposed that the IGF meetings be moved to the week before or after the WTPF, or else to the week before or after the CSTD (which, next year is inconveniently scheduled for 3-7 June…which not only means interested parties will have to come to Geneva twice, but conflicts with the EuroDIG too). The responses on the MAG list have been pretty scattered, with a couple expressions of support for moving, and others saying we should keep it as is in the name of travel cost savings—even if this means IG people can't go to an open ITU event on IG. One may speculate on the thinking behind the latter. Bottom line, here too it would be useful for the IGC to weigh in, quickly, if in fact people agree that the WTPF is a priority. A final point not mentioned so far—the outstanding issue of working groups and ongoing activities on matters of key concern. From the outset the IGC has maintained that IGF should be able to convene groups that include good government representation that are designed to undertake focused explorations of topics and have their outputs—even if it's some feel this, others feel that messages—feed into the MS. There's been much discussion of doing something around Enhanced Cooperation in this manner, although some forces have argued for focusing on the CSTD instead, which has inherent limitations with respect to multistakeholderism and governmental representation. Part of what makes this insoluble is the lack of a clearly laid out model of how WGs convened under the IGF could function. If the IGC could put forward a concrete proposal, preferably in coordination with business and the TC, that would be very helpful too. So in short, if IGC and other CS formations give the CS members of the MAG something to work with that we can point to and say our community strongly feels xyz, that could be really useful in moving some balls down field. Best, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 09:14:20 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 16:14:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Suresh, I must admit that what I have stated so far in this thread is more of oral discussions with people I have come across and who are frustrated with the many obstacles instilled and the slow growth as a consequence. I must also admit that I am no expert on issues related to peering and transit as I am restricted to sessions and workshops rather than hands-on experience. I was just trying to share what I have come across. Fahd On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Some examples would be lovely.. ASNs if you can cite them > > --srs (htc one x) > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Fahd A. Batayneh" > To: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy > Date: Sun, Nov 25, 2012 12:22 PM > > > Mainly peering really. I forgot to mention political aspects as well. > > Fahd > On Nov 25, 2012 9:45 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > wrote: > > > For buying transit maybe rather than for peering? > > > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > > > ----- Reply message ----- > > From: "Fahd A. Batayneh" > > To: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > > Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , > > "McTim" > > Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy > > Date: Sun, Nov 25, 2012 12:05 PM > > > > > > Bribes, perks, free travel, free consultancies... you name it. > > > > Fahd > > On Nov 25, 2012 3:31 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > > wrote: > > > > > Sorry? How do their local ISPs benefit from peering with a western > > > country when they don't peer locally? > > > > > > --srs (iPad) > > > > > > On 24-Nov-2012, at 21:14, "Fahd A. Batayneh" > > > wrote: > > > > > > Would say that it is true for developed countries, but not for > developing > > > and least developed where some benefit (financially) from peering to > > > Western countries. > > > > > > Fahd > > > On Nov 24, 2012 5:16 PM, "McTim" wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh < > > >> fahd.batayneh at gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 2:40 PM, McTim wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh < > > >>>> fahd.batayneh at gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> While I do have Facebook and Twitter accounts, I have not accessed > > any > > >>>>> of them for quite a long time, and I do not use them. This is what > > one can > > >>>>> expect when posting personal data online. However, if we look at > > things > > >>>>> differently, who is not exposed (Internet users)? All our Internet > > traffic > > >>>>> passes through the various Tier-1 ISPs in the USA and EU > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> ALL, is a pretty strong statement. > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> Well, we can exclude local traffic passing via IXPs or maybe within > the > > >>> same network, and maybe very sensitive data that move across the same > > >>> Intranet, or maybe traffic that moves within censorship-driven > > countries. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Do you have any evidence for it? > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> No one has evidence about either scenario (everything is monitored > vs. > > >>> something is monitored vs. nothing is monitored). But would you > > disagree > > >>> that Internet traffic moving overseas does have to pass at access > > points > > >>> based in Western countries? > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> Yes. There are major CDN nodes and IXPs where Tier1s (and Tier2s and > 3s) > > >> peer around the globe. Your traffic does not have to go to US/EU. In > > fact > > >> it does not even have to transit a Tier1 provider. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> > > >>>> , and some of them might want to inspect traffic randomly as > measures > > >>>>> of "National Security". > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> None of them "want to", as it would impact business of passing > > packets. > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> Not really. Business is one aspect of the story, but national > interests > > >>> is another (especially Western countries that keep using the term > "War > > on > > >>> Terror"). > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> Then that would be a "MUST" not a "WANT". > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Cheers, > > >> > > >> McTim > > >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > > route > > >> indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 09:15:08 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 16:15:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy In-Reply-To: References: <20121123191624.456b1d9c@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Timothy, I must admit that I am no expert on this issue. Fahd On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 3:13 PM, McTim wrote: > Fahd, > > On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh > wrote: > >> Bribes, perks, free travel, free consultancies... you name it. >> > > Suresh is correct, none of these are a by-product of peering arrangements > in my experience. Some come about from buying transit though. > > -- > 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 suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 25 09:18:50 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 19:48:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2CF90FC0-A14E-4248-A1F1-F075729B1C8F@hserus.net> The message has probably been slightly garbled in transmission :) Paid Transit is what you are looking for. --srs (iPad) On 25-Nov-2012, at 19:44, "Fahd A. Batayneh" wrote: > Suresh, I must admit that what I have stated so far in this thread is more of oral discussions with people I have come across and who are frustrated with the many obstacles instilled and the slow growth as a consequence. I must also admit that I am no expert on issues related to peering and transit as I am restricted to sessions and workshops rather than hands-on experience. > > I was just trying to share what I have come across. > > Fahd > > On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Some examples would be lovely.. ASNs if you can cite them >> >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "Fahd A. Batayneh" >> To: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" >> Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >> Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy >> Date: Sun, Nov 25, 2012 12:22 PM >> >> >> Mainly peering really. I forgot to mention political aspects as well. >> >> Fahd >> On Nov 25, 2012 9:45 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: >> >> > For buying transit maybe rather than for peering? >> > >> > --srs (htc one x) >> > >> > >> > ----- Reply message ----- >> > From: "Fahd A. Batayneh" >> > To: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" >> > Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , >> > "McTim" >> > Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy >> > Date: Sun, Nov 25, 2012 12:05 PM >> > >> > >> > Bribes, perks, free travel, free consultancies... you name it. >> > >> > Fahd >> > On Nov 25, 2012 3:31 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Sorry? How do their local ISPs benefit from peering with a western >> > > country when they don't peer locally? >> > > >> > > --srs (iPad) >> > > >> > > On 24-Nov-2012, at 21:14, "Fahd A. Batayneh" >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > Would say that it is true for developed countries, but not for developing >> > > and least developed where some benefit (financially) from peering to >> > > Western countries. >> > > >> > > Fahd >> > > On Nov 24, 2012 5:16 PM, "McTim" wrote: >> > > >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh < >> > >> fahd.batayneh at gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 2:40 PM, McTim wrote: >> > >>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh < >> > >>>> fahd.batayneh at gmail.com> wrote: >> > >>>> >> > >>>>> While I do have Facebook and Twitter accounts, I have not accessed >> > any >> > >>>>> of them for quite a long time, and I do not use them. This is what >> > one can >> > >>>>> expect when posting personal data online. However, if we look at >> > things >> > >>>>> differently, who is not exposed (Internet users)? All our Internet >> > traffic >> > >>>>> passes through the various Tier-1 ISPs in the USA and EU >> > >>>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> ALL, is a pretty strong statement. >> > >>>> >> > >>> >> > >>> Well, we can exclude local traffic passing via IXPs or maybe within the >> > >>> same network, and maybe very sensitive data that move across the same >> > >>> Intranet, or maybe traffic that moves within censorship-driven >> > countries. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Do you have any evidence for it? >> > >>>> >> > >>> >> > >>> No one has evidence about either scenario (everything is monitored vs. >> > >>> something is monitored vs. nothing is monitored). But would you >> > disagree >> > >>> that Internet traffic moving overseas does have to pass at access >> > points >> > >>> based in Western countries? >> > >>> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Yes. There are major CDN nodes and IXPs where Tier1s (and Tier2s and 3s) >> > >> peer around the globe. Your traffic does not have to go to US/EU. In >> > fact >> > >> it does not even have to transit a Tier1 provider. >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> , and some of them might want to inspect traffic randomly as measures >> > >>>>> of "National Security". >> > >>>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> None of them "want to", as it would impact business of passing >> > packets. >> > >>>> >> > >>> >> > >>> Not really. Business is one aspect of the story, but national interests >> > >>> is another (especially Western countries that keep using the term "War >> > on >> > >>> Terror"). >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >> >> > >> Then that would be a "MUST" not a "WANT". >> > >> >> > >> -- >> > >> Cheers, >> > >> >> > >> McTim >> > >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> > route >> > >> indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> > >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ >> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > > >> > > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > > >> > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > >> > > >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Sun Nov 25 09:21:59 2012 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:21:59 +0700 Subject: [governance] 2013 Preparations for MAG In-Reply-To: References: <7A609307-A39A-438D-A0C5-641F22D60373@hserus.net> <587997D2-DDA2-46B1-817A-426246DBE729@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <50B22987.3080401@gmx.net> On 11/25/2012 8:41 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Though this is not the core of the discussion but still visa remains a > challenge [snip] Living in Cambodia (though with a German passport) I know the situation well, when Cambodian friends plan to travel abroad. Of course the attitude of local embassy staff can make a positive or negative difference, but the MAIN problem is that the organizers of conferences do not see the problem, or do not act on it VERY EARLY and AT THE TOP. There may be cases where - in spite of all steps take - some individual cases may have run into problems. But whenever the organizer of a conference has very early negotiated the procedure to issue visas to conference participants, and the relevant information was shared in a timely manner, and the travelers have properly responded to such information, most people, or the vast majority, received their visas - as far as I know. I really think the problem and the solution rests with the organizers' actions or lack thereof. Norbert Klein -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 09:45:34 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 16:45:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] 2013 Preparations for MAG In-Reply-To: References: <7A609307-A39A-438D-A0C5-641F22D60373@hserus.net> <587997D2-DDA2-46B1-817A-426246DBE729@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Louis, from my experience obtaining SCHENGEN visas, the first usage of the visa must be to enter the country that issued it. If one is given a multiple-entrance visa, subsequent usages can be to enter any other SCHENGEN country. I can say that this is the case for Jordanians applying for SCHENGEN visas. Fahd On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Apropos of visas, would it be easier to get one for Germany or Belgium ? > > Louis > - - - > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 25 10:07:21 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 20:37:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] 2013 Preparations for MAG In-Reply-To: References: <7A609307-A39A-438D-A0C5-641F22D60373@hserus.net> <587997D2-DDA2-46B1-817A-426246DBE729@uzh.ch> Message-ID: That is the general rule for Schengen Do note, I said if you already got your Swiss Schengen and the venue gets changed last minute your Schengen visa is still valid to enter France. Of course if you haven't submitted paperwork yet go ahead and apply at your local French embassy or consulate --srs (iPad) On 25-Nov-2012, at 20:15, "Fahd A. Batayneh" wrote: > Louis, from my experience obtaining SCHENGEN visas, the first usage of the visa must be to enter the country that issued it. If one is given a multiple-entrance visa, subsequent usages can be to enter any other SCHENGEN country. I can say that this is the case for Jordanians applying for SCHENGEN visas. > > Fahd > > On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >> Apropos of visas, would it be easier to get one for Germany or Belgium ? >> >> Louis >> - - - > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Nov 25 12:44:56 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 18:44:56 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Indian Express on privacy References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD651@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Suresh and others, we have discussed at this list recently also some ethical questions. Part of the traditional e-Mail Netiquette is that one should not send more than five (5) e-mails to a list per day. Before putting the reply button one should think about what I have to say and consider to summarize the ideas of the day in one or two mails. 30 e-mails within two days is definitely too much. I understand that vibrant debates need a quick reply. However, the old netiquette, laid down in RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines was not so bad. Best wishes wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Suresh Ramasubramanian Gesendet: Sa 24.11.2012 14:30 An: Fahd A. Batayneh; Timothy McGinnis Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Indian Express on privacy Even if your traffic does pass through a western country it would be because the destination is there unless your isp is unwise enough not to peer with other local isps --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Fahd A. Batayneh" To: "McTim" Cc: "IG Caucus" Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2012 6:41 PM On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 2:40 PM, McTim wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh > wrote: > >> While I do have Facebook and Twitter accounts, I have not accessed any of >> them for quite a long time, and I do not use them. This is what one can >> expect when posting personal data online. However, if we look at things >> differently, who is not exposed (Internet users)? All our Internet traffic >> passes through the various Tier-1 ISPs in the USA and EU >> > > > ALL, is a pretty strong statement. > Well, we can exclude local traffic passing via IXPs or maybe within the same network, and maybe very sensitive data that move across the same Intranet, or maybe traffic that moves within censorship-driven countries. > > Do you have any evidence for it? > No one has evidence about either scenario (everything is monitored vs. something is monitored vs. nothing is monitored). But would you disagree that Internet traffic moving overseas does have to pass at access points based in Western countries? > > , and some of them might want to inspect traffic randomly as measures of >> "National Security". >> > > > None of them "want to", as it would impact business of passing packets. > Not really. Business is one aspect of the story, but national interests is another (especially Western countries that keep using the term "War on Terror"). Fahd -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 25 13:48:34 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 13:48:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD651@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD651@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <8CF99549B5A573F-19B0-16398@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> + 1 !! -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolf gang" To: governance ; Suresh Ramasubramanian ; Fahd A. Batayneh ; Timothy McGinnis Cc: governance Sent: Sun, Nov 25, 2012 6:45 pm Subject: AW: [governance] Indian Express on privacy Hi Suresh and others, we have discussed at this list recently also some ethical questions. Part of the traditional e-Mail Netiquette is that one should not send more than five (5) e-mails to a list per day. Before putting the reply button one should think about what I have to say and consider to summarize the ideas of the day in one or two mails. 30 e-mails within two days is definitely too much. I understand that vibrant debates need a quick reply. However, the old netiquette, laid down in RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines was not so bad. Best wishes wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Suresh Ramasubramanian Gesendet: Sa 24.11.2012 14:30 An: Fahd A. Batayneh; Timothy McGinnis Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Indian Express on privacy Even if your traffic does pass through a western country it would be because the destination is there unless your isp is unwise enough not to peer with other local isps --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Fahd A. Batayneh" To: "McTim" Cc: "IG Caucus" Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2012 6:41 PM On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 2:40 PM, McTim wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh > wrote: > >> While I do have Facebook and Twitter accounts, I have not accessed any of >> them for quite a long time, and I do not use them. This is what one can >> expect when posting personal data online. However, if we look at things >> differently, who is not exposed (Internet users)? All our Internet traffic >> passes through the various Tier-1 ISPs in the USA and EU >> > > > ALL, is a pretty strong statement. > Well, we can exclude local traffic passing via IXPs or maybe within the same network, and maybe very sensitive data that move across the same Intranet, or maybe traffic that moves within censorship-driven countries. > > Do you have any evidence for it? > No one has evidence about either scenario (everything is monitored vs. something is monitored vs. nothing is monitored). But would you disagree that Internet traffic moving overseas does have to pass at access points based in Western countries? > > , and some of them might want to inspect traffic randomly as measures of >> "National Security". >> > > > None of them "want to", as it would impact business of passing packets. > Not really. Business is one aspect of the story, but national interests is another (especially Western countries that keep using the term "War on Terror"). Fahd ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 25 15:14:06 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 20:14:06 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] US must hand over Internet control to the world - People's Daily Online In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16CFA0@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> FYI ________________________________ From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 10:27 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] US must hand over Internet control to the world - People's Daily Online http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/7915248.html (People's Daily Online) 11:10, August 18, 2012 The Internet has become one of the most important resources in the world in just a few decades, but the governance mechanism for such an important international resource is still dominated by a private sector organization and a single country. The U.S. government said in a statement on July 1, 2005 that its Commerce Department would continue to support the work of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and indefinitely retain oversight of the Internet’s 13 root servers. This indicated the U.S. decision to retain ultimate control over the global Internet, which enabled it to unilaterally close the Internet of another country. A suddenly paralyzed Internet would definitely cause huge social and economic losses to the country. More and more countries are beginning to question the U.S. control over the world’s Internet as the international resource should be managed and supervised by all countries together. However, the United States has conducted a pre-emptive strike, and refused to give up control over the Internet in the name of protecting the resource. The refusal reflects its hegemonic mentality and double standards. The United States controls and owns all cyberspaces in the world, and other countries can only lease Internet addresses and domain names from the United States, leading to the U.S. hegemonic monopoly over the world’s Internet. snip 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 15:15:41 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 12:15:41 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] US must hand over Internet control to the world - People's Daily Online In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <027a01cdcb49$b481d0b0$1d857210$@gmail.com> From: Dave Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 7:28 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] US must hand over Internet control to the world - People's Daily Online http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/7915248.html (People's Daily Online ) 11:10, August 18, 2012 The Internet has become one of the most important resources in the world in just a few decades, but the governance mechanism for such an important international resource is still dominated by a private sector organization and a single country. The U.S. government said in a statement on July 1, 2005 that its Commerce Department would continue to support the work of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and indefinitely retain oversight of the Internet's 13 root servers. This indicated the U.S. decision to retain ultimate control over the global Internet, which enabled it to unilaterally close the Internet of another country. A suddenly paralyzed Internet would definitely cause huge social and economic losses to the country. More and more countries are beginning to question the U.S. control over the world's Internet as the international resource should be managed and supervised by all countries together. However, the United States has conducted a pre-emptive strike, and refused to give up control over the Internet in the name of protecting the resource. The refusal reflects its hegemonic mentality and double standards. The United States controls and owns all cyberspaces in the world, and other countries can only lease Internet addresses and domain names from the United States, leading to the U.S. hegemonic monopoly over the world's Internet. snip Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 25 15:46:38 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:46:38 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Report of the first Bulgarian IGF discussions References: <50B1009C.7090009@uninet.bg> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD658@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Iliya Bazlyankov Gesendet: Sa 24.11.2012 18:15 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] Report of the first Bulgarian IGF discussions Dear All, Please find attached the report of the first Bulgarian IGF discussions. Kind regards, Iliya Bazlyankov --------------------------- The second Domain Forum and also the first Bulgarian Internet Governance Forum were held in Sofia, Bulgaria on 15 and 16 November 2012. This event is unique for the region of the Balkans. It gathered over 100 participants from ten countries, including a significant number of representatives from Bulgarian Ministry of transport, information technology and communication. Domain Forum - 15 November ---------------------------------- Owing to the huge interest in 2011 Domain Forum returned for a second time this year. Fourteen speakers presented the main topics in the domain industry: new gTLDs, participation in ICANN, domain market, technical issues. The community participated by asking questions and discussing the issues during the breaks. The new gTLDs were a dominant theme for all participants, introduced by the presentation on the passing from namespace to names market where the speaker compared the own TLDs with the well-known company representative buildings, made by Amadeu Abril i Abril. This topic was followed by the effect on new gTLDs on ICANN and its community by Stephane Van Gelder. The media published articles for the challenges and issues of new domains based on these discussions. Geo TLDs took a notable part in the discussions, and the community was encouraged by Dirk Krischenowski to work on '.sofia'. The European ccTLDs also received a detailed explanation and comparison from Wim Degezelle. The domain market was another strong thematic area, started by a presentation by Giovanni Seppia on the IDNs World Report by EURid and UNESCO and a topic regarding building synergies between Cyrillic-script TLDs from Werner Staub. The main conclusion is that it is essential for Cyrillic TLD registries to work together in order to promote the visibility of their TLDs. In a presentation by Leonid Todorov, Russia was given as an example of stable working domain market. The most expected was the legal presentation by Plamena Georgieva about dispute resolution in domain names, which included cases from Bulgarian law and court practice. Later Thomas Rickert focused on the international issue for the importance of RAA negotiations and their possible outcome and announced that Registrar Atlas 2013 will include data from Bulgaria. The community received an invitation to take part in the study. The Vice President of ICANN for Europe Nigel Hickson made a general update on ICANN projects, followed by a topic on the overview of the ICANN model and the possibility for participation by the Bulgarian interested parties by Dr. Olivier Crepin-Leblond. The first day concluded with technical presentations on IPv6 by Ferenc Csorba from RIPE NCC that included some statistics on the deployment in Bulgaria and other European countries and also an alternative authoritative DNS server that is fast, easy to configure and devoted to the community, given by Jan Kadlec from CZ.NIC Labs. Internet Governance Forum - 16 November ------------------------------------------------ The mail goal of the first Bulgarian Internet governance Forum is to introduce the most important topics to the Bulgarian community. Hristo Hristov, director of Directorate of Information Technology at the Ministry of transport, information technology and communication opened the second day discussions with an overview of the IT policies and projects of the Bulgarian government. He focused on the Bulgarian IDN ccTLD '.??' and announced that the government will not close the Bulgarian application and will continue to participate in the PDP. This was one of the central topics discussed by the attendees and after that covered in the press. A focused discussion about the problems in the development of the Internet took part for the first time in Bulgaria. Members of the panel were Justine Toms, an online media and marketing expert; Bisera Zankova, Bulgarian representative in the Council of Europe; Metodi Drenovski, member of the board of the Bulgarian Web Association and Biser Ivanov, member of the board of the Bulgarian Association of Software Companies. The key elements of the discussion were: - More active involvement by the institutions with industry and business organizations in discussing and resolving fundamental issues for regulation and development of the Internet. For example, it was mentioned that the business could be advising to the Ministry of education regarding the exact experts they need. - Timely updating the educational programs and introduction of adequate time and training topics for using a computer - from kindergarten, primary school age to university because after five years, the business will have three times as many IT personnel needs than today. Even nowadays they are less than enough. - The need for a clearer self-regulation for the rights of people on the Internet; protection of the data and the information of a sensitive nature; enlightenment and education of the population. Then, James Lawson from the Council of Europe continued with their principles and strategies, and he put an emphasis on human rights. He was followed by a speech from Prof. Wolfgang Kleinwaechter about the basics of the Internet Governance process. After this presentation, the attendees learned about the Internet Governance policies in Romania and Russia from Dr. Eugenie Staicut of ICI Bucharest and Leonid Todorov of ccTLD.ru Finally, the event concluded with a discussion on the best legal framework for Internet development by Veni Markovski and the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) by Dr. Olivier Crepin-Leblond. The attendees expressed their views that the current model of Internet Governance is not perfect, but should not be changed. The topic of Internet Governance is entirely new for the Bulgarian community. It is essential to be discussed a lot further in order to be understood the necessity of it. We have put the beginning. Conclusion -------------------- The Bulgarian Domain Forum and IGF 2012 was extremely well-received by Bulgarian internet experts. The event woke an immense interest and led to a debate in the media and the personal websites of local bloggers. The Bulgarian Internet community had a lot of representatives at Domain Forum but is not fully active and visible yet. The complete list of Domain Forum's participants is available here: http://domainforum.bg/participants/ Bulgarian Domain Forum and IGF 2013 in perspective ----------------------------------------------------------- Bulgarian IGF 2013 will take place in November 2013 in Sofia, Bulgaria, and we will make an announcement as soon as the preparation starts. An official website will launch soon at http://www.igf.bg -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Sun Nov 25 16:23:17 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 13:23:17 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] US must hand over Internet control to the world - People's Daily Online In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16CFA0@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16CFA0@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Is there some context as to why this 3 month old PDO opinion piece popped up again today on Dave's list? It's as wrong now as it was then. Regards, -drc On Nov 25, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > FYI > From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] > Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 10:27 AM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] US must hand over Internet control to the world - People's Daily Online > > http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/7915248.html > > (People's Daily Online) > 11:10, August 18, 2012 > > The Internet has become one of the most important resources in the world in just a few decades, but the governance mechanism for such an important international resource is still dominated by a private sector organization and a single country. > > The U.S. government said in a statement on July 1, 2005 that its Commerce Department would continue to support the work of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and indefinitely retain oversight of the Internet’s 13 root servers. > > This indicated the U.S. decision to retain ultimate control over the global Internet, which enabled it to unilaterally close the Internet of another country. A suddenly paralyzed Internet would definitely cause huge social and economic losses to the country. > > More and more countries are beginning to question the U.S. control over the world’s Internet as the international resource should be managed and supervised by all countries together. However, the United States has conducted a pre-emptive strike, and refused to give up control over the Internet in the name of protecting the resource. The refusal reflects its hegemonic mentality and double standards. > > The United States controls and owns all cyberspaces in the world, and other countries can only lease Internet addresses and domain names from the United States, leading to the U.S. hegemonic monopoly over the world’s Internet. > > snip > Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Sun Nov 25 17:07:35 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:07:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] 2013 Preparations for MAG In-Reply-To: References: <7A609307-A39A-438D-A0C5-641F22D60373@hserus.net> <587997D2-DDA2-46B1-817A-426246DBE729@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <23BDCE78-7CB3-43A4-A5D2-96D55AFD32D9@privaterra.org> If I recall well from conversations in Baku, the Feb 2013 MAG consultations will take place in Paris to coincide with the UNESCO WSIS meeting. Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2012-11-25, at 10:07 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > That is the general rule for Schengen > > Do note, I said if you already got your Swiss Schengen and the venue gets changed last minute your Schengen visa is still valid to enter France. > > Of course if you haven't submitted paperwork yet go ahead and apply at your local French embassy or consulate > > --srs (iPad) > > On 25-Nov-2012, at 20:15, "Fahd A. Batayneh" wrote: > >> Louis, from my experience obtaining SCHENGEN visas, the first usage of the visa must be to enter the country that issued it. If one is given a multiple-entrance visa, subsequent usages can be to enter any other SCHENGEN country. I can say that this is the case for Jordanians applying for SCHENGEN visas. >> >> Fahd >> >> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >> Apropos of visas, would it be easier to get one for Germany or Belgium ? >> >> Louis >> - - - >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 25 19:04:38 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 16:04:38 -0800 Subject: [governance] Wired's Take on the WCIT/ITU Message-ID: <030d01cdcb69$a52c4940$ef84dbc0$@gmail.com> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-11/23/guide-to-itu-wcit -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 25 19:17:58 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 05:47:58 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] Indian Express on privacy Message-ID: The rfc did make sense in the days when uucp over expensive and high latency links was the order of the day, I must admit. I still will try to ration myself --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" To: , "Suresh Ramasubramanian" , "Fahd A. Batayneh" , "Timothy McGinnis" Cc: Subject: AW: [governance] Indian Express on privacy Date: Sun, Nov 25, 2012 11:14 PM Hi Suresh and others, we have discussed at this list recently also some ethical questions. Part of the traditional e-Mail Netiquette is that one should not send more than five (5) e-mails to a list per day. Before putting the reply button one should think about what I have to say and consider to summarize the ideas of the day in one or two mails. 30 e-mails within two days is definitely too much. I understand that vibrant debates need a quick reply. However, the old netiquette, laid down in RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines was not so bad. Best wishes wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Suresh Ramasubramanian Gesendet: Sa 24.11.2012 14:30 An: Fahd A. Batayneh; Timothy McGinnis Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Indian Express on privacy Even if your traffic does pass through a western country it would be because the destination is there unless your isp is unwise enough not to peer with other local isps --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Fahd A. Batayneh" To: "McTim" Cc: "IG Caucus" Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2012 6:41 PM On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 2:40 PM, McTim wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh > wrote: > >> While I do have Facebook and Twitter accounts, I have not accessed any of >> them for quite a long time, and I do not use them. This is what one can >> expect when posting personal data online. However, if we look at things >> differently, who is not exposed (Internet users)? All our Internet traffic >> passes through the various Tier-1 ISPs in the USA and EU >> > > > ALL, is a pretty strong statement. > Well, we can exclude local traffic passing via IXPs or maybe within the same network, and maybe very sensitive data that move across the same Intranet, or maybe traffic that moves within censorship-driven countries. > > Do you have any evidence for it? > No one has evidence about either scenario (everything is monitored vs. something is monitored vs. nothing is monitored). But would you disagree that Internet traffic moving overseas does have to pass at access points based in Western countries? > > , and some of them might want to inspect traffic randomly as measures of >> "National Security". >> > > > None of them "want to", as it would impact business of passing packets. > Not really. Business is one aspect of the story, but national interests is another (especially Western countries that keep using the term "War on Terror"). Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 25 19:24:18 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 05:54:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] US must hand over Internet control to the world - People's Daily Online Message-ID: Sure. It is a mere party organ and has propaganda refined to a fine art... I am only surprised it restricted itself to 'hegemonic' in favor of more colorful Mao era vituperation. Running dogs of capitalism, anybody? If so what breed? --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "David Conrad" To: Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] US must hand over Internet control to the world - People's Daily Online Date: Mon, Nov 26, 2012 2:53 AM Is there some context as to why this 3 month old PDO opinion piece popped up again today on Dave's list? It's as wrong now as it was then. Regards, -drc On Nov 25, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > FYI > From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] > Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 10:27 AM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] US must hand over Internet control to the world - People's Daily Online > > http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/7915248.html > > (People's Daily Online) > 11:10, August 18, 2012 > > The Internet has become one of the most important resources in the world in just a few decades, but the governance mechanism for such an important international resource is still dominated by a private sector organization and a single country. > > The U.S. government said in a statement on July 1, 2005 that its Commerce Department would continue to support the work of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and indefinitely retain oversight of the Internet’s 13 root servers. > > This indicated the U.S. decision to retain ultimate control over the global Internet, which enabled it to unilaterally close the Internet of another country. A suddenly paralyzed Internet would definitely cause huge social and economic losses to the country. > > More and more countries are beginning to question the U.S. control over the world’s Internet as the international resource should be managed and supervised by all countries together. However, the United States has conducted a pre-emptive strike, and refused to give up control over the Internet in the name of protecting the resource. The refusal reflects its hegemonic mentality and double standards. > > The United States controls and owns all cyberspaces in the world, and other countries can only lease Internet addresses and domain names from the United States, leading to the U.S. hegemonic monopoly over the world’s Internet. > > snip > Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 25 20:02:35 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 01:02:35 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] US must hand over Internet control to the world - People's Daily Online In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16D02C@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> David, I have not forwarded a (way too) long string of messages following on from Tony Rutkowski's; I suppose context is Farber's IP list has belatedly jumped all in to the bash ITU game; so far in fact that some of the old hands are asking folks to please calm down and remember the ITU can be useful at times. As I and a few others have also noted on the IGC list. I guess the bad news is, since a lot of tech journalists hang on Farber's list, is we can expect even more mainstream and social media hysteria over WCIT as we approach the End of Times... according to either the Mayan calendar, or the ITU's. ; ) Lee ________________________________ ----- Reply message ----- From: "David Conrad" To: Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] US must hand over Internet control to the world - People's Daily Online Date: Mon, Nov 26, 2012 2:53 AM Is there some context as to why this 3 month old PDO opinion piece popped up again today on Dave's list? It's as wrong now as it was then. Regards, -drc On Nov 25, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > FYI > From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] > Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 10:27 AM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] US must hand over Internet control to the world - People's Daily Online > > http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/7915248.html > > (People's Daily Online) > 11:10, August 18, 2012 > > The Internet has become one of the most important resources in the world in just a few decades, but the governance mechanism for such an important international resource is still dominated by a private sector organization and a single country. > > The U.S. government said in a statement on July 1, 2005 that its Commerce Department would continue to support the work of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and indefinitely retain oversight of the Internet’s 13 root servers. > > This indicated the U.S. decision to retain ultimate control over the global Internet, which enabled it to unilaterally close the Internet of another country. A suddenly paralyzed Internet would definitely cause huge social and economic losses to the country. > > More and more countries are beginning to question the U.S. control over the world’s Internet as the international resource should be managed and supervised by all countries together. However, the United States has conducted a pre-emptive strike, and refused to give up control over the Internet in the name of protecting the resource. The refusal reflects its hegemonic mentality and double standards. > > The United States controls and owns all cyberspaces in the world, and other countries can only lease Internet addresses and domain names from the United States, leading to the U.S. hegemonic monopoly over the world’s Internet. > > snip > Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 25 20:09:33 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 06:39:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] US must hand over Internet control to the world - People's Daily Online In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16D02C@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16D02C@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <568C19FD-8021-4188-B9A5-09AC91794607@hserus.net> Well, it is about time Farber's list woke up to it - it hasn't exactly been at the forefront of new tech stuff over the past few years, and Declan's politech is retired since he got himself that cnet job some years back. However, starting off the ITU coverage by inviting an opinion piece from Tony Rutkowski is like declaring open season on the ITU, I must admit. --srs (iPad) On 26-Nov-2012, at 6:32, Lee W McKnight wrote: > David, > > I have not forwarded a (way too) long string of messages following on from Tony Rutkowski's; I suppose context is Farber's IP list has belatedly jumped all in to the bash ITU game; so far in fact that some of the old hands are asking folks to please calm down and remember the ITU can be useful at times. > > As I and a few others have also noted on the IGC list. > > I guess the bad news is, since a lot of tech journalists hang on Farber's list, is we can expect even more mainstream and social media hysteria over WCIT as we approach the End of Times... according to either the Mayan calendar, or the ITU's. ; ) > > Lee > > > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "David Conrad" > To: > Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] US must hand over Internet control to the world - People's Daily Online > Date: Mon, Nov 26, 2012 2:53 AM > > > Is there some context as to why this 3 month old PDO opinion piece popped up again today on Dave's list? > > It's as wrong now as it was then. > > Regards, > -drc > > On Nov 25, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > FYI > > From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] > > Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 10:27 AM > > To: ip > > Subject: [IP] US must hand over Internet control to the world - People's Daily Online > > > > http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/7915248.html > > > > (People's Daily Online) > > 11:10, August 18, 2012 > > > > The Internet has become one of the most important resources in the world in just a few decades, but the governance mechanism for such an important international resource is still dominated by a private sector organization and a single country. > > > > The U.S. government said in a statement on July 1, 2005 that its Commerce Department would continue to support the work of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and indefinitely retain oversight of the Internet’s 13 root servers. > > > > This indicated the U.S. decision to retain ultimate control over the global Internet, which enabled it to unilaterally close the Internet of another country. A suddenly paralyzed Internet would definitely cause huge social and economic losses to the country. > > > > More and more countries are beginning to question the U.S. control over the world’s Internet as the international resource should be managed and supervised by all countries together. However, the United States has conducted a pre-emptive strike, and refused to give up control over the Internet in the name of protecting the resource. The refusal reflects its hegemonic mentality and double standards. > > > > The United States controls and owns all cyberspaces in the world, and other countries can only lease Internet addresses and domain names from the United States, leading to the U.S. hegemonic monopoly over the world’s Internet. > > > > snip > > Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Nov 25 20:31:36 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:31:36 +1100 Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <76B57784A34040949CECFC03F348638F@Toshiba> Suresh, you really don’t get it, do you? You wrote “The rfc did make sense in the days when uucp over expensive and high latency links was the order of the day, I must admit. I still will try to ration myself ” That’s not the point. The whole thing is, it’s not possible to have a meaningful communication between a group of participants if one person is responsible for about 35-40% of the postings. A communications exchange that is meaningful gives space for all participants – and each participant takes care to make sure they do not dominate proceedings. It’s like listening as well as talking. Like Wolfgang and others I also believe you have exceeded a reasonable balance quite substantially in recent days. Ian Peter ----- Reply message ----- From: ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" To: , "Suresh Ramasubramanian" , "Fahd A. Batayneh" , "Timothy McGinnis" Cc: Subject: AW: [governance] Indian Express on privacy Date: Sun, Nov 25, 2012 11:14 PM Hi Suresh and others, we have discussed at this list recently also some ethical questions. Part of the traditional e-Mail Netiquette is that one should not send more than five (5) e-mails to a list per day. Before putting the reply button one should think about what I have to say and consider to summarize the ideas of the day in one or two mails. 30 e-mails within two days is definitely too much. I understand that vibrant debates need a quick reply. However, the old netiquette, laid down in RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines was not so bad. Best wishes wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Suresh Ramasubramanian Gesendet: Sa 24.11.2012 14:30 An: Fahd A. Batayneh; Timothy McGinnis Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Indian Express on privacy Even if your traffic does pass through a western country it would be because the destination is there unless your isp is unwise enough not to peer with other local isps --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Fahd A. Batayneh" To: "McTim" Cc: "IG Caucus" Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy Date: Sat, Nov 24, 2012 6:41 PM On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 2:40 PM, McTim wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh > wrote: > >> While I do have Facebook and Twitter accounts, I have not accessed any of >> them for quite a long time, and I do not use them. This is what one can >> expect when posting personal data online. However, if we look at things >> differently, who is not exposed (Internet users)? All our Internet traffic >> passes through the various Tier-1 ISPs in the USA and EU >> > > > ALL, is a pretty strong statement. > Well, we can exclude local traffic passing via IXPs or maybe within the same network, and maybe very sensitive data that move across the same Intranet, or maybe traffic that moves within censorship-driven countries. > > Do you have any evidence for it? > No one has evidence about either scenario (everything is monitored vs. something is monitored vs. nothing is monitored). But would you disagree that Internet traffic moving overseas does have to pass at access points based in Western countries? > > , and some of them might want to inspect traffic randomly as measures of >> "National Security". >> > > > None of them "want to", as it would impact business of passing packets. > Not really. Business is one aspect of the story, but national interests is another (especially Western countries that keep using the term "War on Terror"). Fahd -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Mon Nov 26 01:52:07 2012 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 08:52:07 +0200 Subject: Netiquette (was Re: AW: [governance] Indian Express on privacy) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20121126065207.GA30936@baribal.tarvainen.info> On Nov 26 05:47, Suresh Ramasubramanian (suresh at hserus.net) wrote: > The rfc did make sense in the days when uucp over expensive and high > latency links was the order of the day, I must admit. People don't read or write any faster today than they did then - network bandwidth wasn't the only or even main limitation even when RFC 1855 (https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt) was written. Sure, not all of it is really applicable today, and it is rather long (although people who habitually write even longer messages should not find that a problem...), but there's still a lot of useful advice in there. I'll single out two good examples: 'Be brief without being overly terse.' 'Remember that the recipient is a human being whose culture, language, and humor have different points of reference from your own. Remember that date formats, measurements, and idioms may not travel well. Be especially careful with sarcasm.' -- Tapani Tarvainen -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 26 04:41:39 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 01:41:39 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] US must hand over Internet control to the world - People's Daily Online In-Reply-To: References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16CFA0@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <040d01cdcbba$51cc46f0$f564d4d0$@gmail.com> Dave, Whether "wrong" or not, I guess the point was that it is well to keep in mind what the leadership of one quarter of the world's population and the world's second largest economy thinks about some rather significant Internet related issues. Probably also well to keep in mind that in the end (and whether we like it or not) a lot of the issues under discussion at the WCIT will be resolved on a political (national interest) basis rather than a technical one and that distinguishing between the two isn't always as clear cut as it might at first appear. Best, M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of David Conrad Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 1:23 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] US must hand over Internet control to the world - People's Daily Online Is there some context as to why this 3 month old PDO opinion piece popped up again today on Dave's list? It's as wrong now as it was then. Regards, -drc On Nov 25, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: FYI _____ From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 10:27 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] US must hand over Internet control to the world - People's Daily Online http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/7915248.html (People's Daily Online ) 11:10, August 18, 2012 The Internet has become one of the most important resources in the world in just a few decades, but the governance mechanism for such an important international resource is still dominated by a private sector organization and a single country. The U.S. government said in a statement on July 1, 2005 that its Commerce Department would continue to support the work of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and indefinitely retain oversight of the Internet's 13 root servers. This indicated the U.S. decision to retain ultimate control over the global Internet, which enabled it to unilaterally close the Internet of another country. A suddenly paralyzed Internet would definitely cause huge social and economic losses to the country. More and more countries are beginning to question the U.S. control over the world's Internet as the international resource should be managed and supervised by all countries together. However, the United States has conducted a pre-emptive strike, and refused to give up control over the Internet in the name of protecting the resource. The refusal reflects its hegemonic mentality and double standards. The United States controls and owns all cyberspaces in the world, and other countries can only lease Internet addresses and domain names from the United States, leading to the U.S. hegemonic monopoly over the world's Internet. snip Archives https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, 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: application/octet-stream Size: 465 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: application/octet-stream Size: 3173 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Nov 26 04:56:53 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 01:56:53 -0800 Subject: [governance] RV: [IP] re ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) Message-ID: <041e01cdcbbc$6f8379f0$4e8a6dd0$@gmail.com> This might be of interest in this context as well. M ________________________________________ Desde: DAVID J. FARBER [farber at gmail.com] Enviado el: sábado, 24 de noviembre de 2012 08:52 Hasta: ip Asunto: [IP] re ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) Begin forwarded message: From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [IP] ITU gone wild -- an invited (by me) note from Tony Rutkowski (comments welcomed :-) ) Date: November 23, 2012 11:00:39 AM EST To: dave at farber.net Cc: ip , Tony Rutkowski , Dan Lynch , "John Day" , "Karl Auerbach" , "David Allen" , "Richard Bennett" , "Bob Frankston" Reply-To: dcrocker at bbiw.net I am shocked, simply shocked, to hear that politics dominate an SDO. Oh wait. No I'm not. We've been hearing the same slams at the ITU for 20 years. The issue isn't whether the slams are true, but whether they are helpful. I suggest that the answer it worse than no; they are counter-productive, particularly in the form that has dominated this thread. Whether one supports the ITU or views it as a foe, it's presence is a reality. Dealing with the ITU requires negotiating with and within it as a political process based on thoughtful choice, not inflammatory rhetoric. The first IETF/ITU agreement was the one we arranged for the fax-over-email standards effort in the late 90s. It nearly went extremely sour, and only became productive when we formulated a meaningful division of roles. In that case, vendors forced adherence to the agreement and a productive outcome. Today's rhetoric is counter-productive by simultaneously making the speakers -- and thereby the community they come from -- look immature (or worse) and distracting us from the thoughtful consideration needed to make intelligence choices. This topic is important enough to warrant adult discussion, not childish indulgence. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/127249-38937921 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=127249&id_secret=127249-789b5998 Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=127249&id_secret=127249-075b8 eda&post_id=20121124095649:1589314C-3647-11E2-9159-C330B663569D Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at psg.com Mon Nov 26 07:22:28 2012 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:22:28 +0400 Subject: [governance] Indian Express on privacy In-Reply-To: <76B57784A34040949CECFC03F348638F@Toshiba> References: <76B57784A34040949CECFC03F348638F@Toshiba> Message-ID: Hi, I dont get it either. As far as I can tell the IGC caucus places not such numerical limitations on people. Yes we warn against repetitive or excessive. but isn't that for the co-cos to decide? If one is engaged in a debate, especially since we do not have a chat channel, then it may even be appropriate behavior. Even if you don't agree with what the person is saying. And I am not sure what I care about more: - lots and lots of little messages - or big long complicated ones Is excessive defined by the number of messages or by the number of characters then again if we are talking about netiquette rules we don't have, ie. the number of message on a theme per day, how about, - people who copy long history of messages in their messages using up precvious benadwidth - people who do not trim the to and cc lists I could go on. I think making arguments about other's netiquette should be restricted to the coordinators and should be restricted to the rules we have adopted. it might even breech netiquette since it might - be discourteous commentary, regardless of the general subject - cause an IGC list to become a hostile environment Though I am not in the position to determine that as I am not a co-co and might be breaking netiquette by merely mentioning that you might be breeching netiquette. cheers, avri On 26 Nov 2012, at 05:31, Ian Peter wrote: > Suresh, you really don’t get it, do you? You wrote > > “The rfc did make sense in the days when uucp over expensive and high latency links was the order of the day, I must admit. I still will try to ration myself > ” > > That’s not the point. The whole thing is, it’s not possible to have a meaningful communication between a group of participants if one person is responsible for about 35-40% of the postings. A communications exchange that is meaningful gives space for all participants – and each participant takes care to make sure they do not dominate proceedings. It’s like listening as well as talking. > > Like Wolfgang and others I also believe you have exceeded a reasonable balance quite substantially in recent days. > > Ian Peter > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 26 07:24:45 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:24:45 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] FW: [IP] US must hand over Internet control to the world - People's Daily Online References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16CFA0@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <040d01cdcbba$51cc46f0$f564d4d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD660@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi, here is a comment to the full article: The two factual arguments which are used to substantiate the general politcal conclusion are wrong or at least not correct: 1. the ccTLD .iq case did not see any intervention from the USG. The problem was that three parties after Sadams departure claimed to have a right to get the delegation. Two competing ministeries and a rather dubious guy, living in the US. The ccTLD was redelegated finally after a letter of the prime minister arrived and declared the communication commission as the designated party. http://www.iana.org/reports/2005/iq-report-05aug2005.pdf. I personally feel that it is absolutely irresponsible that a recognized newspaper as China Daily distributes false information of such a caliber around the globe. It is correct that China Daily - as all newspapers of the world - enjoy press freedom and the right to freedom of expression which includes also the right to distribute unchecked facts. But it is against all forms of journalistic ethics to manipulate the truth in such a way. 2. The argument with the 13 root servers (10 of them in the US) is also misleading in a time wehn there are more than 150 anycast servers active around the globe which consequently reduces the options for the USG to manipulate the Internet through its historically grown function to give final authorization to the publication of root zone files (including deletions) in the "hidden server". 2012 is not 2005 and there is no MoU and no JPA anymore. We have the AoC, a functioning GAC and a decentrloazed and multistakeholder the review process as an oversight mechanism for ICANN. Chinese government has expressed its support for the multistakeholder model in the recent high level GAC meeting in Toronto and CNNIC will host the 46th ICANN meeting in Bejing in April 2013 Again: Bad journalism, manipulative and misleading. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Gesendet: Mo 26.11.2012 10:41 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'David Conrad' Betreff: RE: [governance] FW: [IP] US must hand over Internet control to the world - People's Daily Online Dave, Whether "wrong" or not, I guess the point was that it is well to keep in mind what the leadership of one quarter of the world's population and the world's second largest economy thinks about some rather significant Internet related issues. Probably also well to keep in mind that in the end (and whether we like it or not) a lot of the issues under discussion at the WCIT will be resolved on a political (national interest) basis rather than a technical one and that distinguishing between the two isn't always as clear cut as it might at first appear. Best, M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of David Conrad Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 1:23 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] US must hand over Internet control to the world - People's Daily Online Is there some context as to why this 3 month old PDO opinion piece popped up again today on Dave's list? It's as wrong now as it was then. Regards, -drc On Nov 25, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: FYI ________________________________ From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net ] Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 10:27 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] US must hand over Internet control to the world - People's Daily Online http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/7915248.html (People's Daily Online ) 11:10, August 18, 2012 The Internet has become one of the most important resources in the world in just a few decades, but the governance mechanism for such an important international resource is still dominated by a private sector organization and a single country. The U.S. government said in a statement on July 1, 2005 that its Commerce Department would continue to support the work of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and indefinitely retain oversight of the Internet's 13 root servers. This indicated the U.S. decision to retain ultimate control over the global Internet, which enabled it to unilaterally close the Internet of another country. A suddenly paralyzed Internet would definitely cause huge social and economic losses to the country. More and more countries are beginning to question the U.S. control over the world's Internet as the international resource should be managed and supervised by all countries together. However, the United States has conducted a pre-emptive strike, and refused to give up control over the Internet in the name of protecting the resource. The refusal reflects its hegemonic mentality and double standards. The United States controls and owns all cyberspaces in the world, and other countries can only lease Internet addresses and domain names from the United States, leading to the U.S.. hegemonic monopoly over the world's Internet. snip Archives https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now https://www.listbox..com/images/listbox-logo-small.png ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your 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 suresh at hserus.net Mon Nov 26 07:50:03 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:20:03 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] FW: [IP] US must hand over Internet control to the world - People's Daily Online In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD660@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16CFA0@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <040d01cdcbba$51cc46f0$f564d4d0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD660@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <35691E8C-423C-4A37-A574-458819C648D9@hserus.net> The 13 root servers canard is as old as the hills, as well as a similar argument I have heard recycled many times - that "MIT has more IP addresses than all of China" (which ceased to be true sometime during the late 90s or not too long after that). Propaganda does consist, in part, of repeating canards often enough till less informed people believe them to be true. In response to Michael Gurstein - It is, I guess, expected that China's vote in the WCIT process will be to dismantle the existing ICANN / RIR etc structure and create a new structure with ITU driven governance processes. However, they have only one vote in the process, just like the USA or other OECD economy (presumably, in favor of maintaining status quo) does. It remains to be seen just how many countries follow China's lead [with a known tactic in diplomacy being to extend aid to smaller countries, with the expectation that they will follow China's lead in international policy matters such as, say, votes to modify the ITRs] China is of course not the only nation to follow such a tactic (to mention an extreme example, in another area - whaling rights - the Times of London came up with a sting operation that covered this [1]), so it remains to be seen how many countries vote one way or the other based on any larger country they may wish to take policy direction from, for whatever reason. The actual number of countries that can vote at WCIT may get lowered - http://news.dot-nxt.com/itu/wcit/c24-0 is a notice from the ITU SG's office that 17 countries have not paid their ITU dues and so may not get to vote at WCIT. --srs (iPad) [1] I can't find the link from the Times site but the LA Times also covers this - http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2010/06/times-of-london-investigates-allegations-that-japan-tries-to-buy-votes-in-its-favor-on-whaling-issue.html On 26-Nov-2012, at 17:54, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Hi, > > here is a comment to the full article: > > The two factual arguments which are used to substantiate the general politcal conclusion are wrong or at least not correct: > > 1. the ccTLD .iq case did not see any intervention from the USG. The problem was that three parties after Sadams departure claimed to have a right to get the delegation. Two competing ministeries and a rather dubious guy, living in the US. The ccTLD was redelegated finally after a letter of the prime minister arrived and declared the communication commission as the designated party. http://www.iana.org/reports/2005/iq-report-05aug2005.pdf. I personally feel that it is absolutely irresponsible that a recognized newspaper as China Daily distributes false information of such a caliber around the globe. It is correct that China Daily - as all newspapers of the world - enjoy press freedom and the right to freedom of expression which includes also the right to distribute unchecked facts. But it is against all forms of journalistic ethics to manipulate the truth in such a way. > > 2. The argument with the 13 root servers (10 of them in the US) is also misleading in a time wehn there are more than 150 anycast servers active around the globe which consequently reduces the options for the USG to manipulate the Internet through its historically grown function to give final authorization to the publication of root zone files (including deletions) in the "hidden server". 2012 is not 2005 and there is no MoU and no JPA anymore. We have the AoC, a functioning GAC and a decentrloazed and multistakeholder the review process as an oversight mechanism for ICANN. Chinese government has expressed its support for the multistakeholder model in the recent high level GAC meeting in Toronto and CNNIC will host the 46th ICANN meeting in Bejing in April 2013 Again: Bad journalism, manipulative and misleading. > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > Gesendet: Mo 26.11.2012 10:41 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'David Conrad' > Betreff: RE: [governance] FW: [IP] US must hand over Internet control to the world - People's Daily Online > > > > Dave, > > > > Whether "wrong" or not, I guess the point was that it is well to keep in mind what the leadership of one quarter of the world's population and the world's second largest economy thinks about some rather significant Internet related issues. Probably also well to keep in mind that in the end (and whether we like it or not) a lot of the issues under discussion at the WCIT will be resolved on a political (national interest) basis rather than a technical one and that distinguishing between the two isn't always as clear cut as it might at first appear. > > > > Best, > > > > M > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of David Conrad > Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 1:23 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] US must hand over Internet control to the world - People's Daily Online > > > > Is there some context as to why this 3 month old PDO opinion piece popped up again today on Dave's list? > > > > It's as wrong now as it was then. > > > > Regards, > > -drc > > > > On Nov 25, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > > FYI > > ________________________________ > > From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net ] > Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 10:27 AM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] US must hand over Internet control to the world - People's Daily Online > > http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/7915248.html > > > > (People's Daily Online ) > > 11:10, August 18, 2012 > > > > The Internet has become one of the most important resources in the world in just a few decades, but the governance mechanism for such an important international resource is still dominated by a private sector organization and a single country. > > The U.S. government said in a statement on July 1, 2005 that its Commerce Department would continue to support the work of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and indefinitely retain oversight of the Internet's 13 root servers. > > This indicated the U.S. decision to retain ultimate control over the global Internet, which enabled it to unilaterally close the Internet of another country. A suddenly paralyzed Internet would definitely cause huge social and economic losses to the country. > > More and more countries are beginning to question the U.S. control over the world's Internet as the international resource should be managed and supervised by all countries together. However, the United States has conducted a pre-emptive strike, and refused to give up control over the Internet in the name of protecting the resource. The refusal reflects its hegemonic mentality and double standards. > > The United States controls and owns all cyberspaces in the world, and other countries can only lease Internet addresses and domain names from the United States, leading to the U.S.. hegemonic monopoly over the world's Internet. > > > > snip > > Archives https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now > > https://www.listbox..com/images/listbox-logo-small.png > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr Mon Nov 26 08:26:28 2012 From: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr (International Ivission) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:26:28 +0000 (GMT) Subject: AW: [governance] FW: [IP] US must hand over Internet control to the world - People's Daily Online In-Reply-To: <35691E8C-423C-4A37-A574-458819C648D9@hserus.net> Message-ID: <1353936388.19741.YahooMailClassic@web171304.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> This discussion seems interesting! What will happen if the Chinas' bid for ITU to take over Internet governance and the ICANN bid to continue the job gets a 50-50 vote? As an ISOC NGL graduate, I am a liitle bit confused, when some of us outcry for a political solution to a problem which has both an economic, social and political impact. have we quickly forgotten the multi- stakeholder model of governance or the open standard of internet development? Could we figure out a situation where both ITU and ICANN work together? - ICANN oversees the technical and commercial aspects while - ITU the political and social aspect of the resource I know this kind of suggestion sounds crazy, even Solomon the king could not apply it when he was confronted with two mothers claiming ownership over one child. What then is the real solution? "You can kill the Internet governance, but don't kill my Internet" ___________________________________ Asama Abel Excel President and CEO I-VISSION INTERNATIONAL Box 13040 Blvd de la rep., Feu Rouge BessenguéDouala Cameroon E: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr / excelasama at yahoo.fr : info at ivission.net T (bur): +237 33 76 55 76 / T (Mob): 99 44 43 91 / 76 14 26 23Skype (office): i-vission (personal): excelasama Web: www.ivission.net  Web album: www.flickr.com/ivission Facebook: ivission.internationlTwitter: www.twitter.com/ivission  NWK: www.meetup.com/ivission --- En date de : Lun 26.11.12, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : De: Suresh Ramasubramanian Objet: Re: AW: [governance] FW: [IP] US must hand over Internet control to the world - People's Daily Online À: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "michael gurstein" , "David Conrad" Date: Lundi 26 novembre 2012, 12h50 The 13 root servers canard is as old as the hills, as well as a similar argument I have heard recycled many times - that "MIT has more IP addresses than all of China" (which ceased to be true sometime during the late 90s or not too long after that).  Propaganda does consist, in part, of repeating canards often enough till less informed people believe them to be true. In response to Michael Gurstein - It is, I guess, expected that China's vote in the WCIT process will be to dismantle the existing ICANN / RIR etc structure and create a new structure with ITU driven governance processes.    However, they have only one vote in the process, just like the USA or other OECD economy (presumably, in favor of maintaining status quo) does. It remains to be seen just how many countries follow China's lead [with a known tactic in diplomacy being to extend aid to smaller countries, with the expectation that they will follow China's lead in international policy matters such as, say, votes to modify the ITRs] China is of course not the only nation to follow such a tactic  (to mention an extreme example, in another area - whaling rights - the Times of London came up with a sting operation that covered this [1]), so it remains to be seen how many countries vote one way or the other based on any larger country they may wish to take policy direction from, for whatever reason. The actual number of countries that can vote at WCIT may get lowered - http://news.dot-nxt.com/itu/wcit/c24-0 is a notice from the ITU SG's office that 17 countries have not paid their ITU dues and so may not get to vote at WCIT. --srs (iPad) [1] I can't find the link from the Times site but the LA Times also covers this - http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2010/06/times-of-london-investigates-allegations-that-japan-tries-to-buy-votes-in-its-favor-on-whaling-issue.html On 26-Nov-2012, at 17:54, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Hi, > > here is a comment to the full article: > > The two factual arguments which are used to substantiate the general politcal conclusion are wrong or at least not correct: > > 1. the ccTLD .iq case did not see any intervention from the USG. The problem was that three parties after Sadams departure claimed to have a right to get the delegation. Two competing ministeries and a rather dubious guy, living in the US. The ccTLD was redelegated finally after a letter of the prime minister arrived and declared the communication commission as the designated party.  http://www.iana.org/reports/2005/iq-report-05aug2005.pdf. I personally feel that it is absolutely irresponsible that a recognized newspaper as China Daily distributes false information of such a caliber around the globe. It is correct that China Daily - as all newspapers of the world - enjoy press freedom and the right to freedom of expression which includes also the right to distribute unchecked facts. But it is against all forms of journalistic ethics to manipulate the truth in such a way. > > 2. The argument with the 13 root servers (10 of them in the US) is also misleading in a time wehn there are more than 150 anycast servers active around the globe which consequently reduces the options for the USG to manipulate the Internet through its historically grown function to give final authorization to the publication of root zone files (including deletions) in the "hidden server". 2012 is not 2005 and there is no MoU and no JPA anymore. We have the AoC, a functioning GAC and a decentrloazed and multistakeholder the review process as an oversight mechanism for ICANN. Chinese government has expressed its support for the multistakeholder model in the recent high level GAC meeting in Toronto and CNNIC will host the 46th ICANN meeting in Bejing in April 2013 Again: Bad journalism, manipulative and misleading.      > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > Gesendet: Mo 26.11.2012 10:41 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'David Conrad' > Betreff: RE: [governance] FW: [IP] US must hand over Internet control to the world - People's Daily Online > > > > Dave, > > > > Whether "wrong" or not, I guess the point was that it is well to keep in mind what the leadership of one quarter of the world's population and the world's second largest economy thinks about some rather significant Internet related issues. Probably also well to keep in mind that in the end (and whether we like it or not) a lot of the issues under discussion at the WCIT will be resolved on a political (national interest) basis rather than a technical one and that distinguishing between the two isn't always as clear cut as it might at first appear. > > > > Best, > > > > M > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of David Conrad > Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 1:23 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] US must hand over Internet control to the world - People's Daily Online > > > > Is there some context as to why this 3 month old PDO opinion piece popped up again today on Dave's list? > > > > It's as wrong now as it was then. > > > > Regards, > > -drc > > > > On Nov 25, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > > FYI > > ________________________________ > > From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net ] > Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 10:27 AM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] US must hand over Internet control to the world - People's Daily Online > > http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/7915248.html > > > > (People's Daily Online ) > > 11:10, August 18, 2012    > > > > The Internet has become one of the most important resources in the world in just a few decades, but the governance mechanism for such an important international resource is still dominated by a private sector organization and a single country. > > The U.S. government said in a statement on July 1, 2005 that its Commerce Department would continue to support the work of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and indefinitely retain oversight of the Internet's 13 root servers. > > This indicated the U.S. decision to retain ultimate control over the global Internet, which enabled it to unilaterally close the Internet of another country. A suddenly paralyzed Internet would definitely cause huge social and economic losses to the country. > > More and more countries are beginning to question the U.S. control over the world's Internet as the international resource should be managed and supervised by all countries together. However, the United States has conducted a pre-emptive strike, and refused to give up control over the Internet in the name of protecting the resource. The refusal reflects its hegemonic mentality and double standards. > > The United States controls and owns all cyberspaces in the world, and other countries can only lease Internet addresses and domain names from the United States, leading to the U.S.. hegemonic monopoly over the world's Internet. > > > > snip > > Archives   https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg   | Modify   Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now > > https://www.listbox..com/images/listbox-logo-small.png > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -----La pièce jointe associée suit----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Mon Nov 26 11:15:32 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 17:15:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: <69AA34E9-F1F2-4EB3-A788-DBAF04D6E3E9@hserus.net> Message-ID: Hi all, For once, an article devoid of demagogy, .. on the usual subject. http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/904/ Louis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Nov 26 11:57:28 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:57:28 -0500 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: <69AA34E9-F1F2-4EB3-A788-DBAF04D6E3E9@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Hi all, > > For once, an article devoid of demagogy, .. on the usual subject. > > http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/904/ but full of ad hominem propaganda. -- 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 Mon Nov 26 12:02:31 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 17:02:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: References: <69AA34E9-F1F2-4EB3-A788-DBAF04D6E3E9@hserus.net> , Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB4EC2B@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Hi, a four-part series of articles by Dwayne Winseck (Canada) which culminates in http://t.co/Fj7hZGr seems to me a better opinion, Louis. The claims made in "The Hypocrisy..." about transparency and openness in the ITU have been tested and failed. These articles also peel off the hype and the anti-UN rhetoric, which is unwelcome in many countries, and, interestingly, finds that things are actually pretty bad notwithstanding. The control mentality and the antiquated approaches trying to reverse the clock are laid bare and for most will renew the will to not let them happen. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: pouzin at gmail.com [pouzin at gmail.com] en nombre de Louis Pouzin (well) [pouzin at well.com] Enviado el: lunes, 26 de noviembre de 2012 10:15 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website Hi all, For once, an article devoid of demagogy, .. on the usual subject. http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/904/ Louis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Mon Nov 26 13:05:48 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:05:48 -0800 Subject: [governance] [IP] US must hand over Internet control to the world - People's Daily Online In-Reply-To: <040d01cdcbba$51cc46f0$f564d4d0$@gmail.com> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16CFA0@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <040d01cdcbba$51cc46f0$f564d4d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <368F8ACE-6EA5-424F-BAC8-453D75BADBC7@virtualized.org> Michael, Just to clarify: I was curious as to why the PDO opinion piece resurfaced after 3 months, i.e., was there some discussion over on Dave's list that caused someone to dredge it up. Lee's subsequent note provided a bit of context. Tony does like to rail against the ITU... On Nov 26, 2012, at 1:41 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Whether "wrong" or not, I guess the point was that it is well to keep in mind what the leadership of one quarter of the world's population and the world's second largest economy thinks about some rather significant Internet related issues. Unfortunately, what they think (if that is what is reflected in that PDO piece) is simply and factually wrong (no quotes needed) as Wolfgang points out in his response. > Probably also well to keep in mind that in the end (and whether we like it or not) a lot of the issues under discussion at the WCIT will be resolved on a political (national interest) basis rather than a technical one and that distinguishing between the two isn't always as clear cut as it might at first appear. And in other news, water is wet :). The question isn't whether the issues will be resolved on a political or technical basis, it is how much the technical will be allowed to inform the political. If pure propaganda like the PDO piece is allowed to stand unchallenged and is used as input into political decisions, then the answer would appear to be "little to none" with an outcome most likely similar to why we're not communicating via X.400 over TP4/CLNP. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Nov 26 18:28:01 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 04:58:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB4EC2B@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <69AA34E9-F1F2-4EB3-A788-DBAF04D6E3E9@hserus.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB4EC2B@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <7BAE8686-F03D-49D0-8005-EB6760CADBA8@hserus.net> And another article (rather one in a series of articles) by Larry Downes in Forbes that covers the issue comprehensively but takes a stridently anti ITU tone (right down to a cute graphic of little red riding hood and the big bad wolf in grandma's clothing). The comments section (expand to select all comments rather than called out comments) has a long back and forth discussion between Downes and an ITU media relations official, http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2012/11/26/un-agencys-leaked-playbook-panic-chaos-over-internet-treaty/ --srs (iPad) On 26-Nov-2012, at 22:32, "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" wrote: > Hi, > > a four-part series of articles by Dwayne Winseck (Canada) which culminates in http://t.co/Fj7hZGr seems to me a better opinion, Louis. The claims made in "The Hypocrisy..." about transparency and openness in the ITU have been tested and failed. > > These articles also peel off the hype and the anti-UN rhetoric, which is unwelcome in many countries, and, interestingly, finds that things are actually pretty bad notwithstanding. > > The control mentality and the antiquated approaches trying to reverse the clock are laid bare and for most will renew the will to not let them happen. > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > Desde: pouzin at gmail.com [pouzin at gmail.com] en nombre de Louis Pouzin (well) [pouzin at well.com] > Enviado el: lunes, 26 de noviembre de 2012 10:15 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Asunto: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website > > Hi all, > > For once, an article devoid of demagogy, .. on the usual subject. > > http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/904/ > > Louis > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Tue Nov 27 00:50:33 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 07:50:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] Alt Root Foundation - New TLD's Message-ID: http://altrootfoundation.org/docs/icann%20altrootfoundation%205%20nov%202012.pdf I am not sure to what extent this is genuine? Any thoughts from anybody? Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 27 07:06:03 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:06:03 +0000 Subject: [governance] Alt Root Foundation - New TLD's In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 07:50:33 on Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Fahd A. Batayneh writes >http://altrootfoundation.org/docs/icann%20altrootfoundation%205%20nov%20 >2012.pdf > >I am not sure to what extent this is genuine? Any thoughts from anybody By genuine, do you mean not a hoax or a spoof? I don't know, but assertions that ICANN doesn't have an email address and that new gTLDs will continue to be released at the rate of approximately one per year, doesn't give it much credibility at the level of understanding the process. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Tue Nov 27 07:18:25 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 14:18:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] Alt Root Foundation - New TLD's In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message gmail.com>, > at 07:50:33 on Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Fahd A. Batayneh > writes > >> http://altrootfoundation.org/**docs/icann%** >> 20altrootfoundation%205%20nov%**20 >> >> 2012.pdf >> >> I am not sure to what extent this is genuine? Any thoughts from anybody >> > > By genuine, do you mean not a hoax or a spoof? > Yes. > I don't know, but assertions that ICANN doesn't have an email address and > that new gTLDs will continue to be released at the rate of approximately > one per year, doesn't give it much credibility at the level of > understanding the process. It seems that they have this software (plug-in) that diverts web requests to their proposed TLDs (have not tried it, but that is what their website shows). They also show a list of activated TLDs http://altrootfoundation.org/. Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Tue Nov 27 07:32:22 2012 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:32:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Alt Root Foundation - New TLD's In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20121127123222.GA13270@nic.fr> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 02:18:25PM +0200, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote a message of 114 lines which said: > > By genuine, do you mean not a hoax or a spoof? > > Yes. It is just one of the hundreds of existing alternative roots (it is interesting to note they do not acknowledge them). What is so special about it? -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From info at freshmail.de Tue Nov 27 06:34:18 2012 From: info at freshmail.de (Freshmail) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:34:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] Alt Root Foundation - New TLD's References: Message-ID: Hello. Philippe Blankert is well known in this alternate root context and he is working on it for years. Maybe he just entered the game because of the presence of the TLD issue these times. One can buy a alternateroot TLD for about 50.000 USD. Maybe this will be a good way for a new sort of defensive registrations :D Matthias ----- Original Message ----- From: Fahd A. Batayneh To: IG Caucus Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 6:50 AM Subject: [governance] Alt Root Foundation - New TLD's http://altrootfoundation.org/docs/icann%20altrootfoundation%205%20nov%202012.pdf I am not sure to what extent this is genuine? Any thoughts from anybody? Fahd ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Tue Nov 27 08:27:20 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 14:27:20 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB4EC2B@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <69AA34E9-F1F2-4EB3-A788-DBAF04D6E3E9@hserus.net> , <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB4EC2B@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <548020123.50308.1354022840532.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n34> "Antiquated" is the buzz for all those who haven't got a rationale to explain their own neoliberal choice ... Even the Lehmann Brothers likes ! I prefer Louis' reference when it comes to the collusion/collision of Internet goverance and worldwide IT rules. IMHO the only drawback is the ITU's anti-CS position. Therefore : thanks Louis !   Best Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 26/11/12 18:02 > De : "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Louis Pouzin (well)" > Copie à : > Objet : RE: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website > > Hi, > a four-part series of articles by Dwayne Winseck (Canada) which culminates in http://t.co/Fj7hZGr seems to me a better opinion, Louis. The claims made in "The Hypocrisy..." about transparency and openness in the ITU have been tested and failed.  > These articles also peel off the hype and the anti-UN rhetoric, which is unwelcome in many countries, and, interestingly, finds that things are actually pretty bad notwithstanding.  > The control mentality and the antiquated approaches trying to reverse the clock are laid bare and for most will renew the will to not let them happen.  > Yours, > Alejandro Pisanty > >    ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO >   > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > SMS +525541444475 >      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  Desde: pouzin at gmail.com [pouzin at gmail.com] en nombre de Louis Pouzin (well) [pouzin at well.com] > Enviado el: lunes, 26 de noviembre de 2012 10:15 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Asunto: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website > >   Hi all, > > For once, an article devoid of demagogy, .. on the usual subject. > > http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/904/ > > Louis > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Tue Nov 27 10:10:37 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:10:37 +0000 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website In-Reply-To: <548020123.50308.1354022840532.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n34> References: <69AA34E9-F1F2-4EB3-A788-DBAF04D6E3E9@hserus.net> , <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB4EC2B@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>,<548020123.50308.1354022840532.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n34> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB5991A@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Jean-Louis, ah, yes, time for the "neoliberal" adjective trading. On our way to Godwin again. I'll not counter-adjectivate. You've created your Feindbild for me and can now happily attack or ignore. To the substance. News today from WTSA is that in a last-minute surprise, the UAE and a few other countries are proposing that the ITU take up an active role in IPv6 address management (become an RIR... without region.) The lack of sense of the proposal and the surprise, opaque process seem to be additional, fundamental concerns, all the more so in the run-up to WCIT. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: Jean-Louis FULLSACK [jlfullsack at orange.fr] Enviado el: martes, 27 de noviembre de 2012 07:27 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Louis Pouzin (well) Asunto: RE: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website "Antiquated" is the buzz for all those who haven't got a rationale to explain their own neoliberal choice ... Even the Lehmann Brothers likes ! I prefer Louis' reference when it comes to the collusion/collision of Internet goverance and worldwide IT rules. IMHO the only drawback is the ITU's anti-CS position. Therefore : thanks Louis ! Best Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 26/11/12 18:02 > De : "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Louis Pouzin (well)" > Copie à : > Objet : RE: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website > > Hi, > a four-part series of articles by Dwayne Winseck (Canada) which culminates in http://t.co/Fj7hZGr seems to me a better opinion, Louis. The claims made in "The Hypocrisy..." about transparency and openness in the ITU have been tested and failed. > These articles also peel off the hype and the anti-UN rhetoric, which is unwelcome in many countries, and, interestingly, finds that things are actually pretty bad notwithstanding. > The control mentality and the antiquated approaches trying to reverse the clock are laid bare and for most will renew the will to not let them happen. > Yours, > Alejandro Pisanty > > ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: pouzin at gmail.com [pouzin at gmail.com] en nombre de Louis Pouzin (well) [pouzin at well.com] > Enviado el: lunes, 26 de noviembre de 2012 10:15 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Asunto: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website > > Hi all, > > For once, an article devoid of demagogy, .. on the usual subject. > > http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/904/ > > Louis > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 27 10:40:13 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 21:10:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website Message-ID: We can expect this from the Arab countries, china, and russia and possibly any other country where the regulator shares a closer than usual relationship with the incumbent or former incumbent telco and wishes to tilt the playing field in their favor when it comes to the supply of raw material (ip addresses) --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" To: "Jean-Louis FULLSACK" , "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Louis Pouzin (well)" Subject: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website Date: Tue, Nov 27, 2012 8:40 PM Jean-Louis, ah, yes, time for the "neoliberal" adjective trading. On our way to Godwin again. I'll not counter-adjectivate. You've created your Feindbild for me and can now happily attack or ignore. To the substance. News today from WTSA is that in a last-minute surprise, the UAE and a few other countries are proposing that the ITU take up an active role in IPv6 address management (become an RIR... without region.) The lack of sense of the proposal and the surprise, opaque process seem to be additional, fundamental concerns, all the more so in the run-up to WCIT. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: Jean-Louis FULLSACK [jlfullsack at orange.fr] Enviado el: martes, 27 de noviembre de 2012 07:27 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Louis Pouzin (well) Asunto: RE: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website "Antiquated" is the buzz for all those who haven't got a rationale to explain their own neoliberal choice ... Even the Lehmann Brothers likes ! I prefer Louis' reference when it comes to the collusion/collision of Internet goverance and worldwide IT rules. IMHO the only drawback is the ITU's anti-CS position. Therefore : thanks Louis ! Best Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 26/11/12 18:02 > De : "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Louis Pouzin (well)" > Copie à : > Objet : RE: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website > > Hi, > a four-part series of articles by Dwayne Winseck (Canada) which culminates in http://t.co/Fj7hZGr seems to me a better opinion, Louis. The claims made in "The Hypocrisy..." about transparency and openness in the ITU have been tested and failed. > These articles also peel off the hype and the anti-UN rhetoric, which is unwelcome in many countries, and, interestingly, finds that things are actually pretty bad notwithstanding. > The control mentality and the antiquated approaches trying to reverse the clock are laid bare and for most will renew the will to not let them happen. > Yours, > Alejandro Pisanty > > ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: pouzin at gmail.com [pouzin at gmail.com] en nombre de Louis Pouzin (well) [pouzin at well.com] > Enviado el: lunes, 26 de noviembre de 2012 10:15 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Asunto: [governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website > > Hi all, > > For once, an article devoid of demagogy, .. on the usual subject. > > http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/904/ > > Louis > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Nov 27 13:43:39 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:43:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/article/20?= =?US-ASCII?Q?12/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16D5F8@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> In case you missed it...today's Reuters article re WCIT. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 27 14:52:45 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 19:52:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] re 'worst case scenario' Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16D609@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> If I may toot my own horn, on how to manage without Internet or even gasp cel towers...permit me to introduce our development of 'worst case scenario' hardware and software: http://www.emergencymgmt.com/back-issues/ Nov/Dec 2012 p. 24 'Cutting Edge' discusses Syracuse University WiGiT Lab's 'Intelligent Deployable Augmented Wireless Gateway,' or iDAWG. Connection to IGC and global Internet governance is: global coordination is not always needed. Maybe it's just you and your neighbors that need to agree. Although Internet governance still matters when neighbors try to save each other during a disaster, perhaps by lending smartphones' power to each other and to authorities; as open specs and tools are needed. And yeah - depending upon outcomes of 'Internet Apocalypse Now WCIT Dubai edition' - worst case scenarios could be more widespread in future even than Sandy ; ( Or not. best, Lee PS: Next iDAWG field tests spring 2013; check http://wigit.ischool.syr.edu for future posts on dates/times for evaluation of WiGiT's new tools for 'social emergency response' systems during the 'Symphony of Destruction II' emergency response training exercise. IGCers are always welcome in sunny Syracuse. PPS: I tried to discuss at IGF WiGiT's open specs and tools related to all this and more, like digital culture, but was foiled by Internet connectivity/remote participation issues. Thanks again to Norbert for the attempt to include us in his 'standards' workshop. More next week also when we release WiGiT v0.2 open specs, and invite colleagues to join in v0.3 and beyond. Everyone is welcome to join the WiGiT distributed experimental testbed of 80+ campuses, companies, and communities. Email me offline for more info on how to join - no cost, no obligation - the distributed experimental testbed's virtual organization. -toot out- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 27 15:03:05 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:03:05 -0800 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16D5F8@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16D5F8@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <0a2501cdccda$36fe3a60$a4faaf20$@gmail.com> I think it might be useful if the various discussants involved in the WCIT/ITU debate were to indicate which of these categories they would fall into: 1. no regulation of the Internet period 2. possible regulation/global governance of the Internet in certain areas for certain issues but not by the ITU 3. regulation of the Internet in certain identified issue areas by the ITU It seems to me that a lot of the loudest voices in the discussion have come from those whose broad position is #1 but in a feat of legerdemaine they have managed to stampede many of those whose ultimate position would be #2 (based on a reasoned assessment of the broad needs of the global community) to support them by arguing that there were in fact only two options #1 and #3. That option #1 (i.e. the default option) would seem to strongly favour the current dominant geo-political and commercial incumbents is of course purely accidental. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 10:44 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 In case you missed it...today's Reuters article re WCIT. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 27 15:56:12 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:56:12 -0800 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03BE2B85@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16D5F8@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <0a2501cdccda$36fe3a60$a4faaf20$@gmail.com> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03BE2B85@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <0a8101cdcce1$b323fb00$196bf100$@gmail.com> Hi Michael, We can do some thought experiments around what option #2 would look like as for example, to deal with the issues of global/natonal security on the Internet but at the end of the day my guess is that it would look rather like a UN agency except one that had been updated from 19th century modes of operation (and assumptions about appropriate structures of governance) to ones more reflective of 21st century modes/assumptions and technology. How we get from here to there is of course, a challenge but if the major players are in fact operating in good faith with an overarching concern for the health and well being of the Internet infrastructure as a global public good rather than pursuing narrow national or commercial interests then developing a suitable set of mechanisms shouldn't be impossible. And you are right about "incumbents"--I was of course referring to dominant Internet players rather than telco incumbents. Best, Mike From: Michael Kende [mailto:Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:20 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; 'Lee W McKnight' Subject: RE: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 Michael, What would #2 look like? Who would be responsible, what jurisdiction would they have, what hole would they fill? I think it is possible to prefer 1 over 3 even if you might prefer #2 to emerge, but there is no broadly articulated alternative, so what would you propose? Michael PS since a number of commercial incumbents are in fact behind one of the proposals to add Internet issues to the ITRs, I do not think your last statement is strictly accurate. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:03 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Lee W McKnight' Subject: RE: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 I think it might be useful if the various discussants involved in the WCIT/ITU debate were to indicate which of these categories they would fall into: 1. no regulation of the Internet period 2. possible regulation/global governance of the Internet in certain areas for certain issues but not by the ITU 3. regulation of the Internet in certain identified issue areas by the ITU It seems to me that a lot of the loudest voices in the discussion have come from those whose broad position is #1 but in a feat of legerdemaine they have managed to stampede many of those whose ultimate position would be #2 (based on a reasoned assessment of the broad needs of the global community) to support them by arguing that there were in fact only two options #1 and #3. That option #1 (i.e. the default option) would seem to strongly favour the current dominant geo-political and commercial incumbents is of course purely accidental. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 10:44 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 In case you missed it...today's Reuters article re WCIT. _____ This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed to our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email enquiries at analysysmason.com or visit www.analysysmason.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 dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Nov 27 16:59:18 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 16:59:18 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: <0a2501cdccda$36fe3a60$a4faaf20$@gmail.com> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16D5F8@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <0a2501cdccda$36fe3a60$a4faaf20$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 3:03 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > I think it might be useful if the various discussants involved in the > WCIT/ITU debate were to indicate which of these categories they would fall > into: > > 1. no regulation of the Internet period This horse has left the barn > > 2. possible regulation/global governance of the Internet in > certain areas for certain issues but not by the ITU This is status quo, no? > > 3. regulation of the Internet in certain identified issue > areas by the ITU no thanks, I've just posted a partial rebuttal of the National Journal piece at http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121127_potkettleblack_the_real_hypocrisy_threatening_future_of_internet/ If anyone is interested. > > > > It seems to me that a lot of the loudest voices in the discussion have come > from those whose broad position is #1 but in a feat of legerdemaine they > have managed to stampede many of those whose ultimate position would be #2 > (based on a reasoned assessment of the broad needs of the global community) > to support them by arguing that there were in fact only two options #1 and > #3. > > > > That option #1 (i.e. the default option) would seem to strongly favour the > current dominant geo-political and commercial incumbents is of course purely > accidental. It would be #2 in my book -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 27 18:09:35 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 04:39:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/article/2?= =?UTF-8?Q?012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= Message-ID: Of course you will have to expect that not all proposals submitted will be driven by pure altruism. Narrower interests... Protectionism, politics, whatever else will inform several proposals. And you can't rely on the major players being purely driven by altruism, I'm afraid. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "michael gurstein" To: "'Michael Kende'" , Subject: [governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2012 2:26 AM Hi Michael, We can do some thought experiments around what option #2 would look like as for example, to deal with the issues of global/natonal security on the Internet but at the end of the day my guess is that it would look rather like a UN agency except one that had been updated from 19th century modes of operation (and assumptions about appropriate structures of governance) to ones more reflective of 21st century modes/assumptions and technology. How we get from here to there is of course, a challenge but if the major players are in fact operating in good faith with an overarching concern for the health and well being of the Internet infrastructure as a global public good rather than pursuing narrow national or commercial interests then developing a suitable set of mechanisms shouldn't be impossible. And you are right about "incumbents"--I was of course referring to dominant Internet players rather than telco incumbents. Best, Mike From: Michael Kende [mailto:Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:20 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; 'Lee W McKnight' Subject: RE: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 Michael, What would #2 look like? Who would be responsible, what jurisdiction would they have, what hole would they fill? I think it is possible to prefer 1 over 3 even if you might prefer #2 to emerge, but there is no broadly articulated alternative, so what would you propose? Michael PS since a number of commercial incumbents are in fact behind one of the proposals to add Internet issues to the ITRs, I do not think your last statement is strictly accurate. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:03 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Lee W McKnight' Subject: RE: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 I think it might be useful if the various discussants involved in the WCIT/ITU debate were to indicate which of these categories they would fall into: 1. no regulation of the Internet period 2. possible regulation/global governance of the Internet in certain areas for certain issues but not by the ITU 3. regulation of the Internet in certain identified issue areas by the ITU It seems to me that a lot of the loudest voices in the discussion have come from those whose broad position is #1 but in a feat of legerdemaine they have managed to stampede many of those whose ultimate position would be #2 (based on a reasoned assessment of the broad needs of the global community) to support them by arguing that there were in fact only two options #1 and #3. That option #1 (i.e. the default option) would seem to strongly favour the current dominant geo-political and commercial incumbents is of course purely accidental. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 10:44 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 In case you missed it...today's Reuters article re WCIT. _____ This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed to our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email enquiries at analysysmason.com or visit www.analysysmason.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 gurstein at gmail.com Tue Nov 27 18:45:29 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:45:29 -0800 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0ae401cdccf9$48a8fdd0$d9faf970$@gmail.com> But surely that is the point of civil society, not to be a cheer leader for the status quo but rather to push governments and others towards their higher angels. M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:10 PM To: gurstein at gmail.com; 'Michael Kende'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 Of course you will have to expect that not all proposals submitted will be driven by pure altruism. Narrower interests... Protectionism, politics, whatever else will inform several proposals. And you can't rely on the major players being purely driven by altruism, I'm afraid. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "michael gurstein" To: "'Michael Kende'" , Subject: [governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2012 2:26 AM Hi Michael, We can do some thought experiments around what option #2 would look like as for example, to deal with the issues of global/natonal security on the Internet but at the end of the day my guess is that it would look rather like a UN agency except one that had been updated from 19th century modes of operation (and assumptions about appropriate structures of governance) to ones more reflective of 21st century modes/assumptions and technology. How we get from here to there is of course, a challenge but if the major players are in fact operating in good faith with an overarching concern for the health and well being of the Internet infrastructure as a global public good rather than pursuing narrow national or commercial interests then developing a suitable set of mechanisms shouldn't be impossible. And you are right about "incumbents"--I was of course referring to dominant Internet players rather than telco incumbents. Best, Mike From: Michael Kende [mailto:Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:20 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; 'Lee W McKnight' Subject: RE: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 Michael, What would #2 look like? Who would be responsible, what jurisdiction would they have, what hole would they fill? I think it is possible to prefer 1 over 3 even if you might prefer #2 to emerge, but there is no broadly articulated alternative, so what would you propose? Michael PS since a number of commercial incumbents are in fact behind one of the proposals to add Internet issues to the ITRs, I do not think your last statement is strictly accurate. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:03 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Lee W McKnight' Subject: RE: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 I think it might be useful if the various discussants involved in the WCIT/ITU debate were to indicate which of these categories they would fall into: 1. no regulation of the Internet period 2. possible regulation/global governance of the Internet in certain areas for certain issues but not by the ITU 3. regulation of the Internet in certain identified issue areas by the ITU It seems to me that a lot of the loudest voices in the discussion have come from those whose broad position is #1 but in a feat of legerdemaine they have managed to stampede many of those whose ultimate position would be #2 (based on a reasoned assessment of the broad needs of the global community) to support them by arguing that there were in fact only two options #1 and #3. That option #1 (i.e. the default option) would seem to strongly favour the current dominant geo-political and commercial incumbents is of course purely accidental. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 10:44 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 In case you missed it...today's Reuters article re WCIT. _____ This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed to our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email enquiries at analysysmason.com or visit www.analysysmason.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 gpaque at gmail.com Tue Nov 27 19:06:32 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:06:32 -0600 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: <0ae401cdccf9$48a8fdd0$d9faf970$@gmail.com> References: <0ae401cdccf9$48a8fdd0$d9faf970$@gmail.com> Message-ID: I think we have to push hard for #1, and hope we get a tolerable version of #2. Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig ** ** On 27 November 2012 17:45, michael gurstein wrote: > But surely that is the point of civil society, not to be a cheer leader > for the status quo but rather to push governments and others towards their > higher angels.**** > > ** ** > > M**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:10 PM > *To:* gurstein at gmail.com; 'Michael Kende'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] > http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 > **** > > ** ** > > Of course you will have to expect that not all proposals submitted will be > driven by pure altruism. > > Narrower interests... Protectionism, politics, whatever else will inform > several proposals. > > And you can't rely on the major players being purely driven by altruism, > I'm afraid. > > --srs (htc one x) > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "michael gurstein" > To: "'Michael Kende'" , < > governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > Subject: [governance] > http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 > Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2012 2:26 AM > > > Hi Michael, > > > > We can do some thought experiments around what option #2 would look like as > for example, to deal with the issues of global/natonal security on the > Internet but at the end of the day my guess is that it would look rather > like a UN agency except one that had been updated from 19th century modes > of > operation (and assumptions about appropriate structures of governance) to > ones more reflective of 21st century modes/assumptions and technology. > > > > How we get from here to there is of course, a challenge but if the major > players are in fact operating in good faith with an overarching concern for > the health and well being of the Internet infrastructure as a global public > good rather than pursuing narrow national or commercial interests then > developing a suitable set of mechanisms shouldn't be impossible. > > > > And you are right about "incumbents"--I was of course referring to dominant > Internet players rather than telco incumbents. > > > > Best, > > > > Mike > > > > From: Michael Kende [mailto:Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:20 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; 'Lee W McKnight' > Subject: RE: [governance] > > http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 > 121127 > > > > Michael, > > > > What would #2 look like? Who would be responsible, what jurisdiction would > they have, what hole would they fill? I think it is possible to prefer 1 > over 3 even if you might prefer #2 to emerge, but there is no broadly > articulated alternative, so what would you propose? > > > > Michael > > > PS since a number of commercial incumbents are in fact behind one of the > proposals to add Internet issues to the ITRs, I do not think your last > statement is strictly accurate. > > > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] > On Behalf Of michael gurstein > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:03 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Lee W McKnight' > Subject: RE: [governance] > > http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 > 121127 > > > > I think it might be useful if the various discussants involved in the > WCIT/ITU debate were to indicate which of these categories they would fall > into: > > 1. no regulation of the Internet period > > 2. possible regulation/global governance of the Internet in > certain areas for certain issues but not by the ITU > > 3. regulation of the Internet in certain identified issue > areas by the ITU > > > > It seems to me that a lot of the loudest voices in the discussion have come > from those whose broad position is #1 but in a feat of legerdemaine they > have managed to stampede many of those whose ultimate position would be #2 > (based on a reasoned assessment of the broad needs of the global community) > to support them by arguing that there were in fact only two options #1 and > #3. > > > > That option #1 (i.e. the default option) would seem to strongly favour the > current dominant geo-political and commercial incumbents is of course > purely > accidental. > > > > M > > > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] > On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 10:44 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] > > http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 > 121127 > > > > In case you missed it...today's Reuters article re WCIT. > > > > > _____ > > This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed to > our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. > > Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered > office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number > 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email enquiries at analysysmason.com or visit > www.analysysmason.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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 27 19:16:01 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:16:01 +1100 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: References: <0ae401cdccf9$48a8fdd0$d9faf970$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <192D07831B004459ABA3BE34BD38B835@Toshiba> Disagree with Ginger (that doesnt happen often!) no regulation of the internet period means to me * large corporations control what happens via market power * paypal can suspend all payments to wikileaks or whoever offends their sensibilities with no ramifications or checks and balances and political judgements of corporations can determine access * paedophilia, hate mail etc are completely unchecked * cybercrime is OK * all governments can act unilaterally to block sites according to whatever power they can exert on either corporations or their local ISP industry. Frankly, to me this is a horror scenario. But where I do agree with Ginger is aiming for a tolerable version of #2. Ian Peter From: Ginger Paque Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:06 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; michael gurstein Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian ; Michael Kende Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 I think we have to push hard for #1, and hope we get a tolerable version of #2. Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig On 27 November 2012 17:45, michael gurstein wrote: But surely that is the point of civil society, not to be a cheer leader for the status quo but rather to push governments and others towards their higher angels. M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:10 PM To: gurstein at gmail.com; 'Michael Kende'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 Of course you will have to expect that not all proposals submitted will be driven by pure altruism. Narrower interests... Protectionism, politics, whatever else will inform several proposals. And you can't rely on the major players being purely driven by altruism, I'm afraid. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "michael gurstein" To: "'Michael Kende'" , Subject: [governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2012 2:26 AM Hi Michael, We can do some thought experiments around what option #2 would look like as for example, to deal with the issues of global/natonal security on the Internet but at the end of the day my guess is that it would look rather like a UN agency except one that had been updated from 19th century modes of operation (and assumptions about appropriate structures of governance) to ones more reflective of 21st century modes/assumptions and technology. How we get from here to there is of course, a challenge but if the major players are in fact operating in good faith with an overarching concern for the health and well being of the Internet infrastructure as a global public good rather than pursuing narrow national or commercial interests then developing a suitable set of mechanisms shouldn't be impossible. And you are right about "incumbents"--I was of course referring to dominant Internet players rather than telco incumbents. Best, Mike From: Michael Kende [mailto:Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:20 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; 'Lee W McKnight' Subject: RE: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 Michael, What would #2 look like? Who would be responsible, what jurisdiction would they have, what hole would they fill? I think it is possible to prefer 1 over 3 even if you might prefer #2 to emerge, but there is no broadly articulated alternative, so what would you propose? Michael PS since a number of commercial incumbents are in fact behind one of the proposals to add Internet issues to the ITRs, I do not think your last statement is strictly accurate. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:03 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Lee W McKnight' Subject: RE: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 I think it might be useful if the various discussants involved in the WCIT/ITU debate were to indicate which of these categories they would fall into: 1. no regulation of the Internet period 2. possible regulation/global governance of the Internet in certain areas for certain issues but not by the ITU 3. regulation of the Internet in certain identified issue areas by the ITU It seems to me that a lot of the loudest voices in the discussion have come from those whose broad position is #1 but in a feat of legerdemaine they have managed to stampede many of those whose ultimate position would be #2 (based on a reasoned assessment of the broad needs of the global community) to support them by arguing that there were in fact only two options #1 and #3. That option #1 (i.e. the default option) would seem to strongly favour the current dominant geo-political and commercial incumbents is of course purely accidental. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 10:44 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 In case you missed it...today's Reuters article re WCIT. _____ This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed to our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email enquiries at analysysmason.com or visit www.analysysmason.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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Tue Nov 27 19:20:38 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 16:20:38 -0800 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: <192D07831B004459ABA3BE34BD38B835@Toshiba> References: <0ae401cdccf9$48a8fdd0$d9faf970$@gmail.com> <192D07831B004459ABA3BE34BD38B835@Toshiba> Message-ID: <3BDD1801-D235-4128-A22D-1DF38B5A3A55@virtualized.org> I suspect a pre-requisite to answering Michael's question is defining what "the Internet" actually encompasses. Regards, -drc On Nov 27, 2012, at 4:16 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Disagree with Ginger (that doesnt happen often!) > > no regulation of the internet period means to me > > * large corporations control what happens via market power > * paypal can suspend all payments to wikileaks or whoever offends their sensibilities with no ramifications or checks and balances and political judgements of corporations can determine access > * paedophilia, hate mail etc are completely unchecked > * cybercrime is OK > * all governments can act unilaterally to block sites according to whatever power they can exert on either corporations or their local ISP industry. > > Frankly, to me this is a horror scenario. > > But where I do agree with Ginger is aiming for a tolerable version of #2. > > Ian Peter > > From: Ginger Paque > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:06 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; michael gurstein > Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian ; Michael Kende > Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 > > I think we have to push hard for #1, and hope we get a tolerable version of #2. > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > Diplo Foundation > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > > > > On 27 November 2012 17:45, michael gurstein wrote: > But surely that is the point of civil society, not to be a cheer leader for the status quo but rather to push governments and others towards their higher angels. > > > > M > > > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:10 PM > To: gurstein at gmail.com; 'Michael Kende'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 > > > > Of course you will have to expect that not all proposals submitted will be driven by pure altruism. > > Narrower interests... Protectionism, politics, whatever else will inform several proposals. > > And you can't rely on the major players being purely driven by altruism, I'm afraid. > > --srs (htc one x) > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "michael gurstein" > To: "'Michael Kende'" , > Subject: [governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 > Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2012 2:26 AM > > > Hi Michael, > > > > We can do some thought experiments around what option #2 would look like as > for example, to deal with the issues of global/natonal security on the > Internet but at the end of the day my guess is that it would look rather > like a UN agency except one that had been updated from 19th century modes of > operation (and assumptions about appropriate structures of governance) to > ones more reflective of 21st century modes/assumptions and technology. > > > > How we get from here to there is of course, a challenge but if the major > players are in fact operating in good faith with an overarching concern for > the health and well being of the Internet infrastructure as a global public > good rather than pursuing narrow national or commercial interests then > developing a suitable set of mechanisms shouldn't be impossible. > > > > And you are right about "incumbents"--I was of course referring to dominant > Internet players rather than telco incumbents. > > > > Best, > > > > Mike > > > > From: Michael Kende [mailto:Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:20 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; 'Lee W McKnight' > Subject: RE: [governance] > http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 > 121127 > > > > Michael, > > > > What would #2 look like? Who would be responsible, what jurisdiction would > they have, what hole would they fill? I think it is possible to prefer 1 > over 3 even if you might prefer #2 to emerge, but there is no broadly > articulated alternative, so what would you propose? > > > > Michael > > > PS since a number of commercial incumbents are in fact behind one of the > proposals to add Internet issues to the ITRs, I do not think your last > statement is strictly accurate. > > > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:03 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Lee W McKnight' > Subject: RE: [governance] > http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 > 121127 > > > > I think it might be useful if the various discussants involved in the > WCIT/ITU debate were to indicate which of these categories they would fall > into: > > 1. no regulation of the Internet period > > 2. possible regulation/global governance of the Internet in > certain areas for certain issues but not by the ITU > > 3. regulation of the Internet in certain identified issue > areas by the ITU > > > > It seems to me that a lot of the loudest voices in the discussion have come > from those whose broad position is #1 but in a feat of legerdemaine they > have managed to stampede many of those whose ultimate position would be #2 > (based on a reasoned assessment of the broad needs of the global community) > to support them by arguing that there were in fact only two options #1 and > #3. > > > > That option #1 (i.e. the default option) would seem to strongly favour the > current dominant geo-political and commercial incumbents is of course purely > accidental. > > > > M > > > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 10:44 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] > http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 > 121127 > > > > In case you missed it...today's Reuters article re WCIT. > > > > > _____ > > This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed to > our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. > > Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered > office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number > 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email enquiries at analysysmason.com or visit > www.analysysmason.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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Nov 27 19:32:19 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:32:19 -0600 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: <192D07831B004459ABA3BE34BD38B835@Toshiba> References: <0ae401cdccf9$48a8fdd0$d9faf970$@gmail.com> <192D07831B004459ABA3BE34BD38B835@Toshiba> Message-ID: :) I didn't say I wanted #1... I said we have to push hard for #1... With the aim of arriving at a tolerable version of #2... Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig ** ** On 27 November 2012 18:16, Ian Peter wrote: > Disagree with Ginger (that doesnt happen often!) > > no regulation of the internet period means to me > > * large corporations control what happens via market power > * paypal can suspend all payments to wikileaks or whoever offends their > sensibilities with no ramifications or checks and balances and political > judgements of corporations can determine access > * paedophilia, hate mail etc are completely unchecked > * cybercrime is OK > * all governments can act unilaterally to block sites according to > whatever power they can exert on either corporations or their local ISP > industry. > > Frankly, to me this is a horror scenario. > > But where I do agree with Ginger is aiming for a tolerable version of #2. > > Ian Peter > > *From:* Ginger Paque > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:06 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; michael gurstein > *Cc:* Suresh Ramasubramanian ; Michael Kende > *Subject:* Re: [governance] > http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 > > I think we have to push hard for #1, and hope we get a tolerable version > of #2. > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > Diplo Foundation > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > ** > ** > > > > On 27 November 2012 17:45, michael gurstein wrote: > >> But surely that is the point of civil society, not to be a cheer leader >> for the status quo but rather to push governments and others towards their >> higher angels.**** >> >> **** >> >> M**** >> >> **** >> >> *From:* Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:10 PM >> *To:* gurstein at gmail.com; 'Michael Kende'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] >> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 >> **** >> >> **** >> >> Of course you will have to expect that not all proposals submitted will >> be driven by pure altruism. >> >> Narrower interests... Protectionism, politics, whatever else will inform >> several proposals. >> >> And you can't rely on the major players being purely driven by altruism, >> I'm afraid. >> >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "michael gurstein" >> To: "'Michael Kende'" , < >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org> >> Subject: [governance] >> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 >> Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2012 2:26 AM >> >> >> Hi Michael, >> >> >> >> We can do some thought experiments around what option #2 would look like >> as >> for example, to deal with the issues of global/natonal security on the >> Internet but at the end of the day my guess is that it would look rather >> like a UN agency except one that had been updated from 19th century modes >> of >> operation (and assumptions about appropriate structures of governance) to >> ones more reflective of 21st century modes/assumptions and technology. >> >> >> >> How we get from here to there is of course, a challenge but if the major >> players are in fact operating in good faith with an overarching concern >> for >> the health and well being of the Internet infrastructure as a global >> public >> good rather than pursuing narrow national or commercial interests then >> developing a suitable set of mechanisms shouldn't be impossible. >> >> >> >> And you are right about "incumbents"--I was of course referring to >> dominant >> Internet players rather than telco incumbents. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> From: Michael Kende [mailto:Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com] >> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:20 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; 'Lee W McKnight' >> Subject: RE: [governance] >> >> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 >> 121127 >> >> >> >> Michael, >> >> >> >> What would #2 look like? Who would be responsible, what jurisdiction >> would >> they have, what hole would they fill? I think it is possible to prefer 1 >> over 3 even if you might prefer #2 to emerge, but there is no broadly >> articulated alternative, so what would you propose? >> >> >> >> Michael >> >> >> PS since a number of commercial incumbents are in fact behind one of the >> proposals to add Internet issues to the ITRs, I do not think your last >> statement is strictly accurate. >> >> >> >> >> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] >> On Behalf Of michael gurstein >> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:03 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Lee W McKnight' >> Subject: RE: [governance] >> >> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 >> 121127 >> >> >> >> I think it might be useful if the various discussants involved in the >> WCIT/ITU debate were to indicate which of these categories they would fall >> into: >> >> 1. no regulation of the Internet period >> >> 2. possible regulation/global governance of the Internet in >> certain areas for certain issues but not by the ITU >> >> 3. regulation of the Internet in certain identified issue >> areas by the ITU >> >> >> >> It seems to me that a lot of the loudest voices in the discussion have >> come >> from those whose broad position is #1 but in a feat of legerdemaine they >> have managed to stampede many of those whose ultimate position would be #2 >> (based on a reasoned assessment of the broad needs of the global >> community) >> to support them by arguing that there were in fact only two options #1 and >> #3. >> >> >> >> That option #1 (i.e. the default option) would seem to strongly favour the >> current dominant geo-political and commercial incumbents is of course >> purely >> accidental. >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> >> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] >> On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight >> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 10:44 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: [governance] >> >> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 >> 121127 >> >> >> >> In case you missed it...today's Reuters article re WCIT. >> >> >> >> >> _____ >> >> This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed >> to >> our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. >> >> Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered >> office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered >> number >> 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244 <%2B44%20845%20600%205244>. Email >> enquiries at analysysmason.com or visit >> www.analysysmason.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 >> >> > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 27 19:42:07 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:42:07 +1100 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: References: <0ae401cdccf9$48a8fdd0$d9faf970$@gmail.com> <192D07831B004459ABA3BE34BD38B835@Toshiba> Message-ID: I think pushing hard for #1 in order to arrive at a tolerable version of #2 might actually result in people adopting #3 because those advocating #1 seem to be not facing reality. From: Ginger Paque Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:32 AM To: Ian Peter Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 :) I didn't say I wanted #1... I said we have to push hard for #1... With the aim of arriving at a tolerable version of #2... Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig On 27 November 2012 18:16, Ian Peter wrote: Disagree with Ginger (that doesnt happen often!) no regulation of the internet period means to me * large corporations control what happens via market power * paypal can suspend all payments to wikileaks or whoever offends their sensibilities with no ramifications or checks and balances and political judgements of corporations can determine access * paedophilia, hate mail etc are completely unchecked * cybercrime is OK * all governments can act unilaterally to block sites according to whatever power they can exert on either corporations or their local ISP industry. Frankly, to me this is a horror scenario. But where I do agree with Ginger is aiming for a tolerable version of #2. Ian Peter From: Ginger Paque Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:06 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; michael gurstein Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian ; Michael Kende Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 I think we have to push hard for #1, and hope we get a tolerable version of #2. Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig On 27 November 2012 17:45, michael gurstein wrote: But surely that is the point of civil society, not to be a cheer leader for the status quo but rather to push governments and others towards their higher angels. M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:10 PM To: gurstein at gmail.com; 'Michael Kende'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 Of course you will have to expect that not all proposals submitted will be driven by pure altruism. Narrower interests... Protectionism, politics, whatever else will inform several proposals. And you can't rely on the major players being purely driven by altruism, I'm afraid. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "michael gurstein" To: "'Michael Kende'" , Subject: [governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2012 2:26 AM Hi Michael, We can do some thought experiments around what option #2 would look like as for example, to deal with the issues of global/natonal security on the Internet but at the end of the day my guess is that it would look rather like a UN agency except one that had been updated from 19th century modes of operation (and assumptions about appropriate structures of governance) to ones more reflective of 21st century modes/assumptions and technology. How we get from here to there is of course, a challenge but if the major players are in fact operating in good faith with an overarching concern for the health and well being of the Internet infrastructure as a global public good rather than pursuing narrow national or commercial interests then developing a suitable set of mechanisms shouldn't be impossible. And you are right about "incumbents"--I was of course referring to dominant Internet players rather than telco incumbents. Best, Mike From: Michael Kende [mailto:Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:20 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; 'Lee W McKnight' Subject: RE: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 Michael, What would #2 look like? Who would be responsible, what jurisdiction would they have, what hole would they fill? I think it is possible to prefer 1 over 3 even if you might prefer #2 to emerge, but there is no broadly articulated alternative, so what would you propose? Michael PS since a number of commercial incumbents are in fact behind one of the proposals to add Internet issues to the ITRs, I do not think your last statement is strictly accurate. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:03 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Lee W McKnight' Subject: RE: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 I think it might be useful if the various discussants involved in the WCIT/ITU debate were to indicate which of these categories they would fall into: 1. no regulation of the Internet period 2. possible regulation/global governance of the Internet in certain areas for certain issues but not by the ITU 3. regulation of the Internet in certain identified issue areas by the ITU It seems to me that a lot of the loudest voices in the discussion have come from those whose broad position is #1 but in a feat of legerdemaine they have managed to stampede many of those whose ultimate position would be #2 (based on a reasoned assessment of the broad needs of the global community) to support them by arguing that there were in fact only two options #1 and #3. That option #1 (i.e. the default option) would seem to strongly favour the current dominant geo-political and commercial incumbents is of course purely accidental. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 10:44 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 In case you missed it...today's Reuters article re WCIT. _____ This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed to our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email enquiries at analysysmason.com or visit www.analysysmason.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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 27 19:48:01 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 06:18:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/article/2?= =?UTF-8?Q?012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= Message-ID: I am sorry but nobody even among the fans of the status quo (which does happen to be multistakeholder to a larger extent than the ITU is) will argue for a laissez faire and completely unregulated Internet with possibly utopian lessigisms like 'code is law' substituting for regulation. Several national cyber crime laws have broadly similar scope and language on the specific circumstances that warrant cross border and extra territorial application. Meanwhile, a country's laws will be entirely applicable to companies doing business in that country. PayPal and wiki leaks. Or earlier yahoo china (actually a chinese company alibaba that is a local business partner of yahoo) turning over a dissidents information to the Chinese police and causing yahoo's ceo to have to apologize to the poor man's wife before a Senate subcommittee. Coming specifically to cybersecurity there are international multilateral instruments such as the Budapest convention that provide a framework for cooperation among cyber crime enforcement agencies. A significant point to be considered is whether an organization that comprises of civil agencies (telecom regulators) will be effectively able to set and enforce any sort of policy on cybercrime when a significant part of it is worked by law enforcement, besides a plethora of other agencies within the country --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Ian Peter" To: "Ginger Paque" , , "michael gurstein" Subject: [governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2012 5:46 AM Disagree with Ginger (that doesnt happen often!) no regulation of the internet period means to me * large corporations control what happens via market power * paypal can suspend all payments to wikileaks or whoever offends their sensibilities with no ramifications or checks and balances and political judgements of corporations can determine access * paedophilia, hate mail etc are completely unchecked * cybercrime is OK * all governments can act unilaterally to block sites according to whatever power they can exert on either corporations or their local ISP industry. Frankly, to me this is a horror scenario. But where I do agree with Ginger is aiming for a tolerable version of #2. Ian Peter From: Ginger Paque Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:06 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; michael gurstein Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian ; Michael Kende Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 I think we have to push hard for #1, and hope we get a tolerable version of #2. Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig On 27 November 2012 17:45, michael gurstein wrote: But surely that is the point of civil society, not to be a cheer leader for the status quo but rather to push governments and others towards their higher angels. M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:10 PM To: gurstein at gmail.com; 'Michael Kende'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 Of course you will have to expect that not all proposals submitted will be driven by pure altruism. Narrower interests... Protectionism, politics, whatever else will inform several proposals. And you can't rely on the major players being purely driven by altruism, I'm afraid. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "michael gurstein" To: "'Michael Kende'" , Subject: [governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2012 2:26 AM Hi Michael, We can do some thought experiments around what option #2 would look like as for example, to deal with the issues of global/natonal security on the Internet but at the end of the day my guess is that it would look rather like a UN agency except one that had been updated from 19th century modes of operation (and assumptions about appropriate structures of governance) to ones more reflective of 21st century modes/assumptions and technology. How we get from here to there is of course, a challenge but if the major players are in fact operating in good faith with an overarching concern for the health and well being of the Internet infrastructure as a global public good rather than pursuing narrow national or commercial interests then developing a suitable set of mechanisms shouldn't be impossible. And you are right about "incumbents"--I was of course referring to dominant Internet players rather than telco incumbents. Best, Mike From: Michael Kende [mailto:Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:20 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; 'Lee W McKnight' Subject: RE: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 Michael, What would #2 look like? Who would be responsible, what jurisdiction would they have, what hole would they fill? I think it is possible to prefer 1 over 3 even if you might prefer #2 to emerge, but there is no broadly articulated alternative, so what would you propose? Michael PS since a number of commercial incumbents are in fact behind one of the proposals to add Internet issues to the ITRs, I do not think your last statement is strictly accurate. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:03 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Lee W McKnight' Subject: RE: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 I think it might be useful if the various discussants involved in the WCIT/ITU debate were to indicate which of these categories they would fall into: 1. no regulation of the Internet period 2. possible regulation/global governance of the Internet in certain areas for certain issues but not by the ITU 3. regulation of the Internet in certain identified issue areas by the ITU It seems to me that a lot of the loudest voices in the discussion have come from those whose broad position is #1 but in a feat of legerdemaine they have managed to stampede many of those whose ultimate position would be #2 (based on a reasoned assessment of the broad needs of the global community) to support them by arguing that there were in fact only two options #1 and #3. That option #1 (i.e. the default option) would seem to strongly favour the current dominant geo-political and commercial incumbents is of course purely accidental. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 10:44 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 In case you missed it...today's Reuters article re WCIT. _____ This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed to our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email enquiries at analysysmason.com or visit www.analysysmason.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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 27 20:07:52 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:07:52 -0800 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> http://mashable.com/2012/08/03/us-un-internet/ United States to UN: Keep Your Hands Off the Internet Alex Fitzpatrick August 3, 2012 The United States has a clear message for the International Telecommunications Union, the United Nations’ agency in charge of telecommunications: We want Internet governance to stay exactly how it already is. From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 4:48 PM To: Ian Peter; Ginger Paque; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; gurstein at gmail.com Subject: Re: [governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 I am sorry but nobody even among the fans of the status quo (which does happen to be multistakeholder to a larger extent than the ITU is) will argue for a laissez faire and completely unregulated Internet with possibly utopian lessigisms like 'code is law' substituting for regulation. Several national cyber crime laws have broadly similar scope and language on the specific circumstances that warrant cross border and extra territorial application. Meanwhile, a country's laws will be entirely applicable to companies doing business in that country. PayPal and wiki leaks. Or earlier yahoo china (actually a chinese company alibaba that is a local business partner of yahoo) turning over a dissidents information to the Chinese police and causing yahoo's ceo to have to apologize to the poor man's wife before a Senate subcommittee. Coming specifically to cybersecurity there are international multilateral instruments such as the Budapest convention that provide a framework for cooperation among cyber crime enforcement agencies. A significant point to be considered is whether an organization that comprises of civil agencies (telecom regulators) will be effectively able to set and enforce any sort of policy on cybercrime when a significant part of it is worked by law enforcement, besides a plethora of other agencies within the country --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Ian Peter" To: "Ginger Paque" , , "michael gurstein" Subject: [governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2012 5:46 AM Disagree with Ginger (that doesnt happen often!) no regulation of the internet period means to me * large corporations control what happens via market power * paypal can suspend all payments to wikileaks or whoever offends their sensibilities with no ramifications or checks and balances and political judgements of corporations can determine access * paedophilia, hate mail etc are completely unchecked * cybercrime is OK * all governments can act unilaterally to block sites according to whatever power they can exert on either corporations or their local ISP industry. Frankly, to me this is a horror scenario. But where I do agree with Ginger is aiming for a tolerable version of #2. Ian Peter From: Ginger Paque Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:06 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; michael gurstein Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian ; Michael Kende Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 I think we have to push hard for #1, and hope we get a tolerable version of #2. Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig On 27 November 2012 17:45, michael gurstein wrote: But surely that is the point of civil society, not to be a cheer leader for the status quo but rather to push governments and others towards their higher angels. M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:10 PM To: gurstein at gmail.com; 'Michael Kende'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 Of course you will have to expect that not all proposals submitted will be driven by pure altruism. Narrower interests... Protectionism, politics, whatever else will inform several proposals. And you can't rely on the major players being purely driven by altruism, I'm afraid. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "michael gurstein" To: "'Michael Kende'" , Subject: [governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2012 2:26 AM Hi Michael, We can do some thought experiments around what option #2 would look like as for example, to deal with the issues of global/natonal security on the Internet but at the end of the day my guess is that it would look rather like a UN agency except one that had been updated from 19th century modes of operation (and assumptions about appropriate structures of governance) to ones more reflective of 21st century modes/assumptions and technology. How we get from here to there is of course, a challenge but if the major players are in fact operating in good faith with an overarching concern for the health and well being of the Internet infrastructure as a global public good rather than pursuing narrow national or commercial interests then developing a suitable set of mechanisms shouldn't be impossible. And you are right about "incumbents"--I was of course referring to dominant Internet players rather than telco incumbents. Best, Mike From: Michael Kende [mailto:Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:20 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; 'Lee W McKnight' Subject: RE: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 Michael, What would #2 look like? Who would be responsible, what jurisdiction would they have, what hole would they fill? I think it is possible to prefer 1 over 3 even if you might prefer #2 to emerge, but there is no broadly articulated alternative, so what would you propose? Michael PS since a number of commercial incumbents are in fact behind one of the proposals to add Internet issues to the ITRs, I do not think your last statement is strictly accurate. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:03 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Lee W McKnight' Subject: RE: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 I think it might be useful if the various discussants involved in the WCIT/ITU debate were to indicate which of these categories they would fall into: 1. no regulation of the Internet period 2. possible regulation/global governance of the Internet in certain areas for certain issues but not by the ITU 3. regulation of the Internet in certain identified issue areas by the ITU It seems to me that a lot of the loudest voices in the discussion have come from those whose broad position is #1 but in a feat of legerdemaine they have managed to stampede many of those whose ultimate position would be #2 (based on a reasoned assessment of the broad needs of the global community) to support them by arguing that there were in fact only two options #1 and #3. That option #1 (i.e. the default option) would seem to strongly favour the current dominant geo-political and commercial incumbents is of course purely accidental. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 10:44 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 In case you missed it...today's Reuters article re WCIT. _____ This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed to our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email enquiries at analysysmason.com or visit www.analysysmason.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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 27 20:20:56 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 20:20:56 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> References: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 8:07 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > http://mashable.com/2012/08/03/us-un-internet/**** > > ** ** > > United States to UN: Keep Your Hands Off the Internet**** > > Alex Fitzpatrick August 3, 2012 **** > > ** ** > > The United States has a clear message for the International > Telecommunications Union, the United Nations’ agency in charge of > telecommunications: We want Internet governance to stay exactly how it > already is. > Correct, which is #2, NOT #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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 27 20:34:20 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 07:04:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> References: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: As I said the status quo does not equate to laissez faire, and tha national laws, cross border enforcement and various conventions all exist, and some of these mechanisms at least significantly predate the Internet. Yes there is scope for improvement. Only, what set of value add does ITU bring to the table in these areas? --srs (iPad) On 28-Nov-2012, at 6:37, "michael gurstein" wrote: > http://mashable.com/2012/08/03/us-un-internet/ > > United States to UN: Keep Your Hands Off the Internet > Alex Fitzpatrick August 3, 2012 > > The United States has a clear message for the International Telecommunications Union, the United Nations’ agency in charge of telecommunications: We want Internet governance to stay exactly how it already is. > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 4:48 PM > To: Ian Peter; Ginger Paque; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; gurstein at gmail.com > Subject: Re: [governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 > > I am sorry but nobody even among the fans of the status quo (which does happen to be multistakeholder to a larger extent than the ITU is) will argue for a laissez faire and completely unregulated Internet with possibly utopian lessigisms like 'code is law' substituting for regulation. > > Several national cyber crime laws have broadly similar scope and language on the specific circumstances that warrant cross border and extra territorial application. > > Meanwhile, a country's laws will be entirely applicable to companies doing business in that country. PayPal and wiki leaks. Or earlier yahoo china (actually a chinese company alibaba that is a local business partner of yahoo) turning over a dissidents information to the Chinese police and causing yahoo's ceo to have to apologize to the poor man's wife before a Senate subcommittee. > > Coming specifically to cybersecurity there are international multilateral instruments such as the Budapest convention that provide a framework for cooperation among cyber crime enforcement agencies. > > A significant point to be considered is whether an organization that comprises of civil agencies (telecom regulators) will be effectively able to set and enforce any sort of policy on cybercrime when a significant part of it is worked by law enforcement, besides a plethora of other agencies within the country > > --srs (htc one x) > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Ian Peter" > To: "Ginger Paque" , , "michael gurstein" > Subject: [governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 > Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2012 5:46 AM > > > Disagree with Ginger (that doesnt happen often!) > > no regulation of the internet period means to me > > * large corporations control what happens via market power > * paypal can suspend all payments to wikileaks or whoever offends their sensibilities with no ramifications or checks and balances and political judgements of corporations can determine access > * paedophilia, hate mail etc are completely unchecked > * cybercrime is OK > * all governments can act unilaterally to block sites according to whatever power they can exert on either corporations or their local ISP industry. > > Frankly, to me this is a horror scenario. > > But where I do agree with Ginger is aiming for a tolerable version of #2. > > Ian Peter > > From: Ginger Paque > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:06 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; michael gurstein > Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian ; Michael Kende > Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 > > I think we have to push hard for #1, and hope we get a tolerable version of #2. > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > Diplo Foundation > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > > > > > > On 27 November 2012 17:45, michael gurstein wrote: > > But surely that is the point of civil society, not to be a cheer leader for the status quo but rather to push governments and others towards their higher angels. > > > > M > > > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:10 PM > To: gurstein at gmail.com; 'Michael Kende'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 > > > > Of course you will have to expect that not all proposals submitted will be driven by pure altruism. > > Narrower interests... Protectionism, politics, whatever else will inform several proposals. > > And you can't rely on the major players being purely driven by altruism, I'm afraid. > > --srs (htc one x) > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "michael gurstein" > To: "'Michael Kende'" , > Subject: [governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 > Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2012 2:26 AM > > > Hi Michael, > > > > We can do some thought experiments around what option #2 would look like as > for example, to deal with the issues of global/natonal security on the > Internet but at the end of the day my guess is that it would look rather > like a UN agency except one that had been updated from 19th century modes of > operation (and assumptions about appropriate structures of governance) to > ones more reflective of 21st century modes/assumptions and technology. > > > > How we get from here to there is of course, a challenge but if the major > players are in fact operating in good faith with an overarching concern for > the health and well being of the Internet infrastructure as a global public > good rather than pursuing narrow national or commercial interests then > developing a suitable set of mechanisms shouldn't be impossible. > > > > And you are right about "incumbents"--I was of course referring to dominant > Internet players rather than telco incumbents. > > > > Best, > > > > Mike > > > > From: Michael Kende [mailto:Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:20 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; 'Lee W McKnight' > Subject: RE: [governance] > http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 > 121127 > > > > Michael, > > > > What would #2 look like? Who would be responsible, what jurisdiction would > they have, what hole would they fill? I think it is possible to prefer 1 > over 3 even if you might prefer #2 to emerge, but there is no broadly > articulated alternative, so what would you propose? > > > > Michael > > > PS since a number of commercial incumbents are in fact behind one of the > proposals to add Internet issues to the ITRs, I do not think your last > statement is strictly accurate. > > > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:03 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Lee W McKnight' > Subject: RE: [governance] > http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 > 121127 > > > > I think it might be useful if the various discussants involved in the > WCIT/ITU debate were to indicate which of these categories they would fall > into: > > 1. no regulation of the Internet period > > 2. possible regulation/global governance of the Internet in > certain areas for certain issues but not by the ITU > > 3. regulation of the Internet in certain identified issue > areas by the ITU > > > > It seems to me that a lot of the loudest voices in the discussion have come > from those whose broad position is #1 but in a feat of legerdemaine they > have managed to stampede many of those whose ultimate position would be #2 > (based on a reasoned assessment of the broad needs of the global community) > to support them by arguing that there were in fact only two options #1 and > #3. > > > > That option #1 (i.e. the default option) would seem to strongly favour the > current dominant geo-political and commercial incumbents is of course purely > accidental. > > > > M > > > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 10:44 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] > http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 > 121127 > > > > In case you missed it...today's Reuters article re WCIT. > > > > > _____ > > This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed to > our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. > > Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered > office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number > 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email enquiries at analysysmason.com or visit > www.analysysmason.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 > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pranesh at cis-india.org Tue Nov 27 22:08:59 2012 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:38:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] Sibal snowed in with issues of free speech Message-ID: <50B5804B.2020809@cis-india.org> There was a meeting yesterday in New Delhi on ITRs, and there will be a meeting tomorrow about other free speech issues including s.66A of India's Information Technology Act[1]. It is to be seen if tomorrow's meeting is an open one. [1]: Text of 66A: http://goo.gl/kFBfw | Analysis: http://goo.gl/cdxce == Sibal snowed in with issues of free speech SHALINI SINGH Industry, civil society to provide final inputs for ITU meet and local laws to be reviewed this week Taking a liberal view of widespread concerns that India’s proposal on International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs) submitted to the ITU could lead to online content control to curb freedom of expression, Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal on Tuesday committed that he would reconsider the language used in the proposal to ensure a match with the government’s genuine intent that neither the Internet, Internet traffic nor the content falls under ITU control. Mr. Sibal was speaking at an Open House with industry and civil society to discuss the unpalatable components of India’s proposal submitted to the ITU on November 3, 2012 in the run-up to final negotiations at the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) 2012 in Dubai in December. A total of 193 government delegations are gathering in Dubai to renegotiate the ITRs — which are a binding treaty — for the first time since 1988. According to Mr. Sibal, the options of modifying or dropping restrictive language remains open till the WCIT meetings begin on December 3. Industry and civil society have been requested to provide their final language with appropriate reasoning by Thursday. The meeting was called after industry and civil society wrote to the DoT expressing concern over India’s existing proposals, which are at variance with their inputs submitted in September while additionally using language that could easily slide into content control and international regulatory oversight of an inter-governmental body in which industry, civil society or technical media have no real voice or dispute-related recourse. Concerns are especially concentrated around the inclusion of the words ‘ICTs’, ‘processing’, ‘spam’ and ‘provisions’ relating to cyber security, since it is feared that these can be interpreted in the final treaty as giving access to ‘user information’ to governments, sparking off fears of surveillance and content control. Mr. Sibal’s meeting also comes in the background of several new proposals pouring into the ITU, including one from Russia, which is fairly explicit in its intent that the Russian government would like to control the Internet through the ITU. Russia has included language relating to Internet, Internet traffic, Internet access, basic Internet infrastructure and importantly, National Internet Section under Article 2 of the proposals. On the other hand, 27 members of the European Parliament have voted against the ITRs being modified in any form or shape during the upcoming conference. At the WCIT, governments will discuss proposals to modify the ITRs in the new global environment, and potentially ICTs and the Internet. While normal meetings at the ITU are technical, with some commercial aspects, this year’s conference in December is highly political and has divided the world amongst those who have explicitly stated that they want the ITU to have control over the web and issues of Internet governance and others that want to keep the cyber world out of the ITU’s control. Leading from this is the entire issue of online freedom of speech and affordability. Issues of free speech have been dominating Mr. Sibal’s agenda both on the global and domestic fronts. On November 29, at 10 a.m., Mr. Sibal is holding a meeting of the ‘Cyber Regulation Advisory Committee’ following misuse of the IT Rules under Article 66A by police officials in Maharashtra to arrest two young girls for posting some comments on their Facebook account. Critics are divided on whether this was excessive use of police force or action based on language that lends itself to misuse. -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 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 Guru at ITforChange.net Tue Nov 27 22:50:46 2012 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:20:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] Hyping one threat to hide another In-Reply-To: <50B58615.3010908@itforchange.net> References: <50B58615.3010908@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50B58A16.1000501@ITforChange.net> Link: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/hyping-one-threat-to-hide-another/article4140922.ece Hyping one threat to hide another Opinion » Lead November 28, 2012 Parminder Jeet Singh Share · Comment · print · T+ The U.S. and dominant global Internet companies fear regulation because it will adversely affect their control over the communication realm A lot of global attention right now is focussed on the World Conference on International Telecommunications of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) which will get under way in Dubai next week. This meeting is taking up a review of International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs). When the ITRs were last reviewed in 1988, the Internet was not commonplace and, therefore, did not find mention. In 2012, it is difficult to think of global communication without the Internet. The key question today is whether the remit of the ITU should extend to the Internet or not, and if indeed it should, to what parts and aspects of the Internet, and in what manner. One summary view, quite popular in many quarters, is that with the Internet taking over global communication systems, there is no role for the ITU anymore. Unlike traditional telecommunication — largely, telephony — global Internet traffic is mediated entirely through commercial arrangements among private players with almost no involvement of a regulator. Free market proponents, having greatly dominated the discourse so far, hold that the free market has fully triumphed, and delivered, in relation to the Internet. This model should not be disturbed. There is, therefore, no need for any kind of regulation of the Internet. *‘Free market’ view* This ‘free market’ view has found a powerful ally among freedom of expression groups, so much so that the debate about the future of the ITU is almost entirely fronted by evocative appeals about preserving the Internet as the ultimate domain of free expression. Unlike market fundamentalism, there are no two views about freedom of expression among most groups and people, and thus such a strategy is understandable. Perhaps for similar reasons, Hillary Clinton has spelled ‘Internet freedom’ as a key U.S. foreign policy agenda. It may, however, need deeper thought and analysis to assess whether the real agenda here is to use the new Internet-based global communication realm — with the unprecedented domination of U.S. companies in it — as the key means for global economic, social, cultural and political domination in the post-industrial world. /Any/ kind of global regulation of the Internet, or even articulation of global principles of public interest, does not serve this agenda. The issue of freedom of expression vis-à-vis regulation of the Internet is of course very real. States are quite nervous about the transformational new means that allow citizens to exercise voice and associational power as never before. They are scrambling to get their hands on some lever or the other to prevent the potential damage. And it is not only the developing countries that are busy in this regard, so are the developed ones, greatly enhancing their surveillance capabilities. Nevertheless, at the ITU very few countries have floated proposals that could increase governmental control over Internet content. These proposals mostly pertain to subverting the current globally managed Internet names and addresses system, and the globally configured Internet traffic routing, to create more controllable national Internet spaces, or ‘national segments’ of the Internet, as one proposal calls them. There is very little support for these proposals. Almost all developed countries and most developing ones, including India, have not supported these. At the recently concluded U.N. Internet Governance Forum at Baku, a reporter asked Terry Kramer, the chief U.S. delegate to the upcoming ITU conference, what the whole fuss is about when decisions can be taken only by consensus and there is so much opposition to these problematic proposals. Mr. Kramer was disarmingly honest in his response. He agreed that there was not that much real danger of anything happening at the WCIT itself. But, he said, this is a long-haul thing. What is at stake are the principles that will guide Internet regulation/governance in the long run. And in this regard, he continued, Dubai was just one of the many forums/meetings/crossroads, and many more are yet to come. The U.S. and the dominant global Internet companies, which are at the forefront of the anti-ITU campaign, know their game and objectives quite well. It is important that others do so too. This is about the /new paradigm of global governance/regulation of the communication realm/. Most hype around the WCIT seems to be missing this point, largely because it is to a considerable extent orchestrated and misled by the dominant powers. The paradigmatic issue here is whether the Internet, as the centrepiece of the new global communication realm, should be regulated at all. Freedom of expression is just one side of the story. The other, rather well disguised side is about the political economy of the global communication realm. It is about the division of resources within the communication realm, and, even more importantly, the larger global and sub-global division of resources — economic, social, and political — which is fundamentally impacted by the nature of regimes that govern the global communication realm. *Closely regulated* The communication realm — or more descriptively, the information and communication realm, and its technologies — has always been closely regulated in public interest. It is generally understood that it is of vital and extraordinary public interest, and cannot just be subject only to normal commercial regulation, that for instance governs trade in white goods. Every telephone company is obliged to carry the traffic from every other company in a non-discriminatory manner, which is called the common carriage rule. One can well imagine what it would be like if this rule is not enforced. Long back, there was a time when there was no such rule. The telephony revolution was made possible because regulators forced common carriage regulation on big companies in the U.S. and other places. Similarly, the IT revolution began when regulators in the U.S. forced software to be unbundled from hardware, whereby an independent software industry could develop. The rest is history. There are universal service obligations in the telecom sector whereby every telecom provider must service every person/ household, etc., whether it serves its business model or not. And then there are regulations on tariffs, quality of service and so on. Telecom providers are forced to comply with disability friendly features, and they also contribute to Universal Service Funds that are used to universalise communication services. All of this, and much more, will disappear in an unregulated communication system. In taking a collective political decision on whether the Internet is at all to be regulated or not, we need to understand that we are taking decisions on all these issues, and not just on freedom of expression. In order to understand the real stakes in the ‘regulation or not’ debate regarding the Internet, it is best to look at what is happening in the U.S. right now. The U.S. telecom market is dominated by two players, Verizon and AT&T. Verizon has challenged the Federal Communication Commission’s authority to enforce net neutrality (the Internet equivalent of the ‘common carriage’ rule), arguing that the Internet is not telecom and thus outside the FCC’s mandate. AT&T went a step further. It claimed that since even traditional telecom services, like telephony, increasingly work on Internet Protocols (IP), the FCC’s remit should not cover even telephony. In essence, more or less, the claim is that no regulation of the communication systems is needed at all. The FCC can close down! Markets have taken over, and are their own arbitrators! California recently became the latest of many States in the U.S., mostly Republican-ruled, which have deregulated Voice-over-Internet-Protocol, effectively removing regulatory control over telephony service, disregarding the concerns expressed by many public interest groups. There are many deep implications of such changeovers. To give just one illustration, unlike traditional telephony systems that are obliged to have their own power-supply to account for emergency situations, the new IP based systems do not have such obligations. When most ‘new systems’ failed recently in the aftermath of Storm Sandy, unlike earlier times, the FCC found itself unable to question the disaster preparedness of the companies providing much of the communication infrastructure in the U.S. today. What is happening at the ITU today, in good measure, is this game of freeing our communication realm from all public interest regulation. As mentioned, it is about a new paradigm of ‘complete non-regulation.’ And once the victory is achieved at the ITU, whereby the Internet and other IP networks, which would soon be the basis of all communication infrastructure, are considered out of any kind of regulatory oversight, the game will then be replayed at the national level, citing ‘global norms.’ In fact, during an on-the-side chat at a recent Internet governance meeting in New Delhi, a telecom company representative made a significant give-away remark. He said to an official of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), ‘but isn’t net neutrality about the Internet, and therefore TRAI should have nothing to do about it.’ In presenting a view on whether or not the Internet should be subject to the remit of the ITU and the ITRs, India may be taking a position on whether it seeks to free the Internet from all regulatory control, which logic would then perforce also extend to TRAI’s remit at home. The least one can say, and appeal to the government and other actors in the space, is that this should be a considered decision after thoroughly assessing all sides of the story. Freedom of expression is not the only issue that is involved here. There are so many other issues, involving significant economic, social and cultural considerations, that are at stake with regard to regulation of the Internet. It may not be wise to throw out the baby with the bath water. /(Parminder Jeet Singh is Executive Director of Bangalore based NGO, IT for Change. Email: parminder at itforchange.net)/ Keywords: Internet regulation , Internet freedom , Freedom of expression , International Telecommunications , ITU , ITRs , global Internet traffic -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 27 23:48:41 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 20:48:41 -0800 Subject: [governance] Hyping one threat to hide another In-Reply-To: <50B58A16.1000501@ITforChange.net> References: <50B58615.3010908@itforchange.net> <50B58A16.1000501@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <20121128044841.GA22789@hserus.net> Guru गुरु [28/11/12 09:20 +0530]: >Link: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/hyping-one-threat-to-hide-another/article4140922.ece > >Hyping one threat to hide another I wish it were as simplistic. The market dynamics that drive the peering debate here are rather more complex than what this article states. So - it misses the point, while at the same time casting this as exclusively a north - south "battle" for the control of the internet. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Nov 28 00:16:42 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 00:16:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] Hyping one threat to hide another In-Reply-To: <20121128044841.GA22789@hserus.net> References: <50B58615.3010908@itforchange.net> <50B58A16.1000501@ITforChange.net> <20121128044841.GA22789@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Guru गुरु [28/11/12 09:20 +0530]: > > Link: http://www.thehindu.com/**opinion/lead/hyping-one-** >> threat-to-hide-another/**article4140922.ece >> >> Hyping one threat to hide another >> > > I wish it were as simplistic. Agreed, this is a over-simplified view, naive even if PJS truly considers that there is no regulation of the Internet at the moment. -- 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 fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Wed Nov 28 01:06:41 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:06:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: <0a2501cdccda$36fe3a60$a4faaf20$@gmail.com> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16D5F8@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <0a2501cdccda$36fe3a60$a4faaf20$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Option number 2 sounds promising provided that that it ensures FoE online and does not manipulate the multi-stakeholder approach. Fighting child pornography and enhancing cyber-security are possible examples on where option number 2 could be justified. Fahd On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:03 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > I think it might be useful if the various discussants involved in the > WCIT/ITU debate were to indicate which of these categories they would fall > into:**** > > 1. no regulation of the Internet period**** > > 2. possible regulation/global governance of the Internet > in certain areas for certain issues but not by the ITU**** > > 3. regulation of the Internet in certain identified issue > areas by the ITU**** > > ** ** > > It seems to me that a lot of the loudest voices in the discussion have > come from those whose broad position is #1 but in a feat of legerdemaine > they have managed to stampede many of those whose ultimate position would > be #2 (based on a reasoned assessment of the broad needs of the global > community) to support them by arguing that there were in fact only two > options #1 and #3.**** > > ** ** > > That option #1 (i.e. the default option) would seem to strongly favour the > current dominant geo-political and commercial incumbents is of course > purely accidental.**** > > ** ** > > M**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Lee W McKnight > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 27, 2012 10:44 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* [governance] > http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 > **** > > ** ** > > In case you missed it...today's Reuters article re WCIT. > > > **** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 28 01:11:16 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 06:11:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16D5F8@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <0a2501cdccda$36fe3a60$a4faaf20$@gmail.com>, Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB60924@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Hi, has anyone had the thought "here we go again" and noticed that the discussion is starting a rehash of everything already discussed, without new elements? (for some value of "we" which may include new participants but remarkably not those who have been through this for several cycles) Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Fahd A. Batayneh [fahd.batayneh at gmail.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 28 de noviembre de 2012 00:06 Hasta: IG Caucus Asunto: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 Option number 2 sounds promising provided that that it ensures FoE online and does not manipulate the multi-stakeholder approach. Fighting child pornography and enhancing cyber-security are possible examples on where option number 2 could be justified. Fahd On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:03 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: I think it might be useful if the various discussants involved in the WCIT/ITU debate were to indicate which of these categories they would fall into: 1. no regulation of the Internet period 2. possible regulation/global governance of the Internet in certain areas for certain issues but not by the ITU 3. regulation of the Internet in certain identified issue areas by the ITU It seems to me that a lot of the loudest voices in the discussion have come from those whose broad position is #1 but in a feat of legerdemaine they have managed to stampede many of those whose ultimate position would be #2 (based on a reasoned assessment of the broad needs of the global community) to support them by arguing that there were in fact only two options #1 and #3. That option #1 (i.e. the default option) would seem to strongly favour the current dominant geo-political and commercial incumbents is of course purely accidental. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 10:44 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 In case you missed it...today's Reuters article re WCIT. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 28 03:15:54 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:15:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?On_strategic_thinking_again_=28was_Re?= =?US-ASCII?Q?=3A_http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/article/2012/11/27/net-us-u?= =?US-ASCII?Q?n-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127_=29?= In-Reply-To: <0a2501cdccda$36fe3a60$a4faaf20$@gmail.com> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16D5F8@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <0a2501cdccda$36fe3a60$a4faaf20$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20121128091554.5281a2ac@quill.bollow.ch> Michael Gurstein wrote: > I think it might be useful if the various discussants involved in the > WCIT/ITU debate were to indicate which of these categories they would > fall into: > > 1. no regulation of the Internet period > > 2. possible regulation/global governance of the > Internet in certain areas for certain issues but not by the ITU > > 3. regulation of the Internet in certain identified > issue areas by the ITU My view differs from all of those, so I'd like to choose 4. since the boundary line between "Internet governance" and "the various activities of governments and international organizations which are not directly aimed at governance or regulation of the Internet" is becoming increasingly blurred (telecommunications convergence is only the tip of this iceberg IMO), we should take a step back, and think about public interest goals and objectives (stating them in a technology-neutral form that avoids to use the word "Internet" or any explicit or implicit reference to the TCP/IP protocol stack), and on the basis of that about strategies (I'd be very surprised if there is a single public-interest objective in the world today for which the Internet, together with some implied assumptions on what the Internet is assumed to be like, isn't part of every reasonable solution strategy), and on the basis of that about roles and needed reforms of institutions including the ITU, as well as about the formal, legal establishment of whatever principles may be needed (in addition to the many aspects of international human rights law that apply to the Internet). 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 isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Nov 28 05:35:29 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:05:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] important days and most important WCIT agenda itemd Message-ID: Hello Would all CS participants attend all sessions during 4-1? Or, what are the most important agenda topics?On what days are those topics scheduled? ITU has restricted access even to the agenda . Sivasubramanian M -- Sivasubramanian M ISOC India Chennai http://isocindiachennai.org facebook: goo.gl/1VvIG LinkedIn: goo.gl/eUt7s Twitter: http://goo.gl/kaQ3a http://internetstudio.in/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Nov 28 06:05:33 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:35:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] important days and most important WCIT agenda itemd Message-ID: Hello Would all CS participants attend all sessions during 4-1? Or, what are the most important agenda topics?On what days are those topics scheduled? ITU has restricted access even to the agenda . Sivasubramanian M -- Sivasubramanian M ISOC India Chennai http://isocindiachennai.org facebook: goo.gl/1VvIG LinkedIn: goo.gl/eUt7s Twitter: http://goo.gl/kaQ3a http://internetstudio.in/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Nov 28 06:35:25 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:35:25 +0900 Subject: [governance] important days and most important WCIT agenda itemd In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > Hello > > > Would all CS participants attend all sessions during 4-1? > > Or, what are the most important agenda topics?On what days are those topics > scheduled? > > ITU has restricted access even to the agenda . > Of course. Yet the ITU's head of communications keeps insisting the ITU is transparent. Very strange ITU blog post: "Contributions to the WCIT conference starting next week can be viewed here: http://news.dot-nxt.com/itu/wcit/docs-by-meeting. We would like to apologize for not making it available ourselves." We apologies someone had to leak our documents! Bizarre, Adam > Sivasubramanian M > > -- > Sivasubramanian M > ISOC India Chennai > http://isocindiachennai.org > > > facebook: goo.gl/1VvIG > LinkedIn: goo.gl/eUt7s > Twitter: http://goo.gl/kaQ3a > http://internetstudio.in/ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Lorena.Jaume-Palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de Wed Nov 28 06:59:56 2012 From: Lorena.Jaume-Palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:59:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Thailand Increases Controls on Cyberspace Through Use of Archaic Laws - Asia Pacific Memo 193 Message-ID: <4780294784e2d5abaf6d01546bed011b@webmail.lrz.de> FYI -------- Originalnachricht -------- Betreff: Thailand Increases Controls on Cyberspace Through Use of Archaic Laws - Asia Pacific Memo 193 Datum: 2012-11-28 00:16 Absender: Asia Pacific Memo Empfänger: Lorena.Jaume-Palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de Antwort an: asiapacific.memo at ubc.ca Having trouble viewing this email? Click here [1] Home [2] About [3] Become a Contributor [4] Contributors [5] Video Gallery [6] Subscribe [7] Asia Pacific Memo #193 [8] [9] [10] Featuring accessible scholarly knowledge about contemporary Asia. _Learn more [3]_. THAILAND INCREASES CONTROLS ON CYBERSPACE THROUGH USE OF ARCHAIC LAWS [11] By Kieran Bergmann [12] kieran.bergmann at utoronto.ca Laws meant to protect the monarchy from "defamation" are increasingly being used to suppress free speech and discussion of politics in Thailand, particularly on the Internet. In the last six years, there has been a surge in prosecution of these "lèse-majesté" cases - some estimated as high as 1,500 per cent. The government's primary method of controlling cyberspace has been to prosecute "offenders" under the lèse-majesté provision in the criminal code, which prohibits any act considered defamatory to the monarchy, and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act. The use of these two legal instruments in conjunction has extended the criminalization of lèse-majesté into cyberspace and broadened the pool of potential lèse-majesté "criminals." In 2006, only 30 such charges were filed. In 2007, the year the Computer Crimes Act was adopted, 126 charges were filed. In 2010, a whopping 478 charges were filed. I found that the lack of clarity surrounding these laws and the very real threat of prosecution prompts many Thai commentators and editors to exercise self censorship. When the current prime minister, Yingluck Shinawatra, was elected in July 2011, there was hope that the number of such charges would drop. Her Pheu Thai party maintains close ties with her brother, former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. He was deposed in the 2006 coup amidst accusations of criminal conduct, including charges of lèse-majesté. But the government has ramped up its efforts. Last December, a "war room" was established in police headquarters where technicians work around the clock to monitor web sites for lèse-majesté content. Citizens are pushing back. In May, after a 62-year old man died a few months into his 20-year prison sentence for allegedly sending lèse-majesté text messages, hundreds of citizens protested outside the Bangkok Criminal Court demanding reform of these laws. In June, a petition proposing amendments to the lèse-majesté laws was submitted to parliament under Article 163 of the Constitution, which requires any proposed amendment to a law to be examined if at least 10,000 citizens sign a petition of support. Unfortunately the amendments were rejected. The struggle for control of cyberspace continues in Thailand. Thai citizens call for reform of lèse-majesté laws (source: BBC) The full Memo [11] includes links to related news articles and research. Dr. Kieran Bergmann is the Google Policy Fellow at the Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto. She previously worked at the Canadian Embassy to Thailand, Burma, Cambodia, and Laos. ASIA PACIFIC MEMO [2] - A COMMUNICATIONS INITIATIVE LED BY THE INSTITUTE OF ASIAN RESEARCH TO FEATURE ACCESSIBLE SOCIAL SCIENCES RESEARCH. INSTITUTE OF ASIAN RESEARCH [13] (IAR) - AN INTERNATIONAL LEADER IN RESEARCH AND TEACHING ON CONTEMPORARY ASIA.   THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA [14] - ESTABLISHED IN 1908, EDUCATES A STUDENT POPULATION OF 50,000 ON MAJOR CAMPUSES IN TWO CITIES AND HOLDS AN INTERNATIONAL REPUTATION FOR EXCELLENCE IN ADVANCED RESEARCH AND LEARNING. Forward this Memo [15] [16] This email was sent to lorena.jaume-palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de by asiapacific.memo at ubc.ca | Update Profile/Email Address [17] | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe [16](tm) | Privacy Policy [18]. Institute of Asian Research, the University of British Columbia | 251-1855 West Mall, C.K. Choi Building | Vancouver | BC | V6T 1Z2 | Canada Links: ------ [1] http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=hvqwnieab&v=001xPdLKy4-WIwpQ1MUcJBDHZwbsw9Jo_5IpDR_ReuGF0rSsDap-pZI-bmTomF39IaG6TgL1fxcNXKEJiLEajwQ8jAnmdJCA-37OebxWasTS0sPUUfQcYYq3cqESb7_fYw_RKNXrPasWgQ%3D [2] http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001LdQvuDosp1ccwsmF0PxtSITtAYUGfuavexJi-HwzQd2M4aMRwdGjYascvpySFVUXU-tkGMfcyfYqYh8-ik-A2bjV9dMxSLNM87FggPtTAtvMwEQLNTL-BV94Iml59zEK [3] http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001LdQvuDosp1eUmsTJHBCJuICpXXuJek70h_Jw3eTsLT0zsd1GzfegTO8AMV5woc9HNhYwz91a0UspkQsuZ4yeEppaZ-JFd_0pVVYAktNkgJAHY7x0bXhqqYa-mF9AmB8q [4] http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001LdQvuDosp1cw99CWw54yOJwUZOuHRcsQynKnoy4jIEPIRAPSSdxvtKUP2YLq8L2xLEge5H3FbatsbPeP7j_1X1nz6-IxEt3JcgbnjTG8epi0Wv1wkvXswDi7oQLLBtGcUsu5ZImrSxTcMTYwP8r77g== [5] http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001LdQvuDosp1fGhQMqiHvMVA0qcekSFoa987_dnSI3kb-iMnU0vp4wX82y2Dmh5GR9W6_WJjwokF4ckhzp7iqIsQ5SpAT4zgNHmEOPDly-dIy5P8JyuNs1SbVKK9iyA_jPZOoH_jEQphQ6jhtvDpCSJA== [6] http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001LdQvuDosp1fSs8VZns0uLSJQOkIH9WFxFcmtzzAlXzZ8eMI3yMy_sTx49KORQv_xTrFEiwmEZFW6OGU-69nwFAWDYFcIArPxled6NwGsKH3nTHgsbMv1P7vwJijbusVA6dX7fcwKx6mz7QIDn8tC9Xr1qXrXllQbTrwmgKG0wyA= [7] http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001LdQvuDosp1fR3XCA39RifQmESHXW43XJijHmc44sgI2v454y8Wo4Wiaf8kyXzSgt0xSvvsUY3IgUCjch7QLeHTWdv-4gMAtX-qg4OyTG60LcKY0RPbDI51lkqFCYrlBzAC1KtONVQOc= [8] http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001LdQvuDosp1fFFUUlfyUA-eh9bZN9d27QIs-gjOUkGY_vbCB7prkSabYqr8mRNxw25fpAATMyD96jmolvWHE47_qhyUhvW-cky1We4Xc6b-qt8JmKmujlL-RddyyPRgwcmRwb4UuqQngBP53-4I2TZ9Yo8muz9_rju1JW9N6S-6Hp8q4iM12lf2GtRiXIFXEAOmZS3aZCeo5jB2D0F1UyP__lkA-xcYD4 [9] http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001LdQvuDosp1fKYdACJX0KLakwaSbn-UlaoCoqA7rkl5enbHDELtnFBEaKRI7sqN_VvBPTYL1elMLGEQjLscU9V1qhspuoIr43FbzSxcQcvD-1mOVcvgKVzjjT1kS6tnTI [10] http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001LdQvuDosp1cafiYf9QUAvznOWLH1_vjANfKSyOur2EWzJWZm1gqdZCZ8oAiY2qL_ckrfuiEjMi6vbnEohmmLxK1xIMAPD_eociSUTWmMtg6wbEK430IfvJZ8C_1JQzBIBMy_j3bBCp0= [11] http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001LdQvuDosp1d-5FmPS3-XIeOGQe8wdJWvu6JY81MDFEdbRjpkPIxwj-82u_-1q3sNGge7rurDC9ZmsWb-wyPDJ9UV1VRFqzjj2bwKZw2O3ynstyQ_ZrhmyND_EKMb8suwXbcjZoCxSfKatk-z3xy_Uvy_Fmd0Gk68_uCAhW3VxH422wHm1OiXIHdPSO2b6AokOVpSNaopxd-si90WdBiGmA== [12] http://www.asiapacificmemo.ca/contributors-editors [13] http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001LdQvuDosp1colgjJIHOoWv1a8UMMr7_75FbFZNzls1jfUJAfJ86a8zYQWWQ7Lsux3vMHsvsmMViM7OgbXnVX5sNCndhWhPBlAEavP84BX6V-Q7tDAU2Raw== [14] http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001LdQvuDosp1cz6Qj83I6MnXGHCrU9l6uEc1wmvX6fO6Gmq0yseHVaaV8K9Br6SdWnklOZaZRvDEgo7xUwF8fjE09_IO_m2vox0Xdsjl-ikc0= [15] http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?llr=hvqwnieab&m=1104089399975&ea=lorena.jaume-palasi%40gsi.uni-muenchen.de&a=1111683983310 [16] http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&mse=001XIhO0M9ckR7580ysMzYdhJ7QjmOTslMh&t=001X3FEb0EN62sSxkIoodCenA%3D%3D&lang=001FCSs65SMrsI%3D&llr=hvqwnieab [17] http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=oo&mse=001XIhO0M9ckR7580ysMzYdhJ7QjmOTslMh&t=001X3FEb0EN62sSxkIoodCenA%3D%3D&lang=001FCSs65SMrsI%3D&llr=hvqwnieab [18] http://ui.constantcontact.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp -- ________________________________________________ Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Nov 28 07:44:29 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:44:29 +0000 Subject: [governance] important days and most important WCIT agenda itemd In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 16:35:33 on Wed, 28 Nov 2012, Sivasubramanian M writes >On what days are those topics scheduled? > >ITU has restricted access even to the agenda On a practical note, and having attended ITU meetings like this, the agenda changes all the time, even sometimes catching out people inside the conference who haven't read the pile of paper that arrived in their pigeon hole since lunchtime, or scrutinised the TV screens in strategic places in the last half hour. This isn't a criticism, it's just the way the process works; spinning off multiple ad-hoc discussion groups to report back to plenaries that have otherwise reached an impasse. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Nov 28 08:21:59 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 07:21:59 -0600 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?On_strategic_thinking_again_=28was_?= =?US-ASCII?Q?Re=3A_http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/article/2012/11/27/net-us?= =?US-ASCII?Q?-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127_=29?= In-Reply-To: <20121128091554.5281a2ac@quill.bollow.ch> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16D5F8@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <0a2501cdccda$36fe3a60$a4faaf20$@gmail.com> <20121128091554.5281a2ac@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Norbert, I understand your point (I think), but I wonder if that boils down to #2? (Which I agree with Ian is what we want, even if I differ on the strategy needed to get there). Mike's 3 options are simplifications, but the are useful for this discussion (at least for me). Can you put #4 into a simpler statement, if you don't agree that it is part of #2 (and, please, not 'none of the above' :)). I like this step back from the complexities. Generalizations sometimes have a place for a synthesis/snapshot of the big picture to get things in perspective, without implying that it gives an accurate or complete view. Thanks, gp Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig ** ** On 28 November 2012 02:15, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > I think it might be useful if the various discussants involved in the > > WCIT/ITU debate were to indicate which of these categories they would > > fall into: > > > > 1. no regulation of the Internet period > > > > 2. possible regulation/global governance of the > > Internet in certain areas for certain issues but not by the ITU > > > > 3. regulation of the Internet in certain identified > > issue areas by the ITU > > My view differs from all of those, so I'd like to choose > > 4. since the boundary line between "Internet governance" and "the > various activities of governments and international organizations which > are not directly aimed at governance or regulation of the Internet" is > becoming increasingly blurred (telecommunications convergence is only > the tip of this iceberg IMO), we should take a step back, and think > about public interest goals and objectives (stating them in a > technology-neutral form that avoids to use the word "Internet" or any > explicit or implicit reference to the TCP/IP protocol stack), and on > the basis of that about strategies (I'd be very surprised if there is > a single public-interest objective in the world today for which the > Internet, together with some implied assumptions on what the Internet > is assumed to be like, isn't part of every reasonable solution > strategy), and on the basis of that about roles and needed reforms of > institutions including the ITU, as well as about the formal, legal > establishment of whatever principles may be needed (in addition to the > many aspects of international human rights law that apply to the > Internet). > > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 ccianet.org Wed Nov 28 10:02:22 2012 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:02:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] New report makes clear upcoming WCIT proposals could conflict with WTO Members' obligations Message-ID: <4367A56A-BDF3-475C-825D-966B789B246D@ccianet.org> Dear Friends, I thought I would write to advise you of an important report, just released today by LIRNEasia and ECIPE, that makes clear that a number of the proposals being put before the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) this month in Dubai could result in conflicts for WTO member-states. Entitled “Whither Global Rules for the Internet? The implications of the World Conference on International Telecommunication (WCIT) for international trade,” it was released publicly today at 1400 Central European Time. This report is the first to look at current proposals for WCIT and whether they are congruent with binding rules on trade developed at the World Trade Organisation. Among the report’s key conclusions: Proposals being made by governments for the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) do not adequately take into account their commitments under the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS); WTO member-countries have made commitments that forbid them from imposing restrictions on the most common forms of Internet services that would likely be broken were proposals in front of the upcoming conference to be agreed to. All WTO member-states must abide by a moratorium on tariffs and equivalent fees on data transmissions that explicitly forbids access fees for data whether they are discriminatory or not. Some proposals, such as those promoted by some European telecommunications operators, would likely conflict with this obligation. Matthias and I have found when we meet with the trade community in Geneva that there's little awareness of the trade dimension to WCIT proposals. Obviously it is in nobody's interest for WCIT to result in ITRs that conflict with WTO obligations. The report may be found here: http://www.ecipe.org/media/publication_pdfs/PB201212b.pdf. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Geneva Representative Computer & Communcations Industry Association (CCIA) Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430 email/IM (Jabber/GTalk): nashton at ccianet.org Skype: nashtonhart http://www.ccianet.org Need to schedule a meeting or call with me? Feel free to pick a time and date convenient for you at http://meetme.so/nashton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 28 10:26:12 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:26:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?On_strategic_thinking_again_=28was_?= =?US-ASCII?Q?Re=3A_http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/article/2012/11/27/net-us?= =?US-ASCII?Q?-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127_=29?= In-Reply-To: References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16D5F8@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <0a2501cdccda$36fe3a60$a4faaf20$@gmail.com> <20121128091554.5281a2ac@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20121128162612.0e5d9c17@quill.bollow.ch> Hi Ginger, Is this statement useful for your needs? "I'm firmly in the middle between Michael's options #2 and #3". Or with a bit more elaboration: "At the technical level there is nowadays no clear boundary line between what ITU is doing in regard to telephony and probably everyone agrees ITU should continue to do, and some aspects of what is clearly Internet governance and ITU cannot effectively do (if for no other reasons because so much fear of the ITU has been created)." In my submission to the ITU I have suggested a way of introducing a rather artificial boundary line (the main idea being to limit the scope of applicability of the ITRs to what is done while using telephone numbers for addressing purposes) which will not really help too much in getting exiting and future public interest challenges addressed well, but which should at least make it possible to get reality and the ITRs aligned again: http://www.itu.int/ml/lists/nomenu/arc/wcit-public/2012-08/msg00002.html (The importance of getting rid of the need for creatively interpreting the ITRs in ways that contradict what the text of the ITRs actually says should be clear... how else can the ITRs be part of an effective governance system for anything?) But it's not just telephony that's becoming increasingly hard to differentiate from Internet governance. The same is happening to policy on international trade, to international diplomacy on human rights matters, to media policy (which is extremely important because democracy needs a credible variety of trustworthy and free media), etc. In my opinion, we really need to create a mechanism of enhanced cooperation on international public policy issues, because the mechanisms of the industrial age (including, but not limited to the ITU) are not meeting today's needs. I understand that at the time when the Tunis agenda was drafted with just the right amount of creative ambiguity, people were thinking of the unresolved concerns surrounding ICANN when the words "enhanced cooperation" were put there. But the realm of unresolved Internet-related public interest concerns is much larger today. Specifically, in comparison to the industrial age mechanisms of international cooperation, I would emphasize needs for enhancements with regard to the following aspects: - full transparency and full multistakeholder participation rights and effective empowerment of global civil society participation (by means of either doing all the *international coordination* work electronically via the Internet, or by providing travel funding for all public interest advocates who can demonstrate subject matter competence and independence of the particular interests of the various big companies). - use of logical strategic thinking tools (such as those of the Theory of Constraints). - focus the *international coordination* processes on creating good input documents for informing the work of national parliaments where the hard work would take place of choosing the balance between conflicts of interest (as opposed to internationally negotiating take-it-or-leave-it treaties). The world of now+5years will, for better or worse, be significantly different from todays's world. The same will be true to an even greater extent about the world of today+10years. I think that we really need to have our eyes open as we go forward. Greetings, Norbert Ginger Paque : > Norbert, I understand your point (I think), but I wonder if that > boils down to #2? (Which I agree with Ian is what we want, even if I > differ on the strategy needed to get there). Mike's 3 options are > simplifications, but the are useful for this discussion (at least for > me). Can you put #4 into a simpler statement, if you don't agree that > it is part of #2 (and, please, not 'none of the above' :)). > > I like this step back from the complexities. Generalizations > sometimes have a place for a synthesis/snapshot of the big picture to > get things in perspective, without implying that it gives an accurate > or complete view. > > Thanks, gp > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > Diplo Foundation > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > ** > ** > > > > On 28 November 2012 02:15, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > > > I think it might be useful if the various discussants involved in > > > the WCIT/ITU debate were to indicate which of these categories > > > they would fall into: > > > > > > 1. no regulation of the Internet period > > > > > > 2. possible regulation/global governance of the > > > Internet in certain areas for certain issues but not by the ITU > > > > > > 3. regulation of the Internet in certain > > > identified issue areas by the ITU > > > > My view differs from all of those, so I'd like to choose > > > > 4. since the boundary line between "Internet governance" and "the > > various activities of governments and international organizations > > which are not directly aimed at governance or regulation of the > > Internet" is becoming increasingly blurred (telecommunications > > convergence is only the tip of this iceberg IMO), we should take a > > step back, and think about public interest goals and objectives > > (stating them in a technology-neutral form that avoids to use the > > word "Internet" or any explicit or implicit reference to the TCP/IP > > protocol stack), and on the basis of that about strategies (I'd be > > very surprised if there is a single public-interest objective in > > the world today for which the Internet, together with some implied > > assumptions on what the Internet is assumed to be like, isn't part > > of every reasonable solution strategy), and on the basis of that > > about roles and needed reforms of institutions including the ITU, > > as well as about the formal, legal establishment of whatever > > principles may be needed (in addition to the many aspects of > > international human rights law that apply to the Internet). > > > > 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Nov 28 10:46:23 2012 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:46:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] New report makes clear upcoming WCIT proposals could conflict with WTO Members' obligations In-Reply-To: <4367A56A-BDF3-475C-825D-966B789B246D@ccianet.org> References: <4367A56A-BDF3-475C-825D-966B789B246D@ccianet.org> Message-ID: <50B631CF.5050505@wzb.eu> Hi Nick, conflicts between international treaties are not that unusual. Given the increasing density of international organizations and agreements, and the lack of any formal hierarchy among them legal inconsistencies happen more often than one may expect. An example that involves the WTO concerns intellectual property rights. TRIPS and CBD, the convention on biological diversity imply conflicting principles. They were negotiated around the same time but reflect different concerns, actors and venues. The fact that trade experts and WCIT advocates hardly take notice of each other seems to make conflicting outcomes even more likely. jeanette Am 28.11.2012 16:02, schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart: > Dear Friends, > > I thought I would write to advise you of an important report, just > released today by LIRNEasia and ECIPE, that makes clear that a number of > the proposals being put before the World Conference on International > Telecommunications (WCIT) this month in Dubai could result in conflicts > for WTO member-states. > > Entitled “Whither Global Rules for the Internet? The implications of the > World Conference on International Telecommunication (WCIT) for > international trade,” it was released publicly today at 1400 Central > European Time. > > This report is the first to look at current proposals for WCIT and > whether they are congruent with binding rules on trade developed at the > World Trade Organisation. Among the report’s key conclusions: > > * > Proposals being made by governments for the World Conference on > International Telecommunications (WCIT) do not adequately take into > account their commitments under the World Trade Organization (WTO) > and its General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS); > * > WTO member-countries have made commitments that forbid them from > imposing restrictions on the most common forms of Internet services > that would likely be broken were proposals in front of the upcoming > conference to be agreed to. > * > All WTO member-states must abide by a moratorium on tariffs and > equivalent fees on data transmissions that explicitly forbids access > fees for data whether they are discriminatory or not. Some > proposals, such as those promoted by some European > telecommunications operators, would likely conflict with this > obligation. > > > Matthias and I have found when we meet with the trade community in > Geneva that there's little awareness of the trade dimension to WCIT > proposals. Obviously it is in nobody's interest for WCIT to result in > ITRs that conflict with WTO obligations. > > The report may be found here: > http://www.ecipe.org/media/publication_pdfs/PB201212b.pdf. > > -- > Regards, > > Nick Ashton-Hart > Geneva Representative > Computer & Communcations Industry Association (CCIA) > Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 > Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 > Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 > USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430 > email/IM (Jabber/GTalk): nashton at ccianet.org > Skype: nashtonhart > http://www.ccianet.org > > Need to schedule a meeting or call with me? Feel free to pick a time and > date convenient for you at http://meetme.so/nashton > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 28 12:53:12 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:53:12 -0800 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: References: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0ddd01cdcd91$4f368ee0$eda3aca0$@gmail.com> No question, Suresh (and McTim) but you/they can't have it both ways i.e. vehemently denouncing regulation/governance ("keep your hand off the Internet") etc.etc. on the one hand and then practicing it (if only implicitly) on the other. I would have thought, if the option is in fact #2 (or #3) as of course, any rational actor would I believe have to accept; that if one doesn't like a particular venue -- what does one suggest as an appropriate (globally acceptable) alternative venue(s)--particularly since the current (default) position seems to be seen as unacceptably self-serving by so many. M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mai(o:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 5:34 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: Ian Peter; Ginger Paque; Subject: Re: [governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 As I said the status quo does not equate to laissez faire, and tha national laws, cross border enforcement and various conventions all exist, and some of these mechanisms at least significantly predate the Internet. Yes there is scope for improvement. Only, what set of value add does ITU bring to the table in these areas? --srs (iPad) On 28-Nov-2012, at 6:37, "michael gurstein" wrote: http://mashable.com/2012/08/03/us-un-internet/ United States to UN: Keep Your Hands Off the Internet Alex Fitzpatrick August 3, 2012 The United States has a clear message for the International Telecommunications Union, the United Nations’ agency in charge of telecommunications: We want Internet governance to stay exactly how it already is. From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 4:48 PM To: Ian Peter; Ginger Paque; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; gurstein at gmail.com Subject: Re: [governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 I am sorry but nobody even among the fans of the status quo (which does happen to be multistakeholder to a larger extent than the ITU is) will argue for a laissez faire and completely unregulated Internet with possibly utopian lessigisms like 'code is law' substituting for regulation. Several national cyber crime laws have broadly similar scope and language on the specific circumstances that warrant cross border and extra territorial application. Meanwhile, a country's laws will be entirely applicable to companies doing business in that country. PayPal and wiki leaks. Or earlier yahoo china (actually a chinese company alibaba that is a local business partner of yahoo) turning over a dissidents information to the Chinese police and causing yahoo's ceo to have to apologize to the poor man's wife before a Senate subcommittee. Coming specifically to cybersecurity there are international multilateral instruments such as the Budapest convention that provide a framework for cooperation among cyber crime enforcement agencies. A significant point to be considered is whether an organization that comprises of civil agencies (telecom regulators) will be effectively able to set and enforce any sort of policy on cybercrime when a significant part of it is worked by law enforcement, besides a plethora of other agencies within the country --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Ian Peter" To: "Ginger Paque" , , "michael gurstein" Subject: [governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2012 5:46 AM Disagree with Ginger (that doesnt happen often!) no regulation of the internet period means to me * large corporations control what happens via market power * paypal can suspend all payments to wikileaks or whoever offends their sensibilities with no ramifications or checks and balances and political judgements of corporations can determine access * paedophilia, hate mail etc are completely unchecked * cybercrime is OK * all governments can act unilaterally to block sites according to whatever power they can exert on either corporations or their local ISP industry. Frankly, to me this is a horror scenario. But where I do agree with Ginger is aiming for a tolerable version of #2. Ian Peter From: Ginger Paque Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:06 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; michael gurstein Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian ; Michael Kende Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 I think we have to push hard for #1, and hope we get a tolerable version of #2. Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig On 27 November 2012 17:45, michael gurstein wrote: But surely that is the point of civil society, not to be a cheer leader for the status quo but rather to push governments and others towards their higher angels. M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:10 PM To: gurstein at gmail.com; 'Michael Kende'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 Of course you will have to expect that not all proposals submitted will be driven by pure altruism. Narrower interests... Protectionism, politics, whatever else will inform several proposals. And you can't rely on the major players being purely driven by altruism, I'm afraid. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "michael gurstein" To: "'Michael Kende'" , Subject: [governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2012 2:26 AM Hi Michael, We can do some thought experiments around what option #2 would look like as for example, to deal with the issues of global/natonal security on the Internet but at the end of the day my guess is that it would look rather like a UN agency except one that had been updated from 19th century modes of operation (and assumptions about appropriate structures of governance) to ones more reflective of 21st century modes/assumptions and technology. How we get from here to there is of course, a challenge but if the major players are in fact operating in good faith with an overarching concern for the health and well being of the Internet infrastructure as a global public good rather than pursuing narrow national or commercial interests then developing a suitable set of mechanisms shouldn't be impossible. And you are right about "incumbents"--I was of course referring to dominant Internet players rather than telco incumbents. Best, Mike From: Michael Kende [mailto:Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:20 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; 'Lee W McKnight' Subject: RE: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 Michael, What would #2 look like? Who would be responsible, what jurisdiction would they have, what hole would they fill? I think it is possible to prefer 1 over 3 even if you might prefer #2 to emerge, but there is no broadly articulated alternative, so what would you propose? Michael PS since a number of commercial incumbents are in fact behind one of the proposals to add Internet issues to the ITRs, I do not think your last statement is strictly accurate. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:03 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Lee W McKnight' Subject: RE: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 I think it might be useful if the various discussants involved in the WCIT/ITU debate were to indicate which of these categories they would fall into: 1. no regulation of the Internet period 2. possible regulation/global governance of the Internet in certain areas for certain issues but not by the ITU 3. regulation of the Internet in certain identified issue areas by the ITU It seems to me that a lot of the loudest voices in the discussion have come from those whose broad position is #1 but in a feat of legerdemaine they have managed to stampede many of those whose ultimate position would be #2 (based on a reasoned assessment of the broad needs of the global community) to support them by arguing that there were in fact only two options #1 and #3. That option #1 (i.e. the default option) would seem to strongly favour the current dominant geo-political and commercial incumbents is of course purely accidental. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 10:44 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 In case you missed it...today's Reuters article re WCIT. _____ This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed to our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email enquiries at analysysmason.com or visit www.analysysmason.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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 28 13:29:36 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:29:36 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: <0ddd01cdcd91$4f368ee0$eda3aca0$@gmail.com> References: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> <0ddd01cdcd91$4f368ee0$eda3aca0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:53 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > No question, Suresh (and McTim) but you/they can't have it both ways i.e. > vehemently denouncing regulation/governance ("keep your hand off the > Internet") etc.etc. on the one hand and then practicing it (if only > implicitly) on the other. > I'm only trying to have it one way. I feel gov'ts have far too much control over what we say and do online. I don't want an intergovernmental body setting global Internet policy. > **** > > ** ** > > I would have thought, if the option is in fact #2 (or #3) as of course, > any rational actor would I believe have to accept; that if one doesn't like > a particular venue -- what does one suggest as an appropriate (globally > acceptable) alternative venue(s)--particularly since the current (default) > position seems to be seen as unacceptably self-serving by so many. > Accepting #2 which as I have said before is the current status quo does not mean that one accepts the need for further global Internet Governance mechanisms. I do not find #3 acceptable. I've been singing the same song for years, what is it that you don't understand about my position? -- 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 gurstein at gmail.com Wed Nov 28 14:31:27 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:31:27 -0800 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: References: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> <0ddd01cdcd91$4f368ee0$eda3aca0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0e6e01cdcd9e$f6ac3460$e4049d20$@gmail.com> McTim, it seems to me that you (and others) argue long and hard against management/regulation of the Internet except (as in this case) when you don't. And then having accepted the (obvious) need for some sort of management/regulation of at least certain aspects of the Internet why you (etc.) should expect that others (the rest of the world for example) should accept your definition of what those "exceptions" should be and where they should (or rather should not) be adjudicated leaves me a bit puzzled. M From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:30 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian; Ian Peter; Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:53 PM, michael gurstein wrote: No question, Suresh (and McTim) but you/they can't have it both ways i.e. vehemently denouncing regulation/governance ("keep your hand off the Internet") etc.etc. on the one hand and then practicing it (if only implicitly) on the other. I'm only trying to have it one way. I feel gov'ts have far too much control over what we say and do online. I don't want an intergovernmental body setting global Internet policy. I would have thought, if the option is in fact #2 (or #3) as of course, any rational actor would I believe have to accept; that if one doesn't like a particular venue -- what does one suggest as an appropriate (globally acceptable) alternative venue(s)--particularly since the current (default) position seems to be seen as unacceptably self-serving by so many. Accepting #2 which as I have said before is the current status quo does not mean that one accepts the need for further global Internet Governance mechanisms. I do not find #3 acceptable. I've been singing the same song for years, what is it that you don't understand about my position? -- 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 karl at cavebear.com Wed Nov 28 15:02:17 2012 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:02:17 -0800 Subject: [governance] Alt Root Foundation - New TLD's In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50B66DC9.3090304@cavebear.com> On 11/26/2012 09:50 PM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: > http://altrootfoundation.org/docs/icann%20altrootfoundation%205%20nov%202012.pdf > > I am not sure to what extent this is genuine? Any thoughts from anybody? I tend to prefer the phrase "competing roots" rather than "alternate" to thus indicate that none are superior to, or inferior to, any others. That said, there have been many competing root systems over the years. Most have been run very badly, sometimes in direct violation of well established and practiced technical standards (such as what can be in an NS record.) But on the other hand there have been instances of well run competing roots. For example there was the ORSC which was a mirror of the NTIA/Verisign/ICANN (NVI) root. It was more Euro-centric than the NVI system, but that went away with the better deployment of anycast. One interesting thing was that ORSC had a policy that said "we will not withdraw a TLD". ICANN does not have such a policy. This was in the context of the ccTLD for the now defunct Soviet Union. There are many competing roots run internally by ISPs, sometimes these camp on local instances of IP addresses of the "real" servers, sometimes there is some packet inspection/redirection done, sometimes they are fed into user machines via DHCP. In most cases this is done by ISPs so that they can better serve their customers by taking charge of reliability and improving DNS resolution responsibility. (An important part of running a successful business, such as an ISP business, is making sure that you have good control of the assets you need to deliver your product, and part of an ISP's product is the perception by its customers that its network services are "responsive" - and DNS is a big part of that perception.) I have written a lot about competing roots and find them a useful concept, particularly as they give a way to naturally allow the selection and deployment of new TLDs without the huge centralized system created by ICANN. But the key aspect is "consistency" - The need needs competing roots to be consistent with one another. Otherwise there would be very unhappy users. The definition of "consistency" is not obvious. Some people take it to mean "exact equivalence". I take a looser definition that says that it is not necessary that all roots contain the exact same set of TLDs, but that where there are TLDs in common they must have the same contents. Any reasonable root operator ought to avoid TLD names that are contested. See http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000331.html starting at about mid-way down at the heading "The Alternative History" --karl-- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Nov 28 16:46:45 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 03:16:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: important days and most important WCIT agenda itemd In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Roland and Adam Thank you. All I could find was this: Document info > Meeting: > WCIT (3-14 Dec 12) > File name: > S12-WCIT12-C-0001!!MSW-E > > Opening > Election of the Chairman and Vice-Chairmen > Other administrative issues including requests for participation received from international organizations, observers, etc. > Discussion and decisions regarding the structure of the Conference > Introduction of the Report of the preparatory process > Examination of the outputs of the preparatory process > Examination of proposals from Member States > Discussion of the proposed revisions to the ITRs, as appropriate > Discussion of WATTC-88 Resolutions, Recommendations, and Opinion > Adoption of the Final Acts of the Conference, including revised ITRs and Resolutions, Recommendations, and Opinions, as appropriate > Determine the date of coming into force of the Final Acts of the Conference and, if necessary, on the provisional application of certain part(s) of the Final Acts > Closure (including signing ceremony) > > Dr Hamadoun I. TOURÉ > Secretary-General This doesn't provide sufficient details for very busy people from business, CS or Govt to choose five or six days of relatively important sessions. How do people who don't have the luxury of two weeks participate? Sivasubramanian M On Wednesday, November 28, 2012, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message , at 16:35:33 on Wed, 28 Nov 2012, Sivasubramanian M writes > >> On what days are those topics scheduled? >> >> ITU has restricted access even to the agenda > > On a practical note, and having attended ITU meetings like this, the agenda changes all the time, even sometimes catching out people inside the conference who haven't read the pile of paper that arrived in their pigeon hole since lunchtime, or scrutinised the TV screens in strategic places in the last half hour. > > This isn't a criticism, it's just the way the process works; spinning off multiple ad-hoc discussion groups to report back to plenaries that have otherwise reached an impasse. > -- > Roland Perry > > -- Sivasubramanian M ISOC India Chennai http://isocindiachennai.org facebook: goo.gl/1VvIG LinkedIn: goo.gl/eUt7s Twitter: http://goo.gl/kaQ3a http://internetstudio.in/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 28 19:36:17 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 06:06:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/article/2?= =?UTF-8?Q?012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= Message-ID: #2 is as McTim says, the current status quo but across a variety of international organizations including intergovernmental ones. The only question is whether the itu feels it should have what is more or less a controlling interest in this process. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "McTim" To: , "michael gurstein" Cc: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" , "Ian Peter" , "Ginger Paque" Subject: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2012 11:59 PM On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:53 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > No question, Suresh (and McTim) but you/they can't have it both ways i.e. > vehemently denouncing regulation/governance ("keep your hand off the > Internet") etc.etc. on the one hand and then practicing it (if only > implicitly) on the other. > I'm only trying to have it one way. I feel gov'ts have far too much control over what we say and do online. I don't want an intergovernmental body setting global Internet policy. > **** > > ** ** > > I would have thought, if the option is in fact #2 (or #3) as of course, > any rational actor would I believe have to accept; that if one doesn't like > a particular venue -- what does one suggest as an appropriate (globally > acceptable) alternative venue(s)--particularly since the current (default) > position seems to be seen as unacceptably self-serving by so many. > Accepting #2 which as I have said before is the current status quo does not mean that one accepts the need for further global Internet Governance mechanisms. I do not find #3 acceptable. I've been singing the same song for years, what is it that you don't understand about my position? -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 28 23:36:58 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:36:58 -0800 Subject: [governance] New report makes clear upcoming WCIT proposals could conflict with WTO Members' obligations In-Reply-To: <50B631CF.5050505@wzb.eu> References: <4367A56A-BDF3-475C-825D-966B789B246D@ccianet.org> <50B631CF.5050505@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20121129043658.GA682@hserus.net> Israel's recent submission to wcit is of interest .. http://news.dot-nxt.com/itu/wcit/c28 ● ITRs must not trump trade rules. Secure the overarching principle that the ITRs shall not override any commitment made in the WTO, GATS or any trade agreement. Jeanette Hofmann [28/11/12 16:46 +0100]: >Hi Nick, > >conflicts between international treaties are not that unusual. Given >the increasing density of international organizations and agreements, >and the lack of any formal hierarchy among them legal inconsistencies >happen more often than one may expect. An example that involves the >WTO concerns intellectual property rights. TRIPS and CBD, the >convention on biological diversity imply conflicting principles. They >were negotiated around the same time but reflect different concerns, >actors and venues. The fact that trade experts and WCIT advocates >hardly take notice of each other seems to make conflicting outcomes >even more likely. > >jeanette > >Am 28.11.2012 16:02, schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart: >>Dear Friends, >> >>I thought I would write to advise you of an important report, just >>released today by LIRNEasia and ECIPE, that makes clear that a number of >>the proposals being put before the World Conference on International >>Telecommunications (WCIT) this month in Dubai could result in conflicts >>for WTO member-states. >> >>Entitled “Whither Global Rules for the Internet? The implications of the >>World Conference on International Telecommunication (WCIT) for >>international trade,” it was released publicly today at 1400 Central >>European Time. >> >>This report is the first to look at current proposals for WCIT and >>whether they are congruent with binding rules on trade developed at the >>World Trade Organisation. Among the report’s key conclusions: >> >> * >> Proposals being made by governments for the World Conference on >> International Telecommunications (WCIT) do not adequately take into >> account their commitments under the World Trade Organization (WTO) >> and its General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS); >> * >> WTO member-countries have made commitments that forbid them from >> imposing restrictions on the most common forms of Internet services >> that would likely be broken were proposals in front of the upcoming >> conference to be agreed to. >> * >> All WTO member-states must abide by a moratorium on tariffs and >> equivalent fees on data transmissions that explicitly forbids access >> fees for data whether they are discriminatory or not. Some >> proposals, such as those promoted by some European >> telecommunications operators, would likely conflict with this >> obligation. >> >> >>Matthias and I have found when we meet with the trade community in >>Geneva that there's little awareness of the trade dimension to WCIT >>proposals. Obviously it is in nobody's interest for WCIT to result in >>ITRs that conflict with WTO obligations. >> >>The report may be found here: >>http://www.ecipe.org/media/publication_pdfs/PB201212b.pdf. >> >>-- >>Regards, >> >>Nick Ashton-Hart >>Geneva Representative >>Computer & Communcations Industry Association (CCIA) >>Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 >>Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 >>Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 >>USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430 >>email/IM (Jabber/GTalk): nashton at ccianet.org >>Skype: nashtonhart >>http://www.ccianet.org >> >>Need to schedule a meeting or call with me? Feel free to pick a time and >>date convenient for you at http://meetme.so/nashton >> > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your 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 psg.com Thu Nov 29 01:49:41 2012 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:49:41 +0400 Subject: [governance] important days and most important WCIT agenda itemd In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 28 Nov 2012, at 15:35, Adam Peake wrote: > > "Contributions to the WCIT conference starting next week can be viewed > here: http://news.dot-nxt.com/itu/wcit/docs-by-meeting. We would like > to apologize for not making it available ourselves." > > We apologies someone had to leak our documents! Bizarre, it is brilliant! 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Nov 29 01:53:47 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 01:53:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] New VPs at ICANN Message-ID: Congratulation to all, another step forward! More information at http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-28nov12-en.htm -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 29 02:13:23 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:43:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] New VPs at ICANN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <990125F7-1136-484A-BEEC-58CD048358E6@hserus.net> Excellent choices, all four of them. --srs (iPad) On 29-Nov-2012, at 12:23, McTim wrote: > Congratulation to all, another step forward! > > More information at > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-28nov12-en.htm > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 29 02:50:50 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 07:50:50 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: important days and most important WCIT agenda itemd In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 03:16:45 on Thu, 29 Nov 2012, Sivasubramanian M writes > >Dear Roland and Adam > >Thank you.   > >All I could find was this: > >Document info >> Meeting:  >> WCIT (3-14 Dec 12) >> File name:  >> S12-WCIT12-C-0001!!MSW-E >> >> Opening >> Election of the Chairman and Vice-Chairmen >> Other administrative issues including requests for participation >received from international organizations, observers, etc. >> Discussion and decisions regarding the structure of the Conference >> Introduction of the Report of the preparatory process >> Examination of the outputs of the preparatory process >> Examination of proposals from Member States >> Discussion of the proposed revisions to the ITRs, as appropriate >> Discussion of WATTC-88 Resolutions, Recommendations, and Opinion >> Adoption of the Final Acts of the Conference, including revised ITRs >and Resolutions, Recommendations, and Opinions, as appropriate >> Determine the date of coming into force of the Final Acts of the >Conference and, if necessary, on the provisional application of certain >part(s) of the Final Acts >> Closure (including signing ceremony That's the agenda, it just isn't a timetable. I would expect the timetable to emerge (and evolve) as the meeting progresses. For example, I'm fairly sure it was the "Structure of the conference" session that I last attended which decided how the various proposals would be bundled together, which were then discussed in parallel sessions (tracks) containing broadly similar proposals. Each track then "merged" their proposals and brought the results back to plenary for further discussion by all. Until the number of tracks and the contents of each bundle is agreed (obviously the chair and secretariat will have a draft of that already, but the conference has to agree it) then you can't publish a timetable either for each track, or indeed for the regular report-backs on progress to plenary sessions throughout the week. You need one report-back session per track, so you don't know their timetable until you know how many tracks; and some tracks will finish their work before others, spin off ad-hoc groups to tackle controversial topics in more detail, and so on. It's much more like a CSTD meeting than an ICANN meeting. The challenge for an individual at such a conference (and I'm assuming that WCIT will be this type of conference) is the sheer number of things happening simultaneously, at short notice, and often late into the night; which really needs a team to be able to follow properly. -- 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 Nov 29 02:56:36 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:56:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] New VPs at ICANN In-Reply-To: <990125F7-1136-484A-BEEC-58CD048358E6@hserus.net> References: <990125F7-1136-484A-BEEC-58CD048358E6@hserus.net> Message-ID: Yes, congrats to all, together with Tarek's appointment a positive step. The next step should be to open up the process to real stakeholder input on strategic outreach, as the NCUC has been bugging the board to do for a couple years now… Bill On Nov 29, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Excellent choices, all four of them. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 29-Nov-2012, at 12:23, McTim wrote: > >> Congratulation to all, another step forward! >> >> More information at >> http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-28nov12-en.htm >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 29 03:07:10 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:07:10 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] New report makes clear upcoming WCIT proposals could conflict with WTO Members' obligations References: <4367A56A-BDF3-475C-825D-966B789B246D@ccianet.org> <50B631CF.5050505@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD673@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> I want to echo Jeanettes observation. What we see is also a growing "competition" among IGOs to get a profile and to position itself as "the leading organisation" in new fields. This reflects conflicts within national governments where Ministries for Economics, Justice, Interior, Foreign Affairs, Technology and Culture have different approaches to Internet Governance. Even in Germany the Ministry of Justice is more on the side of the Data Protection Commissioner and the Ministry of the Interior is more on the side of law enforcement. The majority of governments have no cross-ministerial coordination mechanisms for Internet policies in place. This leads to a situation where one and the same government says "yes" in one intergovernmental organisation and "no" in another intergovernmental organisation. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeanette Hofmann Gesendet: Mi 28.11.2012 16:46 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Nick Ashton-Hart Betreff: Re: [governance] New report makes clear upcoming WCIT proposals could conflict with WTO Members' obligations Hi Nick, conflicts between international treaties are not that unusual. Given the increasing density of international organizations and agreements, and the lack of any formal hierarchy among them legal inconsistencies happen more often than one may expect. An example that involves the WTO concerns intellectual property rights. TRIPS and CBD, the convention on biological diversity imply conflicting principles. They were negotiated around the same time but reflect different concerns, actors and venues. The fact that trade experts and WCIT advocates hardly take notice of each other seems to make conflicting outcomes even more likely. jeanette Am 28.11.2012 16:02, schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart: > Dear Friends, > > I thought I would write to advise you of an important report, just > released today by LIRNEasia and ECIPE, that makes clear that a number of > the proposals being put before the World Conference on International > Telecommunications (WCIT) this month in Dubai could result in conflicts > for WTO member-states. > > Entitled "Whither Global Rules for the Internet? The implications of the > World Conference on International Telecommunication (WCIT) for > international trade," it was released publicly today at 1400 Central > European Time. > > This report is the first to look at current proposals for WCIT and > whether they are congruent with binding rules on trade developed at the > World Trade Organisation. Among the report's key conclusions: > > * > Proposals being made by governments for the World Conference on > International Telecommunications (WCIT) do not adequately take into > account their commitments under the World Trade Organization (WTO) > and its General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS); > * > WTO member-countries have made commitments that forbid them from > imposing restrictions on the most common forms of Internet services > that would likely be broken were proposals in front of the upcoming > conference to be agreed to. > * > All WTO member-states must abide by a moratorium on tariffs and > equivalent fees on data transmissions that explicitly forbids access > fees for data whether they are discriminatory or not. Some > proposals, such as those promoted by some European > telecommunications operators, would likely conflict with this > obligation. > > > Matthias and I have found when we meet with the trade community in > Geneva that there's little awareness of the trade dimension to WCIT > proposals. Obviously it is in nobody's interest for WCIT to result in > ITRs that conflict with WTO obligations. > > The report may be found here: > http://www.ecipe.org/media/publication_pdfs/PB201212b.pdf. > > -- > Regards, > > Nick Ashton-Hart > Geneva Representative > Computer & Communcations Industry Association (CCIA) > Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 > Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 > Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 > USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430 > email/IM (Jabber/GTalk): nashton at ccianet.org > Skype: nashtonhart > http://www.ccianet.org > > Need to schedule a meeting or call with me? Feel free to pick a time and > date convenient for you at http://meetme.so/nashton > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 29 03:15:42 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:15:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: important days and most important WCIT agenda itemd In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <60436EAF-F654-40A5-B419-476B6B48DB3B@uzh.ch> Hi While people on delegations are not supposed to share the ITU's super secret documents, surely there can't be any harm in characterizing the schedule. If I get a stern warning from the ITU's lurkers on this list then we'll know I've undone the natural order of the universe, I guess. The latest version I have shows a heads of del meeting on day 1 plus opening ceremony, plenary sessions days one and two (hopefully some foundational issues clarified), committee meetings days 3 and 4 (five of these--COM1=Steering; COM2=Credentials; COM3=Budget; COM4=Editorial; COM5=Review, the most important, predominates) and WGs and stock taking plenary day 5. Second week, WGs days one to three, and from there plenaries to finalize out texts, resolutions, etc. and do signing if possible, three to five. So I guess if you read the agenda below against this timetable you get some idea how the flow may go. If someone has more aggregated info that'd be great. Best, Bill On Nov 29, 2012, at 8:50 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 03:16:45 on Thu, 29 Nov 2012, Sivasubramanian M writes >> >> Dear Roland and Adam >> >> Thank you. >> >> All I could find was this: >> >> Document info >>> Meeting: >>> WCIT (3-14 Dec 12) >>> File name: >>> S12-WCIT12-C-0001!!MSW-E >>> >>> Opening >>> Election of the Chairman and Vice-Chairmen >>> Other administrative issues including requests for participation >> received from international organizations, observers, etc. >>> Discussion and decisions regarding the structure of the Conference >>> Introduction of the Report of the preparatory process >>> Examination of the outputs of the preparatory process >>> Examination of proposals from Member States >>> Discussion of the proposed revisions to the ITRs, as appropriate >>> Discussion of WATTC-88 Resolutions, Recommendations, and Opinion >>> Adoption of the Final Acts of the Conference, including revised ITRs >> and Resolutions, Recommendations, and Opinions, as appropriate >>> Determine the date of coming into force of the Final Acts of the >> Conference and, if necessary, on the provisional application of certain part(s) of the Final Acts >>> Closure (including signing ceremony > > That's the agenda, it just isn't a timetable. > > I would expect the timetable to emerge (and evolve) as the meeting progresses. > > For example, I'm fairly sure it was the "Structure of the conference" session that I last attended which decided how the various proposals would be bundled together, which were then discussed in parallel sessions (tracks) containing broadly similar proposals. Each track then "merged" their proposals and brought the results back to plenary for further discussion by all. > > Until the number of tracks and the contents of each bundle is agreed (obviously the chair and secretariat will have a draft of that already, but the conference has to agree it) then you can't publish a timetable either for each track, or indeed for the regular report-backs on progress to plenary sessions throughout the week. > > You need one report-back session per track, so you don't know their timetable until you know how many tracks; and some tracks will finish their work before others, spin off ad-hoc groups to tackle controversial topics in more detail, and so on. > > It's much more like a CSTD meeting than an ICANN meeting. > > The challenge for an individual at such a conference (and I'm assuming that WCIT will be this type of conference) is the sheer number of things happening simultaneously, at short notice, and often late into the night; which really needs a team to be able to follow properly. > -- > 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Nov 29 03:16:07 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:16:07 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?On_strategic_thinking_again_=28was_?= =?US-ASCII?Q?Re=3A_http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/article/2012/11/27/net-us?= =?US-ASCII?Q?-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127_=29?= References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16D5F8@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <0a2501cdccda$36fe3a60$a4faaf20$@gmail.com> <20121128091554.5281a2ac@quill.bollow.ch> <20121128162612.0e5d9c17@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD674@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thanks Norbert, I share most of your views. Already in Tunis the were two layers in the ambigues languge of "enhanced cooperation" (the "intergovernmental level" based on a "narrow definition" of ICANN issues and the "multistakeholder level" based on the broad IG definition, which was proposed by WGIG and confirmed by the Tunis agenda. The fact that we discuss now - seven years later - the option of a muiltistakeholder "Framework of Comittments" (FoC) where all stakeholders are invited to commit themselves to a number of high level (legally non-binding) guiding principles, reflects this process. Stumbling foreward. :-))) Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow Gesendet: Mi 28.11.2012 16:26 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ginger Paque Cc: michael gurstein Betreff: Re: [governance] On strategic thinking again (was Re: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 ) Hi Ginger, Is this statement useful for your needs? "I'm firmly in the middle between Michael's options #2 and #3". Or with a bit more elaboration: "At the technical level there is nowadays no clear boundary line between what ITU is doing in regard to telephony and probably everyone agrees ITU should continue to do, and some aspects of what is clearly Internet governance and ITU cannot effectively do (if for no other reasons because so much fear of the ITU has been created)." In my submission to the ITU I have suggested a way of introducing a rather artificial boundary line (the main idea being to limit the scope of applicability of the ITRs to what is done while using telephone numbers for addressing purposes) which will not really help too much in getting exiting and future public interest challenges addressed well, but which should at least make it possible to get reality and the ITRs aligned again: http://www.itu.int/ml/lists/nomenu/arc/wcit-public/2012-08/msg00002.html (The importance of getting rid of the need for creatively interpreting the ITRs in ways that contradict what the text of the ITRs actually says should be clear... how else can the ITRs be part of an effective governance system for anything?) But it's not just telephony that's becoming increasingly hard to differentiate from Internet governance. The same is happening to policy on international trade, to international diplomacy on human rights matters, to media policy (which is extremely important because democracy needs a credible variety of trustworthy and free media), etc. In my opinion, we really need to create a mechanism of enhanced cooperation on international public policy issues, because the mechanisms of the industrial age (including, but not limited to the ITU) are not meeting today's needs. I understand that at the time when the Tunis agenda was drafted with just the right amount of creative ambiguity, people were thinking of the unresolved concerns surrounding ICANN when the words "enhanced cooperation" were put there. But the realm of unresolved Internet-related public interest concerns is much larger today. Specifically, in comparison to the industrial age mechanisms of international cooperation, I would emphasize needs for enhancements with regard to the following aspects: - full transparency and full multistakeholder participation rights and effective empowerment of global civil society participation (by means of either doing all the *international coordination* work electronically via the Internet, or by providing travel funding for all public interest advocates who can demonstrate subject matter competence and independence of the particular interests of the various big companies). - use of logical strategic thinking tools (such as those of the Theory of Constraints). - focus the *international coordination* processes on creating good input documents for informing the work of national parliaments where the hard work would take place of choosing the balance between conflicts of interest (as opposed to internationally negotiating take-it-or-leave-it treaties). The world of now+5years will, for better or worse, be significantly different from todays's world. The same will be true to an even greater extent about the world of today+10years. I think that we really need to have our eyes open as we go forward. Greetings, Norbert Ginger Paque : > Norbert, I understand your point (I think), but I wonder if that > boils down to #2? (Which I agree with Ian is what we want, even if I > differ on the strategy needed to get there). Mike's 3 options are > simplifications, but the are useful for this discussion (at least for > me). Can you put #4 into a simpler statement, if you don't agree that > it is part of #2 (and, please, not 'none of the above' :)). > > I like this step back from the complexities. Generalizations > sometimes have a place for a synthesis/snapshot of the big picture to > get things in perspective, without implying that it gives an accurate > or complete view. > > Thanks, gp > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > Diplo Foundation > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > ** > ** > > > > On 28 November 2012 02:15, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > > > I think it might be useful if the various discussants involved in > > > the WCIT/ITU debate were to indicate which of these categories > > > they would fall into: > > > > > > 1. no regulation of the Internet period > > > > > > 2. possible regulation/global governance of the > > > Internet in certain areas for certain issues but not by the ITU > > > > > > 3. regulation of the Internet in certain > > > identified issue areas by the ITU > > > > My view differs from all of those, so I'd like to choose > > > > 4. since the boundary line between "Internet governance" and "the > > various activities of governments and international organizations > > which are not directly aimed at governance or regulation of the > > Internet" is becoming increasingly blurred (telecommunications > > convergence is only the tip of this iceberg IMO), we should take a > > step back, and think about public interest goals and objectives > > (stating them in a technology-neutral form that avoids to use the > > word "Internet" or any explicit or implicit reference to the TCP/IP > > protocol stack), and on the basis of that about strategies (I'd be > > very surprised if there is a single public-interest objective in > > the world today for which the Internet, together with some implied > > assumptions on what the Internet is assumed to be like, isn't part > > of every reasonable solution strategy), and on the basis of that > > about roles and needed reforms of institutions including the ITU, > > as well as about the formal, legal establishment of whatever > > principles may be needed (in addition to the many aspects of > > international human rights law that apply to the Internet). > > > > 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Nov 29 03:23:42 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:23:42 +0900 Subject: [governance] New report makes clear upcoming WCIT proposals could conflict with WTO Members' obligations In-Reply-To: <20121129043658.GA682@hserus.net> References: <4367A56A-BDF3-475C-825D-966B789B246D@ccianet.org> <50B631CF.5050505@wzb.eu> <20121129043658.GA682@hserus.net> Message-ID: And features in the USA proposal and principles Australia has said should guide the ITRs "6. Proposals are consistent with WTO Agreements, in particular the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)." Europe makes the same point, but about commitments member states have to EC treaties, rules etc. Going to be a complicated 8 days of negotiation. Adam On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Israel's recent submission to wcit is of interest .. > > http://news.dot-nxt.com/itu/wcit/c28 > > ● ITRs must not trump trade rules. Secure the overarching principle that > the ITRs shall not override any commitment made in the WTO, GATS or any > trade agreement. > > Jeanette Hofmann [28/11/12 16:46 +0100]: > >> Hi Nick, >> >> conflicts between international treaties are not that unusual. Given the >> increasing density of international organizations and agreements, and the >> lack of any formal hierarchy among them legal inconsistencies happen more >> often than one may expect. An example that involves the WTO concerns >> intellectual property rights. TRIPS and CBD, the convention on biological >> diversity imply conflicting principles. They were negotiated around the same >> time but reflect different concerns, actors and venues. The fact that trade >> experts and WCIT advocates hardly take notice of each other seems to make >> conflicting outcomes even more likely. >> >> jeanette >> >> Am 28.11.2012 16:02, schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart: >>> >>> Dear Friends, >>> >>> I thought I would write to advise you of an important report, just >>> released today by LIRNEasia and ECIPE, that makes clear that a number of >>> the proposals being put before the World Conference on International >>> Telecommunications (WCIT) this month in Dubai could result in conflicts >>> for WTO member-states. >>> >>> Entitled “Whither Global Rules for the Internet? The implications of the >>> World Conference on International Telecommunication (WCIT) for >>> international trade,” it was released publicly today at 1400 Central >>> European Time. >>> >>> This report is the first to look at current proposals for WCIT and >>> whether they are congruent with binding rules on trade developed at the >>> World Trade Organisation. Among the report’s key conclusions: >>> >>> * >>> Proposals being made by governments for the World Conference on >>> International Telecommunications (WCIT) do not adequately take into >>> account their commitments under the World Trade Organization (WTO) >>> and its General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS); >>> * >>> WTO member-countries have made commitments that forbid them from >>> imposing restrictions on the most common forms of Internet services >>> that would likely be broken were proposals in front of the upcoming >>> conference to be agreed to. >>> * >>> All WTO member-states must abide by a moratorium on tariffs and >>> equivalent fees on data transmissions that explicitly forbids access >>> fees for data whether they are discriminatory or not. Some >>> proposals, such as those promoted by some European >>> telecommunications operators, would likely conflict with this >>> obligation. >>> >>> >>> Matthias and I have found when we meet with the trade community in >>> Geneva that there's little awareness of the trade dimension to WCIT >>> proposals. Obviously it is in nobody's interest for WCIT to result in >>> ITRs that conflict with WTO obligations. >>> >>> The report may be found here: >>> http://www.ecipe.org/media/publication_pdfs/PB201212b.pdf. >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> >>> Nick Ashton-Hart >>> Geneva Representative >>> Computer & Communcations Industry Association (CCIA) >>> Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 >>> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 >>> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 >>> USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430 >>> email/IM (Jabber/GTalk): nashton at ccianet.org >>> Skype: nashtonhart >>> http://www.ccianet.org >>> >>> Need to schedule a meeting or call with me? Feel free to pick a time and >>> date convenient for you at http://meetme.so/nashton >>> >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sana.pryhod at gmail.com Thu Nov 29 03:32:16 2012 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:32:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] New report makes clear upcoming WCIT proposals could conflict with WTO Members' obligations In-Reply-To: References: <4367A56A-BDF3-475C-825D-966B789B246D@ccianet.org> <50B631CF.5050505@wzb.eu> <20121129043658.GA682@hserus.net> Message-ID: Dear Wolfgang, You described Ukrainian situation) I am very happy with Dubai process - for the first time I see such consolidation of ICANN, ISOC, European Parliament, Council of Europe efforts to safeguard the freedom of Internet, and for the first time I see the understanding of officials, that they cannot even elaborate their own common position, say nothing of joint position of all stakeholders! 2012/11/29 Adam Peake : > And features in the USA proposal and principles Australia has said > should guide the ITRs > > "6. Proposals are consistent with WTO Agreements, in particular the > General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)." > > Europe makes the same point, but about commitments member states have > to EC treaties, rules etc. > > Going to be a complicated 8 days of negotiation. > > Adam > > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >> Israel's recent submission to wcit is of interest .. >> >> http://news.dot-nxt.com/itu/wcit/c28 >> >> ● ITRs must not trump trade rules. Secure the overarching principle that >> the ITRs shall not override any commitment made in the WTO, GATS or any >> trade agreement. >> >> Jeanette Hofmann [28/11/12 16:46 +0100]: >> >>> Hi Nick, >>> >>> conflicts between international treaties are not that unusual. Given the >>> increasing density of international organizations and agreements, and the >>> lack of any formal hierarchy among them legal inconsistencies happen more >>> often than one may expect. An example that involves the WTO concerns >>> intellectual property rights. TRIPS and CBD, the convention on biological >>> diversity imply conflicting principles. They were negotiated around the same >>> time but reflect different concerns, actors and venues. The fact that trade >>> experts and WCIT advocates hardly take notice of each other seems to make >>> conflicting outcomes even more likely. >>> >>> jeanette >>> >>> Am 28.11.2012 16:02, schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart: >>>> >>>> Dear Friends, >>>> >>>> I thought I would write to advise you of an important report, just >>>> released today by LIRNEasia and ECIPE, that makes clear that a number of >>>> the proposals being put before the World Conference on International >>>> Telecommunications (WCIT) this month in Dubai could result in conflicts >>>> for WTO member-states. >>>> >>>> Entitled “Whither Global Rules for the Internet? The implications of the >>>> World Conference on International Telecommunication (WCIT) for >>>> international trade,” it was released publicly today at 1400 Central >>>> European Time. >>>> >>>> This report is the first to look at current proposals for WCIT and >>>> whether they are congruent with binding rules on trade developed at the >>>> World Trade Organisation. Among the report’s key conclusions: >>>> >>>> * >>>> Proposals being made by governments for the World Conference on >>>> International Telecommunications (WCIT) do not adequately take into >>>> account their commitments under the World Trade Organization (WTO) >>>> and its General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS); >>>> * >>>> WTO member-countries have made commitments that forbid them from >>>> imposing restrictions on the most common forms of Internet services >>>> that would likely be broken were proposals in front of the upcoming >>>> conference to be agreed to. >>>> * >>>> All WTO member-states must abide by a moratorium on tariffs and >>>> equivalent fees on data transmissions that explicitly forbids access >>>> fees for data whether they are discriminatory or not. Some >>>> proposals, such as those promoted by some European >>>> telecommunications operators, would likely conflict with this >>>> obligation. >>>> >>>> >>>> Matthias and I have found when we meet with the trade community in >>>> Geneva that there's little awareness of the trade dimension to WCIT >>>> proposals. Obviously it is in nobody's interest for WCIT to result in >>>> ITRs that conflict with WTO obligations. >>>> >>>> The report may be found here: >>>> http://www.ecipe.org/media/publication_pdfs/PB201212b.pdf. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Nick Ashton-Hart >>>> Geneva Representative >>>> Computer & Communcations Industry Association (CCIA) >>>> Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 >>>> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 >>>> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 >>>> USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430 >>>> email/IM (Jabber/GTalk): nashton at ccianet.org >>>> Skype: nashtonhart >>>> http://www.ccianet.org >>>> >>>> Need to schedule a meeting or call with me? Feel free to pick a time and >>>> date convenient for you at http://meetme.so/nashton >>>> >>> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Thu Nov 29 03:33:09 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:33:09 +0900 Subject: [governance] wikileaks' extra-judicial punishment Message-ID: Interesting article about wikileaks, extra-judicial punishment and prosecution/persecution of activist hackers: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/23/anonymous-trial-wikileaks-internet-freedom And about the O'Dwyer's extradition fight: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/24/richard-o-dwyer-my-petition 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Thu Nov 29 04:09:51 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:09:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] New report makes clear upcoming WCIT proposals could conflict with WTO Members' obligations In-Reply-To: <4367A56A-BDF3-475C-825D-966B789B246D@ccianet.org> References: <4367A56A-BDF3-475C-825D-966B789B246D@ccianet.org> Message-ID: <01B08513-1BB9-4C6E-9E9F-D8112791EC3B@uzh.ch> On Nov 28, 2012, at 4:02 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Matthias and I have found when we meet with the trade community in Geneva that there's little awareness of the trade dimension to WCIT proposals. And there is equally little awareness in many communication ministries and "administrations" of how the GATS works and affects their environment, which is reflected in the formulation of their WCIT proposals. And moving beyond the member states to the organizations themselves, after the GATS was approved, it took years for the ITU and WTO to work out a cooperative agreement. The tensions and potential synergies in this and similar cases was in mind when many of us were thinking about the mandate of a future IGF in 2004-05; the hope was a holistic mandate and dialogue would help improve the blending and also map and consider gaps in the governance architecture. Alas, none of this really was ultimately to receive focused attention in the context of one-off annual meetings defined by generic themes and main sessions. 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Nov 29 05:27:11 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:27:11 +0900 Subject: [governance] important days and most important WCIT agenda itemd In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 28 Nov 2012, at 15:35, Adam Peake wrote: > >> >> "Contributions to the WCIT conference starting next week can be viewed >> here: http://news.dot-nxt.com/itu/wcit/docs-by-meeting. We would like >> to apologize for not making it available ourselves." >> >> We apologies someone had to leak our documents! Bizarre, > > > it is brilliant! > And seems to have been deleted, the link no longer works. Shame! Adam > 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Nov 29 06:07:06 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:07:06 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: important days and most important WCIT agenda itemd In-Reply-To: <60436EAF-F654-40A5-B419-476B6B48DB3B@uzh.ch> References: <60436EAF-F654-40A5-B419-476B6B48DB3B@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <7cQ3FJEaH0tQFAEk@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <60436EAF-F654-40A5-B419-476B6B48DB3B at uzh.ch>, at 09:15:42 on Thu, 29 Nov 2012, William Drake writes >The latest version I have shows a heads of del meeting on day 1 plus opening ceremony, plenary sessions days one and two (hopefully some >foundational issues clarified), committee meetings days 3 and 4 (five of these--COM1=Steering; COM2=Credentials; COM3=Budget; COM4=Editorial; >COM5=Review, the most important, predominates) and WGs and stock taking plenary day 5. Second week, WGs days one to three, and from there >plenaries to finalize out texts, resolutions, etc. and do signing if possible, three to five. So I guess if you read the agenda below against >this timetable you get some idea how the flow may go. If someone has more aggregated info that'd be great. That all sounds very familiar. Most of the work that will interest people is done in the working groups of COM5, so we need to wait until the work is divided up into the "tracks" I mentioned, each of which will be assigned to a different "group" within Committee 5. Jargon-buster: The "Editorial" committee doesn't make policy, but proof-reads the finished proposals/resolutions to make sure they are using a consistent phraseology and have been properly translated. -- 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 Thu Nov 29 06:26:47 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 03:26:47 -0800 Subject: [governance] important days and most important WCIT agenda itemd In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <112001cdce24$6d13a180$473ae480$@gmail.com> I think that actually explains quite a lot about what is going on with the ITU itself. As a UN organization it is governed by a set of (archaic) rules of operation which it is internally unable to change whether the internal bureaucracy would like to or not i.e. which only consensus among the member governments would allow to change. (this is the explanation for the somewhat bizarre statement Adam was pointing to... In the context of the UN itself this has proven to be a huge impediment to effectively responding to the changes/new risks/new opportunities presented by evolving economies/geo-politics/technologies... they are literally strangling on their own (i.e. their govenmental masters' imposed) red tape... Having worked for a time inside the UN system in part attempting to "reform" that beast, I have a considerable sympathy for their position but on balance the fact that they need to do what Adam has pointed to suggests that the strangulation may in fact be terminal. The problem with that though is that when one begins to contemplate how to respond to some/many/most of the issues that one needs a global "governance" body for, what one conjures up is something not all that dissimilar from what we have now but of course one which reflects the new requirements of additional actors to be involved in global governance issues, new opportunities for using technology to facilitate internal operations and particularly external linkages/participation, new geo-political realities etc.etc. In the context of my simple set of options the reason that most folks on reflection opt for #2 rather than #3 is probably because the ITU seems to have not (been able?) to reform itself. That being the case, surely those who opt for #2 rather than #3 have a responsibility to suggest and begin a process towards the development of suitable global institutional frameworks which allow for the degree and content of governance/regulation which folks seem to agree is required. Alternatively those opting for #3 should be actively thinking about how to introduce reforms into the ITU system (at the next Pleinpotentiary?) which reflect the areas of unhappiness/distrust currently evidenced by the anti-ITU campaigns. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:50 PM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] important days and most important WCIT agenda itemd On 28 Nov 2012, at 15:35, Adam Peake wrote: > > "Contributions to the WCIT conference starting next week can be viewed > here: http://news.dot-nxt.com/itu/wcit/docs-by-meeting. We would like > to apologize for not making it available ourselves." > > We apologies someone had to leak our documents! Bizarre, it is brilliant! 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 Thu Nov 29 10:00:22 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:00:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] Piracy site Newzbin2 gives up and closes 15 months after block Message-ID: <50B77886.1010700@gmail.com> [Compliance with the law is no defence? If the sites claims are true...] 29 November 2012 Last updated at 14:17 GMT Piracy site Newzbin2 gives up and closes 15 months after block Screengrab of Newzbin 2, BBC Newzbin originally claimed it was unaffected by the block as it offered workarounds Continue reading the main story Related Stories * Virgin Media blocks pirate site * Pirate Bay ban dip 'short-lived' * BT ordered to block pirate links Newzbin2, once one of the web's most popular sites offering links to pirated content, has decided to close. It comes 15 months after a UK court ordered internet service providers to block the site, and amid global pressure from copyright holders. Internet rights groups said the move was "pointless" in stopping piracy. In a statement, Newzbin2's owners said it had struggled to cover costs because payment providers had "understandably lost their nerve". "Newzbin2 was always hoped to be a viable underground commercial venture," the site said. "The figures just don't stack up." The Creative Coalition Campaign, which represents groups such as the Motion Picture Association (MPA) and record industry body the BPI, welcomed the announcement. "This is great news," chairwoman Christine Payne said. "Pirate websites should not be allowed to trade as this undermines the ability of legitimate businesses to recoup their considerable investment and threatens jobs in the creative sector." Heavily sued Newzbin2 was the follow-up site to the original Newzbin1, which was sued by the MPA, leaving it with massive debts. The site was taken over by a group of hackers known as Team R Dogs who resurrected the site as Newzbin2. In July 2011, a court ruling meant the site had to be blocked to users in the UK. Continue reading the main story "Start Quote All our payment providers dropped out or started running scared" Newzbin2 statement It attempted various techniques to circumvent the ban, but users began to head elsewhere. "Newzbin1 was said to have had 700,000 registered users," the site's statement said. "In fact that was the total number of people who ever signed up in the history of Newzbin from 2000 onwards. "Only a fraction were active, loads of people dropped out and went to other sites." 'Running scared' The administrators defended their record on tackling piracy, saying they had been willing to comply with requests to remove pirated content - but that copyright holders had never sent them a "single complaint". "The tragedy is this: unlike Newzbin1 we are 100% DMCA [Digital Millennium Copyright Act] compliant," the statement said. Continue reading the main story Block parties The Pirate Bay screenshot Efforts to stem online piracy have in recent times focused on cutting off the public's access to websites offering links to download content. Groups like the BPI - which represents the UK music industry - have used the courts to make internet service providers (ISPs), who typically resist such moves, block websites. Aside from Newzbin2, this year has seen The Pirate Bay blocked by all of the UK's major ISPs, a controversial move among campaigners who believe that such censorship is ineffective. Following the block, The Pirate Bay's traffic plummeted. However, other data has suggested the overall level of piracy has not dropped. Beyond blocking sites, copyright holders have also called for measures to make the likes of Google give preferential treatment to search results containing legal downloads. "We have acted on every DMCA notice we received without stalling or playing games: if there was a DMCA complaint the report was gone. Period." As well as providing a free service listing download links, the site also offered a premium subscription option with various perks. However, the site said not enough members had been paying, and that for those that had, the services the site had used to receive the money had been backing out. "All our payment providers dropped out or started running scared," the site said. It added that accepting Bitcoin - an electronic, hard-to-track currency - had not been an option because it was "just too hard for 90% of people". The Open Rights Group, which campaigns for an open internet, said Newzbin's closure should not be taken as a sign that blocking sites was effective. "Newzbin were rightly pursued through the courts and found to be encouraging infringement," said Jim Killock, the group's executive director. "That is the right approach. However, censorship and block orders are disturbing and we think unnecessary given the success in tackling the businesses and payment mechanisms involved. "Web blocking is a blunt instrument and is a dangerous practice. We wish copyright owners the best in enforcing their rights and building their businesses, but urge them not to resort to further requests for censorship." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: _64458530_newzbin-bbc.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 18296 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: _64458836_pirateeee.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 16315 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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 29 10:48:46 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 21:18:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] ITU "WCIT myth buster" Message-ID: http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/WCIT-myth-buster-en.pptx Seen on John curran's fb wall .. How much salt do we add to this deck, to taste.. Will a kilo do? --srs (iPad) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 29 12:39:34 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:39:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Google vs Doogle: Internet Goliath threatens young South African Message-ID: <50B79DD6.6010400@gmail.com> Google vs Doogle: Internet Goliath threatens young South African The internet super giant has threatened legal action against a tiny jobseeker website run by a 23-year-old South African. By Jenni Smout on 29 November, 2012 4:33 pm in Highlights and Special Offers , News / no comments http://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/google-vs-doogle-internet-goliath-threatens-young-south-african.htm Andries Maree van der Merwe from Mpumalanga received a letter from Google's lawyers ordering him to either shut down or change the name and logo of his website Doogle. The site, set up in January 2011, allows those searching for work to upload their details for free and browse online directories. The website was set up after Van der Merwe dropped out of school aged 16 and worked as a street vendor. "I sold newspapers on street corners and people told me what was wrong," he recalled. "They wanted a place where they could go to find a job." After Van der Merwe had an idea for the website he bought a computer for R600 from a pawn shop. The website is slowly growing, having recently received its millionth hit, but not yet making any money. "Sometimes I have to catch fish from the river to eat. But I think God is with me," he said. Google, worth an estimated £160bn with 7.2 billion hits a day, has complained that his logo and search engine infringe its trademark and there is a danger that users will assume Doogle is associated with Google. Van der Merwe has offered to put a notice on the site, distancing Doogle from Google. Google's spokesperson in South Africa was unable to comment directly on the case, but stated "we are passionate about protecting the reputation of our brand". Yet the South African remains defiant. "I'm not giving up my name. Doogle is who I am. It's my business. I registered the company and legally acquired the domain." His lawyer Emmie de Kock described it as "a possible David-Goliath style battle". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: doogle-390x283.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 32439 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 miguel.alcaine at gmail.com Thu Nov 29 13:05:28 2012 From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:05:28 -0600 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?On_strategic_thinking_again_=28was_?= =?US-ASCII?Q?Re=3A_http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/article/2012/11/27/net-us?= =?US-ASCII?Q?-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127_=29?= In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD674@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16D5F8@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <0a2501cdccda$36fe3a60$a4faaf20$@gmail.com> <20121128091554.5281a2ac@quill.bollow.ch> <20121128162612.0e5d9c17@quill.bollow.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD674@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Dear all, I think this thread is a good way forward. I encourage you to continue in this line of thinking. I also think that it is really necessary to grasp the big picture and to exercise our imagination to start creating useful frameworks for the future. Probably, as Norbert put it one way to move forward is thinking about public interest goals and objectives. In a more specific issue, I would suggest that a clearer and comprehensive definition in terms of all stakeholders of enhanced cooperation, although it may need ambiguities, is necessary. I would expect something can be done by WSIS + 10. This also goes in the same direction Wolfgang is referring to the multi-stakeholder "Framework of Commitments". Best, Miguel Disclaimer My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:16 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > Thanks Norbert, > > I share most of your views. Already in Tunis the were two layers in the > ambigues languge of "enhanced cooperation" (the "intergovernmental level" > based on a "narrow definition" of ICANN issues and the "multistakeholder > level" based on the broad IG definition, which was proposed by WGIG and > confirmed by the Tunis agenda. The fact that we discuss now - seven years > later - the option of a muiltistakeholder "Framework of Comittments" (FoC) > where all stakeholders are invited to commit themselves to a number of high > level (legally non-binding) guiding principles, reflects this process. > Stumbling foreward. :-))) > > Wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow > Gesendet: Mi 28.11.2012 16:26 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ginger Paque > Cc: michael gurstein > Betreff: Re: [governance] On strategic thinking again (was Re: > http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127) > > > > Hi Ginger, > > Is this statement useful for your needs? > > "I'm firmly in the middle between Michael's options #2 and #3". > > Or with a bit more elaboration: > > "At the technical level there is nowadays no clear boundary line > between what ITU is doing in regard to telephony and probably > everyone agrees ITU should continue to do, and some aspects of what > is clearly Internet governance and ITU cannot effectively do (if > for no other reasons because so much fear of the ITU has been > created)." > > In my submission to the ITU I have suggested a way of introducing a > rather artificial boundary line (the main idea being to limit the scope > of applicability of the ITRs to what is done while using telephone > numbers for addressing purposes) which will not really help too much in > getting exiting and future public interest challenges addressed well, > but which should at least make it possible to get reality and the ITRs > aligned again: > http://www.itu.int/ml/lists/nomenu/arc/wcit-public/2012-08/msg00002.html > (The importance of getting rid of the need for creatively interpreting > the ITRs in ways that contradict what the text of the ITRs actually > says should be clear... how else can the ITRs be part of an effective > governance system for anything?) > > But it's not just telephony that's becoming increasingly hard to > differentiate from Internet governance. The same is happening to > policy on international trade, to international diplomacy on human > rights matters, to media policy (which is extremely important because > democracy needs a credible variety of trustworthy and free media), etc. > > In my opinion, we really need to create a mechanism of enhanced > cooperation on international public policy issues, because the > mechanisms of the industrial age (including, but not limited to the > ITU) are not meeting today's needs. I understand that at the time when > the Tunis agenda was drafted with just the right amount of creative > ambiguity, people were thinking of the unresolved concerns surrounding > ICANN when the words "enhanced cooperation" were put there. But the > realm of unresolved Internet-related public interest concerns is much > larger today. > > Specifically, in comparison to the industrial age mechanisms of > international cooperation, I would emphasize needs for enhancements > with regard to the following aspects: > - full transparency and full multistakeholder participation rights and > effective empowerment of global civil society participation (by means > of either doing all the *international coordination* work > electronically via the Internet, or by providing travel funding for > all public interest advocates who can demonstrate subject matter > competence and independence of the particular interests of the > various big companies). > - use of logical strategic thinking tools (such as those of the Theory > of Constraints). > - focus the *international coordination* processes on creating good > input documents for informing the work of national parliaments where > the hard work would take place of choosing the balance between > conflicts of interest (as opposed to internationally negotiating > take-it-or-leave-it treaties). > > The world of now+5years will, for better or worse, be significantly > different from todays's world. The same will be true to an even greater > extent about the world of today+10years. > > I think that we really need to have our eyes open as we go forward. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > Ginger Paque : > > > Norbert, I understand your point (I think), but I wonder if that > > boils down to #2? (Which I agree with Ian is what we want, even if I > > differ on the strategy needed to get there). Mike's 3 options are > > simplifications, but the are useful for this discussion (at least for > > me). Can you put #4 into a simpler statement, if you don't agree that > > it is part of #2 (and, please, not 'none of the above' :)). > > > > I like this step back from the complexities. Generalizations > > sometimes have a place for a synthesis/snapshot of the big picture to > > get things in perspective, without implying that it gives an accurate > > or complete view. > > > > Thanks, gp > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > Diplo Foundation > > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > ** > > ** > > > > > > > > On 28 November 2012 02:15, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > > Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > > > > > I think it might be useful if the various discussants involved in > > > > the WCIT/ITU debate were to indicate which of these categories > > > > they would fall into: > > > > > > > > 1. no regulation of the Internet period > > > > > > > > 2. possible regulation/global governance of the > > > > Internet in certain areas for certain issues but not by the ITU > > > > > > > > 3. regulation of the Internet in certain > > > > identified issue areas by the ITU > > > > > > My view differs from all of those, so I'd like to choose > > > > > > 4. since the boundary line between "Internet governance" and "the > > > various activities of governments and international organizations > > > which are not directly aimed at governance or regulation of the > > > Internet" is becoming increasingly blurred (telecommunications > > > convergence is only the tip of this iceberg IMO), we should take a > > > step back, and think about public interest goals and objectives > > > (stating them in a technology-neutral form that avoids to use the > > > word "Internet" or any explicit or implicit reference to the TCP/IP > > > protocol stack), and on the basis of that about strategies (I'd be > > > very surprised if there is a single public-interest objective in > > > the world today for which the Internet, together with some implied > > > assumptions on what the Internet is assumed to be like, isn't part > > > of every reasonable solution strategy), and on the basis of that > > > about roles and needed reforms of institutions including the ITU, > > > as well as about the formal, legal establishment of whatever > > > principles may be needed (in addition to the many aspects of > > > international human rights law that apply to the Internet). > > > > > > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 29 13:24:51 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:24:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] New report makes clear upcoming WCIT proposals could conflict with WTO Members' obligations In-Reply-To: References: <4367A56A-BDF3-475C-825D-966B789B246D@ccianet.org> <50B631CF.5050505@wzb.eu> <20121129043658.GA682@hserus.net> Message-ID: <50B7A873.8060905@gmail.com> What makes WTO compliance such an important issue? should it b econtested? In health, when the WHO failed to make explicit that poor countries could legally copy (in spite of patents) medicines for public health reasons millions died from treatable HIV etc, etc... There competing international law regimes, and they are simply not all coherent... why cohere to WTO instead of UDHR? On 2012/11/29 10:23 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > And features in the USA proposal and principles Australia has said > should guide the ITRs > > "6. Proposals are consistent with WTO Agreements, in particular the > General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)." > > Europe makes the same point, but about commitments member states have > to EC treaties, rules etc. > > Going to be a complicated 8 days of negotiation. > > Adam > > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >> Israel's recent submission to wcit is of interest .. >> >> http://news.dot-nxt.com/itu/wcit/c28 >> >> ● ITRs must not trump trade rules. Secure the overarching principle that >> the ITRs shall not override any commitment made in the WTO, GATS or any >> trade agreement. >> >> Jeanette Hofmann [28/11/12 16:46 +0100]: >> >>> Hi Nick, >>> >>> conflicts between international treaties are not that unusual. Given the >>> increasing density of international organizations and agreements, and the >>> lack of any formal hierarchy among them legal inconsistencies happen more >>> often than one may expect. An example that involves the WTO concerns >>> intellectual property rights. TRIPS and CBD, the convention on biological >>> diversity imply conflicting principles. They were negotiated around the same >>> time but reflect different concerns, actors and venues. The fact that trade >>> experts and WCIT advocates hardly take notice of each other seems to make >>> conflicting outcomes even more likely. >>> >>> jeanette >>> >>> Am 28.11.2012 16:02, schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart: >>>> Dear Friends, >>>> >>>> I thought I would write to advise you of an important report, just >>>> released today by LIRNEasia and ECIPE, that makes clear that a number of >>>> the proposals being put before the World Conference on International >>>> Telecommunications (WCIT) this month in Dubai could result in conflicts >>>> for WTO member-states. >>>> >>>> Entitled “Whither Global Rules for the Internet? The implications of the >>>> World Conference on International Telecommunication (WCIT) for >>>> international trade,” it was released publicly today at 1400 Central >>>> European Time. >>>> >>>> This report is the first to look at current proposals for WCIT and >>>> whether they are congruent with binding rules on trade developed at the >>>> World Trade Organisation. Among the report’s key conclusions: >>>> >>>> * >>>> Proposals being made by governments for the World Conference on >>>> International Telecommunications (WCIT) do not adequately take into >>>> account their commitments under the World Trade Organization (WTO) >>>> and its General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS); >>>> * >>>> WTO member-countries have made commitments that forbid them from >>>> imposing restrictions on the most common forms of Internet services >>>> that would likely be broken were proposals in front of the upcoming >>>> conference to be agreed to. >>>> * >>>> All WTO member-states must abide by a moratorium on tariffs and >>>> equivalent fees on data transmissions that explicitly forbids access >>>> fees for data whether they are discriminatory or not. Some >>>> proposals, such as those promoted by some European >>>> telecommunications operators, would likely conflict with this >>>> obligation. >>>> >>>> >>>> Matthias and I have found when we meet with the trade community in >>>> Geneva that there's little awareness of the trade dimension to WCIT >>>> proposals. Obviously it is in nobody's interest for WCIT to result in >>>> ITRs that conflict with WTO obligations. >>>> >>>> The report may be found here: >>>> http://www.ecipe.org/media/publication_pdfs/PB201212b.pdf. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Nick Ashton-Hart >>>> Geneva Representative >>>> Computer & Communcations Industry Association (CCIA) >>>> Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 >>>> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 >>>> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 >>>> USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430 >>>> email/IM (Jabber/GTalk): nashton at ccianet.org >>>> Skype: nashtonhart >>>> http://www.ccianet.org >>>> >>>> Need to schedule a meeting or call with me? Feel free to pick a time and >>>> date convenient for you at http://meetme.so/nashton >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 dvbirve at yandex.ru Thu Nov 29 14:27:07 2012 From: dvbirve at yandex.ru (Shcherbovich Andrey) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 23:27:07 +0400 Subject: [governance] Syrian blackout Message-ID: <122531354217227@web7g.yandex.ru> Dear colleagues! Media says about total disconnection of Syria from the Internet. Do you have any information about the reasons of this disconnection? Thanks! Andrey -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Nov 29 14:54:22 2012 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 21:54:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] Syrian blackout In-Reply-To: <122531354217227@web7g.yandex.ru> References: <122531354217227@web7g.yandex.ru> Message-ID: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20546302 говорят, террористы виноваты 2012/11/29 Shcherbovich Andrey : > Dear colleagues! > > Media says about total disconnection of Syria from the Internet. Do you have any information about the reasons of this disconnection? > > > Thanks! > > Andrey > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Thu Nov 29 15:22:20 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:22:20 -0800 Subject: [governance] Syrian blackout In-Reply-To: <122531354217227@web7g.yandex.ru> References: <122531354217227@web7g.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <51588AE8-3096-44CD-A913-DAE9ADB609B4@virtualized.org> A blog post related to this: http://blog.cloudflare.com/how-syria-turned-off-the-internet Regards, -drc On Nov 29, 2012, at 11:27 AM, Shcherbovich Andrey wrote: > Dear colleagues! > > Media says about total disconnection of Syria from the Internet. Do you have any information about the reasons of this disconnection? > > > Thanks! > > Andrey > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Thu Nov 29 22:48:40 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:48:40 +0900 Subject: [governance] Syrian blackout In-Reply-To: <51588AE8-3096-44CD-A913-DAE9ADB609B4@virtualized.org> References: <122531354217227@web7g.yandex.ru> <51588AE8-3096-44CD-A913-DAE9ADB609B4@virtualized.org> Message-ID: Email sent to another list, relevant here > > > Dear Kictanet List, > > Please see the work by Jean Camp and Warigia Bowman on how to > "Protect the Internet from Dictators: Technical and Policy > Solutions to Ensure Online Freedoms. This paper is particularly > timely given today's events, since Syria is one of the countries we > analyze. Can you please help us to figure out what technology we > missed, or in what areas our analysis could be improved? Many > thanks. > > You can find and download our work here > > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2101677 > > Here is the permalink > > http://ssrn.com/abstract=2101677 > . . . > > Sincerely, Rigia > Warigia Bowman > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 5:22 AM, David Conrad wrote: > A blog post related to this: http://blog.cloudflare.com/how-syria-turned-off-the-internet > > Regards, > -drc > > On Nov 29, 2012, at 11:27 AM, Shcherbovich Andrey wrote: > >> Dear colleagues! >> >> Media says about total disconnection of Syria from the Internet. Do you have any information about the reasons of this disconnection? >> >> >> Thanks! >> >> Andrey >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 29 22:54:55 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:24:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Syrian blackout In-Reply-To: References: <122531354217227@web7g.yandex.ru> <51588AE8-3096-44CD-A913-DAE9ADB609B4@virtualized.org> Message-ID: In this case at any rate - connectivity out of Syria is through a monopoly, government owned telco, and it was disrupted by bringing down router sessions and shutting down routers. In other words, unless you have any alternate transit (eg: a satellite phone), your packets just aren't going to flow Entirely different situation from the usual where there's a great firewall of country X that needs to be circumvented by proxies, TOR nodes and such. [though running TOR nodes is an activity that entails some risk .. right now, nanog is full of discussion about some austrian guy running a TOR exit node that got used by someone to browse child porn, and the police have siezed all his computers, though he isn't currently under arrest]. --srs (iPad) On 30-Nov-2012, at 9:18, Adam Peake wrote: > Email sent to another list, relevant here > >> >> >> Dear Kictanet List, >> >> Please see the work by Jean Camp and Warigia Bowman on how to >> "Protect the Internet from Dictators: Technical and Policy >> Solutions to Ensure Online Freedoms. This paper is particularly >> timely given today's events, since Syria is one of the countries we >> analyze. Can you please help us to figure out what technology we >> missed, or in what areas our analysis could be improved? Many >> thanks. >> >> You can find and download our work here >> >> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2101677 >> >> Here is the permalink >> >> http://ssrn.com/abstract=2101677 > . . . > >> >> Sincerely, Rigia >> Warigia Bowman > > > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 5:22 AM, David Conrad wrote: >> A blog post related to this: http://blog.cloudflare.com/how-syria-turned-off-the-internet >> >> Regards, >> -drc >> >> On Nov 29, 2012, at 11:27 AM, Shcherbovich Andrey wrote: >> >>> Dear colleagues! >>> >>> Media says about total disconnection of Syria from the Internet. Do you have any information about the reasons of this disconnection? >>> >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Andrey >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 ccianet.org Fri Nov 30 00:16:03 2012 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 06:16:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] New report makes clear upcoming WCIT proposals could conflict with WTO Members' obligations In-Reply-To: <50B7A873.8060905@gmail.com> References: <4367A56A-BDF3-475C-825D-966B789B246D@ccianet.org> <50B631CF.5050505@wzb.eu> <20121129043658.GA682@hserus.net> <50B7A873.8060905@gmail.com> Message-ID: <32D80626-E49E-40FE-AB63-ED571FE51066@ccianet.org> In this context it is important because non-compliance, as we know, can result in a DSU action. The WTO agreements are enforceable; the ITRs are not. Keeping the Internet out of the ITRs is a good way to ensure that WTO Members who are also adhering to the ITRs don't inadvertently create a non-compliance problem for themselves. On 29 Nov 2012, at 19:24, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > What makes WTO compliance such an important issue? should it b econtested? > > In health, when the WHO failed to make explicit that poor countries could legally copy (in spite of patents) medicines for public health reasons millions died from treatable HIV etc, etc... > > There competing international law regimes, and they are simply not all coherent... why cohere to WTO instead of UDHR? > On 2012/11/29 10:23 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> And features in the USA proposal and principles Australia has said >> should guide the ITRs >> >> "6. Proposals are consistent with WTO Agreements, in particular the >> General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)." >> >> Europe makes the same point, but about commitments member states have >> to EC treaties, rules etc. >> >> Going to be a complicated 8 days of negotiation. >> >> Adam >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> wrote: >>> Israel's recent submission to wcit is of interest .. >>> >>> http://news.dot-nxt.com/itu/wcit/c28 >>> >>> ● ITRs must not trump trade rules. Secure the overarching principle that >>> the ITRs shall not override any commitment made in the WTO, GATS or any >>> trade agreement. >>> >>> Jeanette Hofmann [28/11/12 16:46 +0100]: >>> >>>> Hi Nick, >>>> >>>> conflicts between international treaties are not that unusual. Given the >>>> increasing density of international organizations and agreements, and the >>>> lack of any formal hierarchy among them legal inconsistencies happen more >>>> often than one may expect. An example that involves the WTO concerns >>>> intellectual property rights. TRIPS and CBD, the convention on biological >>>> diversity imply conflicting principles. They were negotiated around the same >>>> time but reflect different concerns, actors and venues. The fact that trade >>>> experts and WCIT advocates hardly take notice of each other seems to make >>>> conflicting outcomes even more likely. >>>> >>>> jeanette >>>> >>>> Am 28.11.2012 16:02, schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart: >>>>> Dear Friends, >>>>> >>>>> I thought I would write to advise you of an important report, just >>>>> released today by LIRNEasia and ECIPE, that makes clear that a number of >>>>> the proposals being put before the World Conference on International >>>>> Telecommunications (WCIT) this month in Dubai could result in conflicts >>>>> for WTO member-states. >>>>> >>>>> Entitled “Whither Global Rules for the Internet? The implications of the >>>>> World Conference on International Telecommunication (WCIT) for >>>>> international trade,” it was released publicly today at 1400 Central >>>>> European Time. >>>>> >>>>> This report is the first to look at current proposals for WCIT and >>>>> whether they are congruent with binding rules on trade developed at the >>>>> World Trade Organisation. Among the report’s key conclusions: >>>>> >>>>> * >>>>> Proposals being made by governments for the World Conference on >>>>> International Telecommunications (WCIT) do not adequately take into >>>>> account their commitments under the World Trade Organization (WTO) >>>>> and its General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS); >>>>> * >>>>> WTO member-countries have made commitments that forbid them from >>>>> imposing restrictions on the most common forms of Internet services >>>>> that would likely be broken were proposals in front of the upcoming >>>>> conference to be agreed to. >>>>> * >>>>> All WTO member-states must abide by a moratorium on tariffs and >>>>> equivalent fees on data transmissions that explicitly forbids access >>>>> fees for data whether they are discriminatory or not. Some >>>>> proposals, such as those promoted by some European >>>>> telecommunications operators, would likely conflict with this >>>>> obligation. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Matthias and I have found when we meet with the trade community in >>>>> Geneva that there's little awareness of the trade dimension to WCIT >>>>> proposals. Obviously it is in nobody's interest for WCIT to result in >>>>> ITRs that conflict with WTO obligations. >>>>> >>>>> The report may be found here: >>>>> http://www.ecipe.org/media/publication_pdfs/PB201212b.pdf. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Nick Ashton-Hart >>>>> Geneva Representative >>>>> Computer & Communcations Industry Association (CCIA) >>>>> Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 >>>>> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 >>>>> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 >>>>> USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430 >>>>> email/IM (Jabber/GTalk): nashton at ccianet.org >>>>> Skype: nashtonhart >>>>> http://www.ccianet.org >>>>> >>>>> Need to schedule a meeting or call with me? Feel free to pick a time and >>>>> date convenient for you at http://meetme.so/nashton >>>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 03:31:02 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:31:02 +0300 Subject: [governance] Syrian blackout In-Reply-To: <122531354217227@web7g.yandex.ru> References: <122531354217227@web7g.yandex.ru> Message-ID: Here is a PR from ISOC http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-syria%E2%80%99s-internet-shutdown Fahd On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Shcherbovich Andrey wrote: > Dear colleagues! > > Media says about total disconnection of Syria from the Internet. Do you > have any information about the reasons of this disconnection? > > > Thanks! > > Andrey > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 30 07:37:50 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:37:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: <0e6e01cdcd9e$f6ac3460$e4049d20$@gmail.com> References: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> <0ddd01cdcd91$4f368ee0$eda3aca0$@gmail.com> <0e6e01cdcd9e$f6ac3460$e4049d20$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50B8A89E.1090500@gmail.com> Michael The function of arguing against regulation and then making "piece meal" adjustments as "necessary" (which is a commodious term) is not as innocuous as it seems. From the 3 prong list earlier in this thread, there is a clear "position" (as stated) and "interest" (the reason, purpose, etc) and this is how the "game" is played. It is not innocuous because this frames the debate in the "free markets are better" mold. Now the global financial crisis was facilitated (if not caused) by this type of thinking - in a sector most susceptible to oversight... It is of course a different matter, when those who argue for "hands off" and then "hands on" (exceptionally or otherwise), if one seeks to be in two places at once. But with a battalion of corporate funded ideogogues backing this view up, I guess it passes some sort of muster.... Perhaps people are playing the "game", but perhaps not... Riaz On 2012/11/28 09:31 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > McTim, it seems to me that you (and others) argue long and hard > against management/regulation of the Internet except (as in this case) > when you don't. > > And then having accepted the (obvious) need for some sort of > management/regulation of at least certain aspects of the Internet why > you (etc.) should expect that others (the rest of the world for > example) should accept your definition of what those "exceptions" > should be and where they should (or rather should not) be adjudicated > leaves me a bit puzzled. > > M > > *From:*McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:30 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > *Cc:* Suresh Ramasubramanian; Ian Peter; Ginger Paque > *Subject:* Re: [governance] > http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:53 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > No question, Suresh (and McTim) but you/they can't have it both ways > i.e. vehemently denouncing regulation/governance ("keep your hand off > the Internet") etc.etc. on the one hand and then practicing it (if > only implicitly) on the other. > > I'm only trying to have it one way. I feel gov'ts have far too much > control over what we say and do online. I don't want an > intergovernmental body setting global Internet policy. > > I would have thought, if the option is in fact #2 (or #3) as of > course, any rational actor would I believe have to accept; that if > one doesn't like a particular venue -- what does one suggest as an > appropriate (globally acceptable) alternative > venue(s)--particularly since the current (default) position seems > to be seen as unacceptably self-serving by so many. > > Accepting #2 which as I have said before is the current status quo > does not mean that one accepts the need for further global Internet > Governance mechanisms. > > I do not find #3 acceptable. > > I've been singing the same song for years, what is it that you don't > understand about my position? > > -- > 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 08:16:19 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 08:16:19 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: <50B8A89E.1090500@gmail.com> References: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> <0ddd01cdcd91$4f368ee0$eda3aca0$@gmail.com> <0e6e01cdcd9e$f6ac3460$e4049d20$@gmail.com> <50B8A89E.1090500@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Michael > > The function of arguing against regulation and then making "piece meal" > adjustments as "necessary" (which is a commodious term) is not as innocuous > as it seems. I don't think there is anyone on this list who argues for this. You (and MG) clearly don't understand this. From the 3 prong list earlier in this thread, there is a clear > "position" (as stated) and "interest" (the reason, purpose, etc) and this is > how the "game" is played. > Sticking to one's principles is not playing a "game"! > It is not innocuous because this frames the debate in the "free markets are > better" mold. Now the global financial crisis was facilitated (if not > caused) by this type of thinking - in a sector most susceptible to > oversight... > > It is of course a different matter, when those who argue for "hands off" and > then "hands on" (exceptionally or otherwise), if one seeks to be in two > places at once. It's undeniable that nations states regulate Internet activities within their borders. I'm not happy about this, but recognise that little can be done about it. Thinking that a global agreement on Internet regulation would give us more freedom and a more open Internet is hopelessly naive. But with a battalion of corporate funded ideogogues backing > this view up, I guess it passes some sort of muster.... Perhaps people are > playing the "game", but perhaps not... I don't think that because the Googles/Facebooks/eBays, etc share the same opinion as the ISOCs/CDT/Accessnow, etc folks on ITRs that that means that they are wrong. It just means that CS and Internet companies share the same values on an open and free Internet. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > On 2012/11/28 09:31 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > McTim, it seems to me that you (and others) argue long and hard against > management/regulation of the Internet except (as in this case) when you > don't. > > > > And then having accepted the (obvious) need for some sort of > management/regulation of at least certain aspects of the Internet why you > (etc.) should expect that others (the rest of the world for example) should > accept your definition of what those "exceptions" should be and where they > should (or rather should not) be adjudicated leaves me a bit puzzled. > > > > M > > > > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:30 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian; Ian Peter; Ginger Paque > Subject: Re: [governance] > http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:53 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > No question, Suresh (and McTim) but you/they can't have it both ways i.e. > vehemently denouncing regulation/governance ("keep your hand off the > Internet") etc.etc. on the one hand and then practicing it (if only > implicitly) on the other. > > > > I'm only trying to have it one way. I feel gov'ts have far too much > control over what we say and do online. I don't want an intergovernmental > body setting global Internet policy. > > > > > > I would have thought, if the option is in fact #2 (or #3) as of course, any > rational actor would I believe have to accept; that if one doesn't like a > particular venue -- what does one suggest as an appropriate (globally > acceptable) alternative venue(s)--particularly since the current (default) > position seems to be seen as unacceptably self-serving by so many. > > > > > > Accepting #2 which as I have said before is the current status quo does not > mean that one accepts the need for further global Internet Governance > mechanisms. > > > > I do not find #3 acceptable. > > > > I've been singing the same song for years, what is it that you don't > understand about my position? > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 30 09:13:58 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 19:43:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: <50B8A89E.1090500@gmail.com> References: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> <0ddd01cdcd91$4f368ee0$eda3aca0$@gmail.com> <0e6e01cdcd9e$f6ac3460$e4049d20$@gmail.com> <50B8A89E.1090500@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0E1C65C1-06BD-4AC3-8915-9939D15D02C7@hserus.net> Riaz, speaking entirely for myself, nobody pays me a penny (or even an indian paisa to be on the list. The paisa is, at 55 rupees to the dollar and 100 paise to the rupee, a very small sum indeed, and even when I was a toddler in 1980, you could buy like one tiny boiled sweet for 1 paisa, after which it went out of circulation...) So no. You don't catch me arguing against legislation or cross border regulation. I see it and its utility all the time. What I am arguing, and what others here are arguing, is that the situation is too complex to have one overarching organization trying to regulate everything in this area. Especially not a civil regulator in an environment when a large percentage of what you want to regulate against is criminal in nature. Especially not law enforcement agencies when a lot of this is regulatory in nature. And especially not telecom regulators when data protection, fair trade, justice / law and a variety of other ministries have a role to play in this. --srs (iPad) On 30-Nov-2012, at 18:07, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Michael > > The function of arguing against regulation and then making "piece meal" adjustments as "necessary" (which is a commodious term) is not as innocuous as it seems. From the 3 prong list earlier in this thread, there is a clear "position" (as stated) and "interest" (the reason, purpose, etc) and this is how the "game" is played. > > It is not innocuous because this frames the debate in the "free markets are better" mold. Now the global financial crisis was facilitated (if not caused) by this type of thinking - in a sector most susceptible to oversight... > > It is of course a different matter, when those who argue for "hands off" and then "hands on" (exceptionally or otherwise), if one seeks to be in two places at once. But with a battalion of corporate funded ideogogues backing this view up, I guess it passes some sort of muster.... Perhaps people are playing the "game", but perhaps not... > > Riaz > > On 2012/11/28 09:31 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> McTim, it seems to me that you (and others) argue long and hard against management/regulation of the Internet except (as in this case) when you don't. >> >> And then having accepted the (obvious) need for some sort of management/regulation of at least certain aspects of the Internet why you (etc.) should expect that others (the rest of the world for example) should accept your definition of what those "exceptions" should be and where they should (or rather should not) be adjudicated leaves me a bit puzzled. >> >> M >> >> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:30 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein >> Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian; Ian Peter; Ginger Paque >> Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:53 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> No question, Suresh (and McTim) but you/they can't have it both ways i.e. vehemently denouncing regulation/governance ("keep your hand off the Internet") etc.etc. on the one hand and then practicing it (if only implicitly) on the other. >> >> I'm only trying to have it one way. I feel gov'ts have far too much control over what we say and do online. I don't want an intergovernmental body setting global Internet policy. >> >> >> I would have thought, if the option is in fact #2 (or #3) as of course, any rational actor would I believe have to accept; that if one doesn't like a particular venue -- what does one suggest as an appropriate (globally acceptable) alternative venue(s)--particularly since the current (default) position seems to be seen as unacceptably self-serving by so many. >> >> >> Accepting #2 which as I have said before is the current status quo does not mean that one accepts the need for further global Internet Governance mechanisms. >> >> I do not find #3 acceptable. >> >> I've been singing the same song for years, what is it that you don't understand about my position? >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From otsienomartin at yahoo.com Fri Nov 30 09:37:35 2012 From: otsienomartin at yahoo.com (Martin McOsieno) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 06:37:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! Message-ID: <1354286255.40200.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Here are some interesting insights on a new conflict of interest case at ICANN: http://domainnewsafrica.com/the-plot-thickens-as-icann-and-africa-both-loose-africa/ http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121127_africa_vs_africa_gac_early_warnings_on_new_gtld_applications/ Martin. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Fri Nov 30 10:18:16 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:18:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: <50B8A89E.1090500@gmail.com> References: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> <0ddd01cdcd91$4f368ee0$eda3aca0$@gmail.com> <0e6e01cdcd9e$f6ac3460$e4049d20$@gmail.com>,<50B8A89E.1090500@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB7409F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Michael (Gurstein), I am really stunned by the turn your latest messages have taken. It would seem that you have directed a massive ad-hominem argument (attack?) on a large group of people who not only don't get paid but actually sacrifice better paid jobs and put their own day jobs on the line - sometimes also pay out of pocket and don't get a lot of love at home - for the promotion and, when needed, defense of values of the Internet. Many - I tend to include myself in this list - have a very clear approach to the situations when their views and action coincide with those of corporations, governments, and even non-commercial organizations whose views and funding do not align in other issue areas. To your statement about supporting or not "regulation." Maybe it is useful to go back to the WGIG's list of issues and find out if among the 40 or so there is something missing that has become important today. You'll see there a variety of levels of "regulation" and/or of governmental intervention, both happening now and desirable or denounced as undesirable. People like McTim and Suresh have expressed themselves over the years about many of these, with expertise and knowledge. Your pass at them seems totally ungrounded. Unless you actually meant someone else and meant to exclude them from your sweeping statement. Riaz, same applies, IMO. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Riaz K Tayob [riaz.tayob at gmail.com] Enviado el: viernes, 30 de noviembre de 2012 06:37 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 Michael The function of arguing against regulation and then making "piece meal" adjustments as "necessary" (which is a commodious term) is not as innocuous as it seems. From the 3 prong list earlier in this thread, there is a clear "position" (as stated) and "interest" (the reason, purpose, etc) and this is how the "game" is played. It is not innocuous because this frames the debate in the "free markets are better" mold. Now the global financial crisis was facilitated (if not caused) by this type of thinking - in a sector most susceptible to oversight... It is of course a different matter, when those who argue for "hands off" and then "hands on" (exceptionally or otherwise), if one seeks to be in two places at once. But with a battalion of corporate funded ideogogues backing this view up, I guess it passes some sort of muster.... Perhaps people are playing the "game", but perhaps not... Riaz On 2012/11/28 09:31 PM, michael gurstein wrote: McTim, it seems to me that you (and others) argue long and hard against management/regulation of the Internet except (as in this case) when you don't. And then having accepted the (obvious) need for some sort of management/regulation of at least certain aspects of the Internet why you (etc.) should expect that others (the rest of the world for example) should accept your definition of what those "exceptions" should be and where they should (or rather should not) be adjudicated leaves me a bit puzzled. M From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:30 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian; Ian Peter; Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:53 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: No question, Suresh (and McTim) but you/they can't have it both ways i.e. vehemently denouncing regulation/governance ("keep your hand off the Internet") etc.etc. on the one hand and then practicing it (if only implicitly) on the other. I'm only trying to have it one way. I feel gov'ts have far too much control over what we say and do online. I don't want an intergovernmental body setting global Internet policy. I would have thought, if the option is in fact #2 (or #3) as of course, any rational actor would I believe have to accept; that if one doesn't like a particular venue -- what does one suggest as an appropriate (globally acceptable) alternative venue(s)--particularly since the current (default) position seems to be seen as unacceptably self-serving by so many. Accepting #2 which as I have said before is the current status quo does not mean that one accepts the need for further global Internet Governance mechanisms. I do not find #3 acceptable. I've been singing the same song for years, what is it that you don't understand about my position? -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 30 10:27:31 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:27:31 -0800 Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! In-Reply-To: <1354286255.40200.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1354286255.40200.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20121130152731.GA26984@hserus.net> That's not a conflict of interst That is a commercial dispute that came unstuck for dotconnectafrica after they failed to get government / AUC backing, pressed on with their bid and fought tooth and nail against their competitor, and then had the AUC and 16 african governments object. Martin McOsieno [30/11/12 06:37 -0800]: >Here are some interesting insights on a new conflict of interest case at ICANN: > >http://domainnewsafrica.com/the-plot-thickens-as-icann-and-africa-both-loose-africa/ > >http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121127_africa_vs_africa_gac_early_warnings_on_new_gtld_applications/ > >Martin. >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your 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 chaitanyabd at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 10:45:05 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 21:15:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google vs Doogle: Internet Goliath threatens young South African In-Reply-To: <50B79DD6.6010400@gmail.com> References: <50B79DD6.6010400@gmail.com> Message-ID: It'll be great if there's a suit and he wins it and ends up a millionaire (albeit at poor google's expense :) -C On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Google vs Doogle: Internet Goliath threatens young South African > > The internet super giant has threatened legal action against a tiny > jobseeker website run by a 23-year-old South African. > > By Jenni Smout on 29 > November, 2012 4:33 pm in Highlights and Special Offers, > News / no comments > > **** > > > http://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/google-vs-doogle-internet-goliath-threatens-young-south-african.htm > > > > > > Andries Maree van der Merwe from Mpumalanga received a letter from > Google’s lawyers ordering him to either shut down or change the name and > logo of his website Doogle. The site, set up in January 2011, allows those > searching for work to upload their details for free and browse online > directories. > > The website was set up after Van der Merwe dropped out of school aged 16 > and worked as a street vendor. “I sold newspapers on street corners and > people told me what was wrong,” he recalled. “They wanted a place where > they could go to find a job.” > > After Van der Merwe had an idea for the website he bought a computer for > R600 from a pawn shop. The website is slowly growing, having recently > received its millionth hit, but not yet making any money. “Sometimes I > have to catch fish from the river to eat. But I think God is with me,” he > said. > > Google, worth an estimated £160bn with 7.2 billion hits a day, has > complained that his logo and search engine infringe its trademark and there > is a danger that users will assume Doogle is associated with Google. > > Van der Merwe has offered to put a notice on the site, distancing Doogle > from Google. Google’s spokesperson in South Africa was unable to comment > directly on the case, but stated “we are passionate about protecting the > reputation of our brand”. > > Yet the South African remains defiant. “I’m not giving up my name. Doogle > is who I am. It’s my business. I registered the company and legally > acquired the domain.” His lawyer Emmie de Kock described it as “a possible > David-Goliath style battle”. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, 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: doogle-390x283.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 32439 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 Fri Nov 30 10:56:56 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:56:56 -0500 Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! In-Reply-To: <1354286255.40200.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1354286255.40200.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Martin McOsieno wrote: > Here are some interesting insights on a new conflict of interest case at > ICANN: > > http://domainnewsafrica.com/the-plot-thickens-as-icann-and-africa-both-loose-africa/ This piece, which is clearly written by a supporter of on of the bids, repeats conflict of interest charges that have no substance. As someone who has watched this competition for many years, the charges that "yesterdays appointment of Pierre Dandjinou who has openly campaigned against DotConnectAfrica’s bid for .africa and even lost an ALAC Board seat in 2010 due to history of COI further complicates the matters in Africa’s position." are absolutely false. PD has never "openly campaigned" against either bid, nor will he play a part in evaluating either bid. There is no evidence that the DCA campaign against him for the ALAC Board seat led to the selection of another candidate. DCA has committed itself to a "slash n burn" media strategy that ultimately, IMHO, has damaged their credibility in the ICANN community. > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121127_africa_vs_africa_gac_early_warnings_on_new_gtld_applications/ I see no conflict of interest here, only competition, just as what is occurring with many other new gTLD applications. Can you identify an actual conflict of interest in either story? -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 30 11:00:21 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 21:30:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! Message-ID: It is invective and innuendo laden as usual --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "McTim" To: , "Martin McOsieno" Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! Date: Fri, Nov 30, 2012 9:26 PM On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Martin McOsieno wrote: > Here are some interesting insights on a new conflict of interest case at > ICANN: > > http://domainnewsafrica.com/the-plot-thickens-as-icann-and-africa-both-loose-africa/ This piece, which is clearly written by a supporter of on of the bids, repeats conflict of interest charges that have no substance. As someone who has watched this competition for many years, the charges that "yesterdays appointment of Pierre Dandjinou who has openly campaigned against DotConnectAfrica’s bid for .africa and even lost an ALAC Board seat in 2010 due to history of COI further complicates the matters in Africa’s position." are absolutely false. PD has never "openly campaigned" against either bid, nor will he play a part in evaluating either bid. There is no evidence that the DCA campaign against him for the ALAC Board seat led to the selection of another candidate. DCA has committed itself to a "slash n burn" media strategy that ultimately, IMHO, has damaged their credibility in the ICANN community. > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121127_africa_vs_africa_gac_early_warnings_on_new_gtld_applications/ I see no conflict of interest here, only competition, just as what is occurring with many other new gTLD applications. Can you identify an actual conflict of interest in either story? -- 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 gurstein at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 11:00:38 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 08:00:38 -0800 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB7409F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> <0ddd01cdcd91$4f368ee0$eda3aca0$@gmail.com> <0e6e01cdcd9e$f6ac3460$e4049d20$@gmail.com>,<50B8A89E.1090500@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB7409F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <013501cdcf13$d7c320b0$87496210$@gmail.com> Huh? I'm curious what you see as a "massive ad hominem attack" that I see the simultaneous, dare I say somewhat hypocritical blustering against Internet regulation and governance alongside a quite reasonable recognition that some governance and regulation is required; and then pointing out that reasonable people can disagree on what the nature of the issues being governed and regulated might be (and the appropriate venue as to where that governance/regulation might take place); and then rather humbly (I would say) suggesting that perhaps rather than mobilizing the millions in a crusade against what might seem to be paper tigers/windmills, perhaps some of the same resources might go into figuring a rather more globally equitable way of determining which of those governance/regulatory issues should be addressed and in what venue(s) is somehow a personal attack on anyone rather escapes me but maybe you have me mixed up with someone else in the demon pool M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 7:18 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob Subject: RE: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 Michael (Gurstein), I am really stunned by the turn your latest messages have taken. It would seem that you have directed a massive ad-hominem argument (attack?) on a large group of people who not only don't get paid but actually sacrifice better paid jobs and put their own day jobs on the line - sometimes also pay out of pocket and don't get a lot of love at home - for the promotion and, when needed, defense of values of the Internet. Many - I tend to include myself in this list - have a very clear approach to the situations when their views and action coincide with those of corporations, governments, and even non-commercial organizations whose views and funding do not align in other issue areas. To your statement about supporting or not "regulation." Maybe it is useful to go back to the WGIG's list of issues and find out if among the 40 or so there is something missing that has become important today. You'll see there a variety of levels of "regulation" and/or of governmental intervention, both happening now and desirable or denounced as undesirable. People like McTim and Suresh have expressed themselves over the years about many of these, with expertise and knowledge. Your pass at them seems totally ungrounded. Unless you actually meant someone else and meant to exclude them from your sweeping statement. Riaz, same applies, IMO. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _____ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Riaz K Tayob [riaz.tayob at gmail.com] Enviado el: viernes, 30 de noviembre de 2012 06:37 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 Michael The function of arguing against regulation and then making "piece meal" adjustments as "necessary" (which is a commodious term) is not as innocuous as it seems. From the 3 prong list earlier in this thread, there is a clear "position" (as stated) and "interest" (the reason, purpose, etc) and this is how the "game" is played. It is not innocuous because this frames the debate in the "free markets are better" mold. Now the global financial crisis was facilitated (if not caused) by this type of thinking - in a sector most susceptible to oversight... It is of course a different matter, when those who argue for "hands off" and then "hands on" (exceptionally or otherwise), if one seeks to be in two places at once. But with a battalion of corporate funded ideogogues backing this view up, I guess it passes some sort of muster.... Perhaps people are playing the "game", but perhaps not... Riaz On 2012/11/28 09:31 PM, michael gurstein wrote: McTim, it seems to me that you (and others) argue long and hard against management/regulation of the Internet except (as in this case) when you don't. And then having accepted the (obvious) need for some sort of management/regulation of at least certain aspects of the Internet why you (etc.) should expect that others (the rest of the world for example) should accept your definition of what those "exceptions" should be and where they should (or rather should not) be adjudicated leaves me a bit puzzled. M From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:30 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian; Ian Peter; Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:53 PM, michael gurstein wrote: No question, Suresh (and McTim) but you/they can't have it both ways i.e. vehemently denouncing regulation/governance ("keep your hand off the Internet") etc.etc. on the one hand and then practicing it (if only implicitly) on the other. I'm only trying to have it one way. I feel gov'ts have far too much control over what we say and do online. I don't want an intergovernmental body setting global Internet policy. I would have thought, if the option is in fact #2 (or #3) as of course, any rational actor would I believe have to accept; that if one doesn't like a particular venue -- what does one suggest as an appropriate (globally acceptable) alternative venue(s)--particularly since the current (default) position seems to be seen as unacceptably self-serving by so many. Accepting #2 which as I have said before is the current status quo does not mean that one accepts the need for further global Internet Governance mechanisms. I do not find #3 acceptable. I've been singing the same song for years, what is it that you don't understand about my position? -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 30 11:19:36 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 21:49:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: <013501cdcf13$d7c320b0$87496210$@gmail.com> References: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> <0ddd01cdcd91$4f368ee0$eda3aca0$@gmail.com> <0e6e01cdcd9e$f6ac3460$e4049d20$@gmail.com> <50B8A89E.1090500@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB7409F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <013501cdcf13$d7c320b0$87496210$@gmail.com> Message-ID: You tell me which of the two international organisations .. ITU or Interpol .. is going to be a better bet for, say cybercrime Both under the Vienna convention, so .. And then say an issue with the .tw ccTLD. After a previous history of chicanery that took away taiwan's IDD code 866. left it without one for several years, got a new (reserved) one. 886,allocated, and later quietly changed to being listed as belonging to Taiwan, China. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2010/10/05/2003484569/1 Now, if that sort of accident starts happening to say .tw, or to the asn of some Taiwanese ISP .. You are welcome to rail against US hegemony, "plurilteralism" (what a mouthful!) or whatever, but believe it or not, they have a long way to go, even with countries on their OFAC blacklist like Cuba and Syria, before this sort of mendacious accident happens to say .cu ;; ANSWER SECTION: cu. 3600 IN NS ns2.ceniai.net.cu. cu. 3600 IN NS rip.psg.com. cu. 3600 IN NS ns.ceniai.net.cu. cu. 3600 IN NS cu.cctld.authdns.ripe.net. cu. 3600 IN NS ns2.gip.net. cu. 3600 IN NS ns.dns.br. Or .sy, which has at least one authoritative ns still around and served by ripe, for all that the el Assad government decided to take their country off the net altogether. --srs (iPad) On 30-Nov-2012, at 21:30, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Huh? I'm curious what you see as a "massive ad hominem attack"… that I see the simultaneous, dare I say somewhat hypocritical blustering against Internet regulation and governance alongside a quite reasonable recognition that some governance and regulation is required; and then pointing out that reasonable people can disagree on what the nature of the issues being governed and regulated might be (and the appropriate venue as to where that governance/regulation might take place); and then rather humbly (I would say) suggesting that perhaps rather than mobilizing the millions in a crusade against what might seem to be paper tigers/windmills, perhaps some of the same resources might go into figuring a rather more globally equitable way of determining which of those governance/regulatory issues should be addressed and in what venue(s) is somehow a personal attack on anyone rather escapes me… but maybe you have me mixed up with someone else in the demon pool… > > M > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 7:18 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob > Subject: RE: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 > > Michael (Gurstein), > > I am really stunned by the turn your latest messages have taken. It would seem that you have directed a massive ad-hominem argument (attack?) on a large group of people who not only don't get paid but actually sacrifice better paid jobs and put their own day jobs on the line - sometimes also pay out of pocket and don't get a lot of love at home - for the promotion and, when needed, defense of values of the Internet. > > Many - I tend to include myself in this list - have a very clear approach to the situations when their views and action coincide with those of corporations, governments, and even non-commercial organizations whose views and funding do not align in other issue areas. > > To your statement about supporting or not "regulation." Maybe it is useful to go back to the WGIG's list of issues and find out if among the 40 or so there is something missing that has become important today. You'll see there a variety of levels of "regulation" and/or of governmental intervention, both happening now and desirable or denounced as undesirable. > > People like McTim and Suresh have expressed themselves over the years about many of these, with expertise and knowledge. Your pass at them seems totally ungrounded. Unless you actually meant someone else and meant to exclude them from your sweeping statement. > > Riaz, same applies, IMO. > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Riaz K Tayob [riaz.tayob at gmail.com] > Enviado el: viernes, 30 de noviembre de 2012 06:37 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Asunto: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 > > Michael > > The function of arguing against regulation and then making "piece meal" adjustments as "necessary" (which is a commodious term) is not as innocuous as it seems. From the 3 prong list earlier in this thread, there is a clear "position" (as stated) and "interest" (the reason, purpose, etc) and this is how the "game" is played. > > It is not innocuous because this frames the debate in the "free markets are better" mold. Now the global financial crisis was facilitated (if not caused) by this type of thinking - in a sector most susceptible to oversight... > > It is of course a different matter, when those who argue for "hands off" and then "hands on" (exceptionally or otherwise), if one seeks to be in two places at once. But with a battalion of corporate funded ideogogues backing this view up, I guess it passes some sort of muster.... Perhaps people are playing the "game", but perhaps not... > > Riaz > > On 2012/11/28 09:31 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > McTim, it seems to me that you (and others) argue long and hard against management/regulation of the Internet except (as in this case) when you don't. > > And then having accepted the (obvious) need for some sort of management/regulation of at least certain aspects of the Internet why you (etc.) should expect that others (the rest of the world for example) should accept your definition of what those "exceptions" should be and where they should (or rather should not) be adjudicated leaves me a bit puzzled. > > M > > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:30 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian; Ian Peter; Ginger Paque > Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:53 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > No question, Suresh (and McTim) but you/they can't have it both ways i.e. vehemently denouncing regulation/governance ("keep your hand off the Internet") etc.etc. on the one hand and then practicing it (if only implicitly) on the other. > > I'm only trying to have it one way. I feel gov'ts have far too much control over what we say and do online. I don't want an intergovernmental body setting global Internet policy. > > > I would have thought, if the option is in fact #2 (or #3) as of course, any rational actor would I believe have to accept; that if one doesn't like a particular venue -- what does one suggest as an appropriate (globally acceptable) alternative venue(s)--particularly since the current (default) position seems to be seen as unacceptably self-serving by so many. > > > Accepting #2 which as I have said before is the current status quo does not mean that one accepts the need for further global Internet Governance mechanisms. > > I do not find #3 acceptable. > > I've been singing the same song for years, what is it that you don't understand about my position? > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Fri Nov 30 11:37:05 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:37:05 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: References: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> <0ddd01cdcd91$4f368ee0$eda3aca0$@gmail.com> <0e6e01cdcd9e$f6ac3460$e4049d20$@gmail.com> <50B8A89E.1090500@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB7409F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <013501cdcf13$d7c320b0$87496210$@gmail.com>, Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB74993@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Thanks Suresh, this takes us back to a possibly productive engagement with Mike Gurstein. The point that I think McTim, Suresh, David Conrad, John Curran and some others make is that Internet governance is practiced,built, and evolved by a complex architecture of organizations, mechanisms and agreements. They are each built to solve a problem that's more or less bounded, apply relevant expertise, engage relevant stakeholders, and seek to broaden the participation of these. Many have benefitted from being under governments' radar for many years, many are evolving to incorporate more governmental engagement, many are evolving in the opposite way. A single "platform" for all these issues seems to many of us an illusion or at best something that lies so far in the future that it's preferable for now to concentrate on making the present mechanisms work, improve, and evolve. The "single platform" view has been espoused strongly by governments more than any other sector. They have their arguments. They were discussed in lively debates during the latest IGF under that name, and in the previous IGFs under labels like IBSA and CIRP. Look at the session on Enhanced Cooperation in Baku for some of the liveliest debate with a representative from Brazil. Draw your own conclusions. Mine are as above: no "single platform", much less under an intergovernmental umbrella. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: Suresh Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net] Enviado el: viernes, 30 de noviembre de 2012 10:19 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein CC: ; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Asunto: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 You tell me which of the two international organisations .. ITU or Interpol .. is going to be a better bet for, say cybercrime Both under the Vienna convention, so .. And then say an issue with the .tw ccTLD. After a previous history of chicanery that took away taiwan's IDD code 866. left it without one for several years, got a new (reserved) one. 886,allocated, and later quietly changed to being listed as belonging to Taiwan, China. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2010/10/05/2003484569/1 Now, if that sort of accident starts happening to say .tw, or to the asn of some Taiwanese ISP .. You are welcome to rail against US hegemony, "plurilteralism" (what a mouthful!) or whatever, but believe it or not, they have a long way to go, even with countries on their OFAC blacklist like Cuba and Syria, before this sort of mendacious accident happens to say .cu ;; ANSWER SECTION: cu. 3600 IN NS ns2.ceniai.net.cu. cu. 3600 IN NS rip.psg.com. cu. 3600 IN NS ns.ceniai.net.cu. cu. 3600 IN NS cu.cctld.authdns.ripe.net. cu. 3600 IN NS ns2.gip.net. cu. 3600 IN NS ns.dns.br. Or .sy, which has at least one authoritative ns still around and served by ripe, for all that the el Assad government decided to take their country off the net altogether. --srs (iPad) On 30-Nov-2012, at 21:30, "michael gurstein" > wrote: Huh? I'm curious what you see as a "massive ad hominem attack"… that I see the simultaneous, dare I say somewhat hypocritical blustering against Internet regulation and governance alongside a quite reasonable recognition that some governance and regulation is required; and then pointing out that reasonable people can disagree on what the nature of the issues being governed and regulated might be (and the appropriate venue as to where that governance/regulation might take place); and then rather humbly (I would say) suggesting that perhaps rather than mobilizing the millions in a crusade against what might seem to be paper tigers/windmills, perhaps some of the same resources might go into figuring a rather more globally equitable way of determining which of those governance/regulatory issues should be addressed and in what venue(s) is somehow a personal attack on anyone rather escapes me… but maybe you have me mixed up with someone else in the demon pool… M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 7:18 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob Subject: RE: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 Michael (Gurstein), I am really stunned by the turn your latest messages have taken. It would seem that you have directed a massive ad-hominem argument (attack?) on a large group of people who not only don't get paid but actually sacrifice better paid jobs and put their own day jobs on the line - sometimes also pay out of pocket and don't get a lot of love at home - for the promotion and, when needed, defense of values of the Internet. Many - I tend to include myself in this list - have a very clear approach to the situations when their views and action coincide with those of corporations, governments, and even non-commercial organizations whose views and funding do not align in other issue areas. To your statement about supporting or not "regulation." Maybe it is useful to go back to the WGIG's list of issues and find out if among the 40 or so there is something missing that has become important today. You'll see there a variety of levels of "regulation" and/or of governmental intervention, both happening now and desirable or denounced as undesirable. People like McTim and Suresh have expressed themselves over the years about many of these, with expertise and knowledge. Your pass at them seems totally ungrounded. Unless you actually meant someone else and meant to exclude them from your sweeping statement. Riaz, same applies, IMO. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Riaz K Tayob [riaz.tayob at gmail.com] Enviado el: viernes, 30 de noviembre de 2012 06:37 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 Michael The function of arguing against regulation and then making "piece meal" adjustments as "necessary" (which is a commodious term) is not as innocuous as it seems. From the 3 prong list earlier in this thread, there is a clear "position" (as stated) and "interest" (the reason, purpose, etc) and this is how the "game" is played. It is not innocuous because this frames the debate in the "free markets are better" mold. Now the global financial crisis was facilitated (if not caused) by this type of thinking - in a sector most susceptible to oversight... It is of course a different matter, when those who argue for "hands off" and then "hands on" (exceptionally or otherwise), if one seeks to be in two places at once. But with a battalion of corporate funded ideogogues backing this view up, I guess it passes some sort of muster.... Perhaps people are playing the "game", but perhaps not... Riaz On 2012/11/28 09:31 PM, michael gurstein wrote: McTim, it seems to me that you (and others) argue long and hard against management/regulation of the Internet except (as in this case) when you don't. And then having accepted the (obvious) need for some sort of management/regulation of at least certain aspects of the Internet why you (etc.) should expect that others (the rest of the world for example) should accept your definition of what those "exceptions" should be and where they should (or rather should not) be adjudicated leaves me a bit puzzled. M From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:30 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian; Ian Peter; Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:53 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: No question, Suresh (and McTim) but you/they can't have it both ways i.e. vehemently denouncing regulation/governance ("keep your hand off the Internet") etc.etc. on the one hand and then practicing it (if only implicitly) on the other. I'm only trying to have it one way. I feel gov'ts have far too much control over what we say and do online. I don't want an intergovernmental body setting global Internet policy. I would have thought, if the option is in fact #2 (or #3) as of course, any rational actor would I believe have to accept; that if one doesn't like a particular venue -- what does one suggest as an appropriate (globally acceptable) alternative venue(s)--particularly since the current (default) position seems to be seen as unacceptably self-serving by so many. Accepting #2 which as I have said before is the current status quo does not mean that one accepts the need for further global Internet Governance mechanisms. I do not find #3 acceptable. I've been singing the same song for years, what is it that you don't understand about my position? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Fri Nov 30 11:45:46 2012 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:45:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB74993@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> <0ddd01cdcd91$4f368ee0$eda3aca0$@gmail.com> <0e6e01cdcd9e$f6ac3460$e4049d20$@gmail.com> <50B8A89E.1090500@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB7409F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <013501cdcf13$d7c320b0$87496210$@gmail.com>, <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB74993@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: +1 I can't imagine one overriding organisation that could manage all aspects of Internet governance. There is strength in diversity. Diversity also provides many checks and balances so that one view does not always prevail. Kerry Brown From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Sent: November-30-12 8:37 AM To: Suresh Ramasubramanian; michael gurstein Cc: Subject: RE: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 Thanks Suresh, this takes us back to a possibly productive engagement with Mike Gurstein. The point that I think McTim, Suresh, David Conrad, John Curran and some others make is that Internet governance is practiced,built, and evolved by a complex architecture of organizations, mechanisms and agreements. They are each built to solve a problem that's more or less bounded, apply relevant expertise, engage relevant stakeholders, and seek to broaden the participation of these. Many have benefitted from being under governments' radar for many years, many are evolving to incorporate more governmental engagement, many are evolving in the opposite way. A single "platform" for all these issues seems to many of us an illusion or at best something that lies so far in the future that it's preferable for now to concentrate on making the present mechanisms work, improve, and evolve. The "single platform" view has been espoused strongly by governments more than any other sector. They have their arguments. They were discussed in lively debates during the latest IGF under that name, and in the previous IGFs under labels like IBSA and CIRP. Look at the session on Enhanced Cooperation in Baku for some of the liveliest debate with a representative from Brazil. Draw your own conclusions. Mine are as above: no "single platform", much less under an intergovernmental umbrella. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: Suresh Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net] Enviado el: viernes, 30 de noviembre de 2012 10:19 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein CC: >; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Asunto: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 You tell me which of the two international organisations .. ITU or Interpol .. is going to be a better bet for, say cybercrime Both under the Vienna convention, so .. And then say an issue with the .tw ccTLD. After a previous history of chicanery that took away taiwan's IDD code 866. left it without one for several years, got a new (reserved) one. 886,allocated, and later quietly changed to being listed as belonging to Taiwan, China. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2010/10/05/2003484569/1 Now, if that sort of accident starts happening to say .tw, or to the asn of some Taiwanese ISP .. You are welcome to rail against US hegemony, "plurilteralism" (what a mouthful!) or whatever, but believe it or not, they have a long way to go, even with countries on their OFAC blacklist like Cuba and Syria, before this sort of mendacious accident happens to say .cu ;; ANSWER SECTION: cu. 3600 IN NS ns2.ceniai.net.cu. cu. 3600 IN NS rip.psg.com. cu. 3600 IN NS ns.ceniai.net.cu. cu. 3600 IN NS cu.cctld.authdns.ripe.net. cu. 3600 IN NS ns2.gip.net. cu. 3600 IN NS ns.dns.br. Or .sy, which has at least one authoritative ns still around and served by ripe, for all that the el Assad government decided to take their country off the net altogether. --srs (iPad) On 30-Nov-2012, at 21:30, "michael gurstein" > wrote: Huh? I'm curious what you see as a "massive ad hominem attack"... that I see the simultaneous, dare I say somewhat hypocritical blustering against Internet regulation and governance alongside a quite reasonable recognition that some governance and regulation is required; and then pointing out that reasonable people can disagree on what the nature of the issues being governed and regulated might be (and the appropriate venue as to where that governance/regulation might take place); and then rather humbly (I would say) suggesting that perhaps rather than mobilizing the millions in a crusade against what might seem to be paper tigers/windmills, perhaps some of the same resources might go into figuring a rather more globally equitable way of determining which of those governance/regulatory issues should be addressed and in what venue(s) is somehow a personal attack on anyone rather escapes me... but maybe you have me mixed up with someone else in the demon pool... M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 7:18 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob Subject: RE: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 Michael (Gurstein), I am really stunned by the turn your latest messages have taken. It would seem that you have directed a massive ad-hominem argument (attack?) on a large group of people who not only don't get paid but actually sacrifice better paid jobs and put their own day jobs on the line - sometimes also pay out of pocket and don't get a lot of love at home - for the promotion and, when needed, defense of values of the Internet. Many - I tend to include myself in this list - have a very clear approach to the situations when their views and action coincide with those of corporations, governments, and even non-commercial organizations whose views and funding do not align in other issue areas. To your statement about supporting or not "regulation." Maybe it is useful to go back to the WGIG's list of issues and find out if among the 40 or so there is something missing that has become important today. You'll see there a variety of levels of "regulation" and/or of governmental intervention, both happening now and desirable or denounced as undesirable. People like McTim and Suresh have expressed themselves over the years about many of these, with expertise and knowledge. Your pass at them seems totally ungrounded. Unless you actually meant someone else and meant to exclude them from your sweeping statement. Riaz, same applies, IMO. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Riaz K Tayob [riaz.tayob at gmail.com] Enviado el: viernes, 30 de noviembre de 2012 06:37 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 Michael The function of arguing against regulation and then making "piece meal" adjustments as "necessary" (which is a commodious term) is not as innocuous as it seems. From the 3 prong list earlier in this thread, there is a clear "position" (as stated) and "interest" (the reason, purpose, etc) and this is how the "game" is played. It is not innocuous because this frames the debate in the "free markets are better" mold. Now the global financial crisis was facilitated (if not caused) by this type of thinking - in a sector most susceptible to oversight... It is of course a different matter, when those who argue for "hands off" and then "hands on" (exceptionally or otherwise), if one seeks to be in two places at once. But with a battalion of corporate funded ideogogues backing this view up, I guess it passes some sort of muster.... Perhaps people are playing the "game", but perhaps not... Riaz On 2012/11/28 09:31 PM, michael gurstein wrote: McTim, it seems to me that you (and others) argue long and hard against management/regulation of the Internet except (as in this case) when you don't. And then having accepted the (obvious) need for some sort of management/regulation of at least certain aspects of the Internet why you (etc.) should expect that others (the rest of the world for example) should accept your definition of what those "exceptions" should be and where they should (or rather should not) be adjudicated leaves me a bit puzzled. M From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:30 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian; Ian Peter; Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:53 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: No question, Suresh (and McTim) but you/they can't have it both ways i.e. vehemently denouncing regulation/governance ("keep your hand off the Internet") etc.etc. on the one hand and then practicing it (if only implicitly) on the other. I'm only trying to have it one way. I feel gov'ts have far too much control over what we say and do online. I don't want an intergovernmental body setting global Internet policy. I would have thought, if the option is in fact #2 (or #3) as of course, any rational actor would I believe have to accept; that if one doesn't like a particular venue -- what does one suggest as an appropriate (globally acceptable) alternative venue(s)--particularly since the current (default) position seems to be seen as unacceptably self-serving by so many. Accepting #2 which as I have said before is the current status quo does not mean that one accepts the need for further global Internet Governance mechanisms. I do not find #3 acceptable. I've been singing the same song for years, what is it that you don't understand about my position? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Fri Nov 30 11:46:20 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:46:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yeah. Smacks of Google vs. ITU. How about peace & love with .africa and .afrique ? Good luck. Louis. - - - On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > It is invective and innuendo laden as usual > > --srs (htc one x) > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "McTim" > To: , "Martin McOsieno" < > otsienomartin at yahoo.com> > Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! > Date: Fri, Nov 30, 2012 9:26 PM > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Martin McOsieno > wrote: > > Here are some interesting insights on a new conflict of interest case at > > ICANN: > > > > > http://domainnewsafrica.com/the-plot-thickens-as-icann-and-africa-both-loose-africa/ > > This piece, which is clearly written by a supporter of on of the bids, > repeats conflict of interest charges that have no substance. > > As someone who has watched this competition for many years, the > charges that "yesterdays appointment of Pierre Dandjinou who has > openly campaigned against DotConnectAfrica’s bid for .africa and even lost > an ALAC Board seat in 2010 due to history of COI further > complicates the matters in Africa’s position." > > are absolutely false. > > PD has never "openly campaigned" against either bid, nor will he play a > part in evaluating either bid. > > There is no evidence that the DCA campaign against him for the ALAC > Board seat led to the selection of another candidate. > > DCA has committed itself to a "slash n burn" media strategy that > ultimately, IMHO, has damaged their credibility in the ICANN > community. > > > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121127_africa_vs_africa_gac_early_warnings_on_new_gtld_applications/ > > I see no conflict of interest here, only competition, just as what is > occurring with many other new gTLD applications. > > Can you identify an actual conflict of interest in either story? > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 30 12:26:28 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:26:28 -0800 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: References: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> <0ddd01cdcd91$4f368ee0$eda3aca0$@gmail.com> <0e6e01cdcd9e$f6ac3460$e4049d20$@gmail.com> <50B8A89E.1090500@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB7409F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <013501cdcf13$d7c320b0$87496210$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <01c401cdcf1f$d5910800$80b31800$@gmail.com> Cool… (Suresh, you also must have me mixed up with someone else… I just did a quick check and the only time that the interesting terminology of "hegemony" has been used on this list in the recent past (as far back as my Outlook search would go--was by Milton in a somewhat barbed jibe at some comments that were made I believe by a third party although his comments were directed at me. As for " plurilteralism", I'm presuming that you mean "plurilateralism".. again my handy search engine couldn't find any use of term at all on this list by anyone… Suresh, As a matter of fact, I think those below are both interesting examples of cases where some form of global management/governance is required--the question is how to get there, where to do this and who gets to be involved in the decision making processes at various stages in the process… I'll leave both of those specific areas to folks with the appropriate expertise and interest--both as proponents and as critics/advocates and of course that is where a workable multistakeholder structure within a legitimized global decision making framework (or frameworks) comes into play. Alejandro, I have immense respect for the folks who built the Internet (one of the most -- perhaps the most -- significant technical achievements in modern times) and whose intellectual and technical skills and determination maintain it in its current form. However, the very success of the Internet --it's becoming a (and very soon "the") fundamental platform for life in the 21st century--has meant that it no longer (can or should) belong to those who created it or even those who (technically) sustain it… It is too important for everyone globally for that position to prevail. So, IMHO we are presented with a huge huge challenge--that unfortunately current campaigns like "Hands off the Internet" don't do much to help resolve… That challenge is to find a way that we all globally, can allow the Internet to fulfill the possibilities for all of us that it presents (and in ways that are meaningful to all of us in our global diversity) -- and that means finding a way to reconcile sometimes extremely divergent interests and perspectives concerning for example, what issues are important/necessary to resolve and where they can be resolved and who/how should be involved in resolving them. I don't have answers to those questions but I'm hoping that once the current smoke/fog clears that reasonable folks will set about dealing with them. Best, M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 8:20 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: ; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 You tell me which of the two international organisations .. ITU or Interpol .. is going to be a better bet for, say cybercrime Both under the Vienna convention, so .. And then say an issue with the .tw ccTLD. After a previous history of chicanery that took away taiwan's IDD code 866. left it without one for several years, got a new (reserved) one. 886,allocated, and later quietly changed to being listed as belonging to Taiwan, China. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2010/10/05/2003484569/1 Now, if that sort of accident starts happening to say .tw, or to the asn of some Taiwanese ISP .. You are welcome to rail against US hegemony, "plurilteralism" (what a mouthful!) or whatever, but believe it or not, they have a long way to go, even with countries on their OFAC blacklist like Cuba and Syria, before this sort of mendacious accident happens to say .cu ;; ANSWER SECTION: cu. 3600 IN NS ns2.ceniai.net.cu. cu. 3600 IN NS rip.psg.com. cu. 3600 IN NS ns.ceniai.net.cu. cu. 3600 IN NS cu.cctld.authdns.ripe.net. cu. 3600 IN NS ns2.gip.net. cu. 3600 IN NS ns.dns.br. Or .sy, which has at least one authoritative ns still around and served by ripe, for all that the el Assad government decided to take their country off the net altogether. --srs (iPad) On 30-Nov-2012, at 21:30, "michael gurstein" wrote: Huh? I'm curious what you see as a "massive ad hominem attack"… that I see the simultaneous, dare I say somewhat hypocritical blustering against Internet regulation and governance alongside a quite reasonable recognition that some governance and regulation is required; and then pointing out that reasonable people can disagree on what the nature of the issues being governed and regulated might be (and the appropriate venue as to where that governance/regulation might take place); and then rather humbly (I would say) suggesting that perhaps rather than mobilizing the millions in a crusade against what might seem to be paper tigers/windmills, perhaps some of the same resources might go into figuring a rather more globally equitable way of determining which of those governance/regulatory issues should be addressed and in what venue(s) is somehow a personal attack on anyone rather escapes me… but maybe you have me mixed up with someone else in the demon pool… M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 7:18 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob Subject: RE: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 Michael (Gurstein), I am really stunned by the turn your latest messages have taken. It would seem that you have directed a massive ad-hominem argument (attack?) on a large group of people who not only don't get paid but actually sacrifice better paid jobs and put their own day jobs on the line - sometimes also pay out of pocket and don't get a lot of love at home - for the promotion and, when needed, defense of values of the Internet. Many - I tend to include myself in this list - have a very clear approach to the situations when their views and action coincide with those of corporations, governments, and even non-commercial organizations whose views and funding do not align in other issue areas. To your statement about supporting or not "regulation." Maybe it is useful to go back to the WGIG's list of issues and find out if among the 40 or so there is something missing that has become important today. You'll see there a variety of levels of "regulation" and/or of governmental intervention, both happening now and desirable or denounced as undesirable. People like McTim and Suresh have expressed themselves over the years about many of these, with expertise and knowledge. Your pass at them seems totally ungrounded. Unless you actually meant someone else and meant to exclude them from your sweeping statement. Riaz, same applies, IMO. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _____ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Riaz K Tayob [riaz.tayob at gmail.com] Enviado el: viernes, 30 de noviembre de 2012 06:37 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 Michael The function of arguing against regulation and then making "piece meal" adjustments as "necessary" (which is a commodious term) is not as innocuous as it seems. From the 3 prong list earlier in this thread, there is a clear "position" (as stated) and "interest" (the reason, purpose, etc) and this is how the "game" is played. It is not innocuous because this frames the debate in the "free markets are better" mold. Now the global financial crisis was facilitated (if not caused) by this type of thinking - in a sector most susceptible to oversight... It is of course a different matter, when those who argue for "hands off" and then "hands on" (exceptionally or otherwise), if one seeks to be in two places at once. But with a battalion of corporate funded ideogogues backing this view up, I guess it passes some sort of muster.... Perhaps people are playing the "game", but perhaps not... Riaz On 2012/11/28 09:31 PM, michael gurstein wrote: McTim, it seems to me that you (and others) argue long and hard against management/regulation of the Internet except (as in this case) when you don't. And then having accepted the (obvious) need for some sort of management/regulation of at least certain aspects of the Internet why you (etc.) should expect that others (the rest of the world for example) should accept your definition of what those "exceptions" should be and where they should (or rather should not) be adjudicated leaves me a bit puzzled. M From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:30 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian; Ian Peter; Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:53 PM, michael gurstein wrote: No question, Suresh (and McTim) but you/they can't have it both ways i.e. vehemently denouncing regulation/governance ("keep your hand off the Internet") etc.etc. on the one hand and then practicing it (if only implicitly) on the other. I'm only trying to have it one way. I feel gov'ts have far too much control over what we say and do online. I don't want an intergovernmental body setting global Internet policy. I would have thought, if the option is in fact #2 (or #3) as of course, any rational actor would I believe have to accept; that if one doesn't like a particular venue -- what does one suggest as an appropriate (globally acceptable) alternative venue(s)--particularly since the current (default) position seems to be seen as unacceptably self-serving by so many. Accepting #2 which as I have said before is the current status quo does not mean that one accepts the need for further global Internet Governance mechanisms. I do not find #3 acceptable. I've been singing the same song for years, what is it that you don't understand about my position? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Fri Nov 30 12:45:52 2012 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 18:45:52 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: <013501cdcf13$d7c320b0$87496210$@gmail.com> References: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> <0ddd01cdcd91$4f368ee0$eda3aca0$@gmail.com> <0e6e01cdcd9e$f6ac3460$e4049d20$@gmail.com>,<50B8A89E.1090500@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB7409F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <013501cdcf13$d7c320b0$87496210$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1710508710.30311.1354297552596.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e17> +1 Thanks, Michael   Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 30/11/12 17:01 > De : "michael gurstein" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "'Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch'" > Copie à : > Objet : RE: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 > > Huh? I'm curious what you see as a "massive ad hominem attack"… that I see the simultaneous, dare I say somewhat hypocritical blustering against Internet regulation and governance alongside a quite reasonable recognition that some governance and regulation is required; and then pointing out that reasonable people can disagree on what the nature of the issues being governed and regulated might be (and the appropriate venue as to where that governance/regulation might take place);  and then rather humbly (I would say) suggesting that perhaps rather than mobilizing the millions in a crusade against what might seem to be paper tigers/windmills, perhaps some of the same resources might go into figuring a rather more globally equitable way of determining which of those governance/regulatory issues should be addressed and in what venue(s) is somehow a personal attack on anyone rather escapes me… but maybe you have me mixed up with someone else in the demon pool…   M   From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 7:18 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Riaz K Tayob > Subject: RE: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127   Michael (Gurstein),   I am really stunned by the turn your latest messages have taken. It would seem that you have directed a massive ad-hominem argument (attack?) on a large group of people who not only don't get paid but actually sacrifice better paid jobs and put their own day jobs on the line - sometimes also pay out of pocket and don't get a lot of love at home - for the promotion and, when needed, defense of values of the Internet.    Many - I tend to include myself in this list - have a very clear approach to the situations when their views and action coincide with those of corporations, governments, and even non-commercial organizations whose views and funding do not align in other issue areas.    To your statement about supporting or not "regulation." Maybe it is useful to go back to the WGIG's list of issues and find out if among the 40 or so there is something missing that has become important today. You'll see there a variety of levels of "regulation" and/or of governmental intervention, both happening now and desirable or denounced as undesirable.    People like McTim and Suresh have expressed themselves over the years about many of these, with expertise and knowledge. Your pass at them seems totally ungrounded. Unless you actually meant someone else and meant to exclude them from your sweeping statement.    Riaz, same applies, IMO.   Yours,   Alejandro Pisanty      ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO >   > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > SMS +525541444475 >      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Riaz K Tayob [riaz.tayob at gmail.com] > Enviado el: viernes, 30 de noviembre de 2012 06:37 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Asunto: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 Michael > > The function of arguing against regulation and then making "piece meal" adjustments as "necessary" (which is a commodious term) is not as innocuous as it seems. From the 3 prong list earlier in this thread, there is a clear "position" (as stated) and "interest" (the reason, purpose, etc) and this is how the "game" is played. > > It is not innocuous because this frames the debate in the "free markets are better" mold. Now the global financial crisis was facilitated (if not caused) by this type of thinking - in a sector most susceptible to oversight... > > It is of course a different matter, when those who argue for "hands off" and then "hands on" (exceptionally or otherwise), if one seeks to be in two places at once. But with a battalion of corporate funded ideogogues backing this view up, I guess it passes some sort of muster.... Perhaps people are playing the "game", but perhaps not... > > Riaz On 2012/11/28 09:31 PM, michael gurstein wrote: McTim, it seems to me that you (and others) argue long and hard against management/regulation of the Internet except (as in this case) when you don't.   And then having accepted the (obvious) need for some sort of management/regulation of at least certain aspects of the Internet why you (etc.) should expect that others (the rest of the world for example) should accept your definition of what those "exceptions" should be and where they should (or rather should not) be adjudicated leaves me a bit puzzled.   M   From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:30 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian; Ian Peter; Ginger Paque > Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127     On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:53 PM, michael gurstein wrote: No question, Suresh (and McTim) but you/they can't have it both ways i.e. vehemently denouncing regulation/governance ("keep your hand off the Internet") etc.etc. on the one hand and then practicing it (if only implicitly) on the other.    I'm only trying to have it one way.   I feel gov'ts have far too much control over what we say and do online.  I don't want an intergovernmental body setting global Internet policy.     I would have thought, if the option is in fact #2 (or #3) as of course, any rational actor would I believe have to accept; that if one doesn't like a particular venue -- what does one suggest as an appropriate (globally acceptable) alternative venue(s)--particularly since the current (default) position seems to be seen as unacceptably self-serving by so many.     Accepting #2 which as I have said before is the current status quo does not mean that one accepts the need for further global Internet Governance mechanisms.   I do not find #3 acceptable.   I've been singing the same song for years, what is it that you don't understand about my position?   -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel   ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 13:25:01 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 20:25:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] Domain Registry Failures Ahead (and Verisign Would Like a Patent on Recovering Them) Message-ID: http://domainnamewire.com/2012/11/29/domain-registry-failures-ahead-and-verisign-would-like-a-patent-on-recovering-them/?goback=.gde_4714005_member_191073661 Another interesting move from *VeriSign Inc*. It started with the DNSSec Domain Name Transfer patent a couple of months ago, and now this... Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 30 13:40:46 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:40:46 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: <01c401cdcf1f$d5910800$80b31800$@gmail.com> References: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> <0ddd01cdcd91$4f368ee0$eda3aca0$@gmail.com> <0e6e01cdcd9e$f6ac3460$e4049d20$@gmail.com> <50B8A89E.1090500@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB7409F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <013501cdcf13$d7c320b0$87496210$@gmail.com> <01c401cdcf1f$d5910800$80b31800$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:26 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > maintain it in its current form. However, the very success of the Internet > --it's becoming a (and very soon "the") fundamental platform for life in the > 21st century--has meant that it no longer (can or should) belong to those > who created it or even those who (technically) sustain it I think this is where you go off track in understanding my position. I don't think that the Internet "belongs" to anyone. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Fri Nov 30 14:27:26 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:27:26 -0800 Subject: [governance] Alt Root Foundation - New TLD's In-Reply-To: <50B66DC9.3090304@cavebear.com> References: <50B66DC9.3090304@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <08AFC1D7-3C8A-4021-A07B-C4F930BD3D18@virtualized.org> Karl, On Nov 28, 2012, at 12:02 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > But on the other hand there have been instances of well run competing > roots. For example there was the ORSC which was a mirror of the > NTIA/Verisign/ICANN (NVI) root. ORSC was an alternative root _infrastructure_. They went out of their way to point out that the _namespace_ would be identical to the namespace provided by NVI unless NVI took actions to modify that namespace in a way that the ORSC community felt was inappropriate. What would happen at that point was left as an exercise to the reader. As far as I can tell, the Alt Root Foundation (et al.) are offering an alternative namespace (in addition to their own infrastructure) with no indication of how name collision is handled. > One interesting thing was that ORSC had a policy that said "we will not > withdraw a TLD". ICANN does not have such a policy. This was in the > context of the ccTLD for the now defunct Soviet Union. So you're saying that ORSC had a policy to not withdraw a TLD because IANA indicated .SU was to be transitioned out of the root? That does not correspond to my recollections of ORSC (I thought the SU stuff happened long after ORSC was established, however my memory is a bit hazy) and I find that surprising and I would've thought such a policy would be problematic since (for example) the ISO-3166 list is not fixed in stone. I would personally think having a policy to not remove a TLD ever would be crazy (particularly in an environment where you're adding 1000 new TLDs per year), but that's probably just me. Fortunately, ORSC isn't around anymore so the discussion is academic. With regards to .SU, since I was involved in those actions as IANA General Manager at the time I can state authoritatively that the action to remove .SU was based on the requirement that ICANN abide by RFC 1591/ICP-1. The ISO-3166 country code for SU was (at the time) designated as "transitionally reserved" which, according to the ISO-3166 Maintenance Agency is defined as "Code element deleted from ISO 3166-1; stop using ASAP" (see the definitions at http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-3166-1_decoding_table.html). As had been done with .CS, IANA staff was following that dictum. However, since that time, ISO-3166/MA has been (surprisingly, IMHO) convinced to move SU to "exceptionally reserved", similar in status to EU, UK, AC, etc. As such, I doubt SU will ever be removed from the root. This is probably unfortunate as one of the rationales for the use of ISO-3166 is that there is (ultimately) laws of a sovereign nation that defines the legal environment in which the TLD operates. Since the Soviet Union no longer exists, that legal environment is ... ill-defined. Perhaps not coincidentally, .SU has been documented as unusually high in domains associated with malware sites (e.g., http://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/attackers-moving-zeus-servers-former-soviet-union-tld-013012) > But the key aspect is "consistency" - The need needs competing roots to > be consistent with one another. Otherwise there would be very unhappy > users. Very true. The DNS protocol fundamentally requires a singular namespace as the protocol has no way in which conflicting names can be resolved consistently. The simple way to administer this singular root is to have a single body oversee add/change/delete operations. The more complicated way is to create an administrative infrastructure in which conflicting add/change/delete operations made by multiple bodies cannot happen. As far as I am aware, no one has been able to figure out how to guarantee the latter. > The definition of "consistency" is not obvious. Some people take it to > mean "exact equivalence". I take a looser definition that says that it > is not necessary that all roots contain the exact same set of TLDs, but > that where there are TLDs in common they must have the same contents. Unfortunately, the contents of the root zone is not (and has never been) static. Folks who operate databases for a living long ago figured out that it is bad if you have multiple copies of data that can be independently modified -- you invariably end up with conflicts and data inconsistencies. Since the database we're talking about is a core component of an infrastructure upon which national economies increasingly depend, I personally feel the approach you suggest would be irresponsible. > Any reasonable root operator ought to avoid TLD names that are contested. And how would you go about ensuring _all_ root operators are "reasonable" for all time? Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 14:52:43 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:52:43 -0800 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: References: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> <0ddd01cdcd91$4f368ee0$eda3aca0$@gmail.com> <0e6e01cdcd9e$f6ac3460$e4049d20$@gmail.com> <50B8A89E.1090500@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB7409F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <013501cdcf13$d7c320b0$87496210$@gmail.com> <01c401cdcf1f$d5910800$80b31800$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <027201cdcf34$4438baf0$ccaa30d0$@gmail.com> You are right McTim, rereading what I wrote, I should have put "belongs" in quotation marks because the issue isn't "ownership" in any classical sense (I presume) but rather issues such as those we discuss all the time--accountability, transparency, responsibility (for)--and of course, we want those most "suitable" to have "responsibility" in their specific (technical?) area. But we also have to recognize that there is a need for some overarching agreements on processes for decision making as each of those areas may in themselves be contentious as to definition and designation. Likely the least contentious areas will be those that are most technical, but even there there may be issues (as Suresh was pointing to, I believe... As we get into Internet related policy/practice issues that are less and less technical things will get more and more contentious I would expect and that to my mind is precisely the riptides that we are currently navigating and why univocal campaigns such as the current ones are to my mind counterproductive and why we need to be working from a rather wider base of tolerance of difference than seems to be currently manifest. (And just to say I do believe that in something like the UDHR we have a bedrock of shared values (and ways of identifying clearly aberrant behaviour) on which the normative framework necessary for building the decision making framework(s) can (and should) be built.) Best, M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 10:41 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:26 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > maintain it in its current form. However, the very success of the > Internet --it's becoming a (and very soon "the") fundamental platform > for life in the 21st century--has meant that it no longer (can or > should) belong to those who created it or even those who (technically) > sustain it I think this is where you go off track in understanding my position. I don't think that the Internet "belongs" to anyone. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 15:02:02 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:02:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: <027201cdcf34$4438baf0$ccaa30d0$@gmail.com> References: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> <0ddd01cdcd91$4f368ee0$eda3aca0$@gmail.com> <0e6e01cdcd9e$f6ac3460$e4049d20$@gmail.com> <50B8A89E.1090500@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB7409F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <013501cdcf13$d7c320b0$87496210$@gmail.com> <01c401cdcf1f$d5910800$80b31800$@gmail.com> <027201cdcf34$4438baf0$ccaa30d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:52 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > (And just to say I do believe that in something like the UDHR we have a > bedrock of shared values (and ways of identifying clearly aberrant > behaviour) on which the normative framework necessary for building the > decision making framework(s) can (and should) be built.) Given the rampant daily floutings of the UDHR by governments around the world (Syria yesterday, India arresting people for "liking" on FB the day before, etc, do you really think that the UDHR is a "bedrock". I wish it was, but i don't see that it is presently! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 15:34:07 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:34:07 -0800 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: References: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> <0ddd01cdcd91$4f368ee0$eda3aca0$@gmail.com> <0e6e01cdcd9e$f6ac3460$e4049d20$@gmail.com> <50B8A89E.1090500@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB7409F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <013501cdcf13$d7c320b0$87496210$@gmail.com> <01c401cdcf1f$d5910800$80b31800$@gmail.com> <027201cdcf34$4438baf0$ccaa30d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <02cd01cdcf3a$0c75c530$25614f90$@gmail.com> True, but you have to start somewhere and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has a rather broader base of global legitimacy than do campaigns around "Internet Freedom". M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 12:02 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:52 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > (And just to say I do believe that in something like the UDHR we have > a bedrock of shared values (and ways of identifying clearly aberrant > behaviour) on which the normative framework necessary for building the > decision making framework(s) can (and should) be built.) Given the rampant daily floutings of the UDHR by governments around the world (Syria yesterday, India arresting people for "liking" on FB the day before, etc, do you really think that the UDHR is a "bedrock". I wish it was, but i don't see that it is presently! -- 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 Fri Nov 30 15:34:47 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 20:34:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] Alt Root Foundation - New TLD's In-Reply-To: <08AFC1D7-3C8A-4021-A07B-C4F930BD3D18@virtualized.org> References: <50B66DC9.3090304@cavebear.com>,<08AFC1D7-3C8A-4021-A07B-C4F930BD3D18@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB75BB7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> David, further analysis of Karl's scheme proved fatal. Once any alt-root would really get into significant action, a new layer of coordination, the root-of-all-roots, would emerge, whether by design or de facto. You or rather Karl would be back to square one but on a much feebler basis, retroactively trying to hammer agreements on how to run it to avoid the fatal conflicts and inconsistencies you correctly point to. BTW you don't have to be the master of the big-data universe to understand the problem of consistency in databases when you have multiple copies of the database that can be independently modified. Most members of this list must have two devices (maybe a computer and a mobile telephone) with their phone/email directories, and may be witnesses to the headaches and other pains even in that modest scale. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de David Conrad [drc at virtualized.org] Enviado el: viernes, 30 de noviembre de 2012 13:27 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] Alt Root Foundation - New TLD's Karl, On Nov 28, 2012, at 12:02 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > But on the other hand there have been instances of well run competing > roots. For example there was the ORSC which was a mirror of the > NTIA/Verisign/ICANN (NVI) root. ORSC was an alternative root _infrastructure_. They went out of their way to point out that the _namespace_ would be identical to the namespace provided by NVI unless NVI took actions to modify that namespace in a way that the ORSC community felt was inappropriate. What would happen at that point was left as an exercise to the reader. As far as I can tell, the Alt Root Foundation (et al.) are offering an alternative namespace (in addition to their own infrastructure) with no indication of how name collision is handled. > One interesting thing was that ORSC had a policy that said "we will not > withdraw a TLD". ICANN does not have such a policy. This was in the > context of the ccTLD for the now defunct Soviet Union. So you're saying that ORSC had a policy to not withdraw a TLD because IANA indicated .SU was to be transitioned out of the root? That does not correspond to my recollections of ORSC (I thought the SU stuff happened long after ORSC was established, however my memory is a bit hazy) and I find that surprising and I would've thought such a policy would be problematic since (for example) the ISO-3166 list is not fixed in stone. I would personally think having a policy to not remove a TLD ever would be crazy (particularly in an environment where you're adding 1000 new TLDs per year), but that's probably just me. Fortunately, ORSC isn't around anymore so the discussion is academic. With regards to .SU, since I was involved in those actions as IANA General Manager at the time I can state authoritatively that the action to remove .SU was based on the requirement that ICANN abide by RFC 1591/ICP-1. The ISO-3166 country code for SU was (at the time) designated as "transitionally reserved" which, according to the ISO-3166 Maintenance Agency is defined as "Code element deleted from ISO 3166-1; stop using ASAP" (see the definitions at http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-3166-1_decoding_table.html). As had been done with .CS, IANA staff was following that dictum. However, since that time, ISO-3166/MA has been (surprisingly, IMHO) convinced to move SU to "exceptionally reserved", similar in status to EU, UK, AC, etc. As such, I doubt SU will ever be removed from the root. This is probably unfortunate as one of the rationales for the use of ISO-3166 is that there is (ultimately) laws of a sovereign nation that defines the legal environment in which the TLD operates. Since the Soviet Union no longer exists, that legal environment is ... ill-defined. Perhaps not coincidentally, .SU has been documented as unusually high in domains associated with malware sites (e.g., http://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/attackers-moving-zeus-servers-former-soviet-union-tld-013012) > But the key aspect is "consistency" - The need needs competing roots to > be consistent with one another. Otherwise there would be very unhappy > users. Very true. The DNS protocol fundamentally requires a singular namespace as the protocol has no way in which conflicting names can be resolved consistently. The simple way to administer this singular root is to have a single body oversee add/change/delete operations. The more complicated way is to create an administrative infrastructure in which conflicting add/change/delete operations made by multiple bodies cannot happen. As far as I am aware, no one has been able to figure out how to guarantee the latter. > The definition of "consistency" is not obvious. Some people take it to > mean "exact equivalence". I take a looser definition that says that it > is not necessary that all roots contain the exact same set of TLDs, but > that where there are TLDs in common they must have the same contents. Unfortunately, the contents of the root zone is not (and has never been) static. Folks who operate databases for a living long ago figured out that it is bad if you have multiple copies of data that can be independently modified -- you invariably end up with conflicts and data inconsistencies. Since the database we're talking about is a core component of an infrastructure upon which national economies increasingly depend, I personally feel the approach you suggest would be irresponsible. > Any reasonable root operator ought to avoid TLD names that are contested. And how would you go about ensuring _all_ root operators are "reasonable" for all time? Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Fri Nov 30 15:40:32 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 20:40:32 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: <027201cdcf34$4438baf0$ccaa30d0$@gmail.com> References: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> <0ddd01cdcd91$4f368ee0$eda3aca0$@gmail.com> <0e6e01cdcd9e$f6ac3460$e4049d20$@gmail.com> <50B8A89E.1090500@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB7409F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <013501cdcf13$d7c320b0$87496210$@gmail.com> <01c401cdcf1f$d5910800$80b31800$@gmail.com> ,<027201cdcf34$4438baf0$ccaa30d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB75CAD@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Mike, let's assume - without conceding - that an overarching structure, or an underlying platform, is needed and is feasible. At least let's make this become an interesting exercise. Can you provide a skeleton of a design - just a prototype - which reconciliates ITU, WIPO, and WTO rulings for the Internet? Let's start with the simple part, known insittutions with fixed rules and participation of a small number of stakeholder groups in the decision-making. Adding Internet-proper Internet governance should be easy after that is solved, right? BTW if you prefer to start at the opposite end - say create an overarching structure or underlying platform to deal with phishing - I'm sure it will be equally instructive. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Enviado el: viernes, 30 de noviembre de 2012 13:52 Hasta: 'McTim'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org CC: 'Suresh Ramasubramanian'; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Asunto: RE: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 You are right McTim, rereading what I wrote, I should have put "belongs" in quotation marks because the issue isn't "ownership" in any classical sense (I presume) but rather issues such as those we discuss all the time--accountability, transparency, responsibility (for)--and of course, we want those most "suitable" to have "responsibility" in their specific (technical?) area. But we also have to recognize that there is a need for some overarching agreements on processes for decision making as each of those areas may in themselves be contentious as to definition and designation. Likely the least contentious areas will be those that are most technical, but even there there may be issues (as Suresh was pointing to, I believe... As we get into Internet related policy/practice issues that are less and less technical things will get more and more contentious I would expect and that to my mind is precisely the riptides that we are currently navigating and why univocal campaigns such as the current ones are to my mind counterproductive and why we need to be working from a rather wider base of tolerance of difference than seems to be currently manifest. (And just to say I do believe that in something like the UDHR we have a bedrock of shared values (and ways of identifying clearly aberrant behaviour) on which the normative framework necessary for building the decision making framework(s) can (and should) be built.) Best, M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 10:41 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:26 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > maintain it in its current form. However, the very success of the > Internet --it's becoming a (and very soon "the") fundamental platform > for life in the 21st century--has meant that it no longer (can or > should) belong to those who created it or even those who (technically) > sustain it I think this is where you go off track in understanding my position. I don't think that the Internet "belongs" to anyone. -- 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 Fri Nov 30 16:14:19 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:14:19 -0800 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB75CAD@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> <0ddd01cdcd91$4f368ee0$eda3aca0$@gmail.com> <0e6e01cdcd9e$f6ac3460$e4049d20$@gmail.com> <50B8A89E.1090500@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB7409F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <013501cdcf13$d7c320b0$87496210$@gmail.com> <01c401cdcf1f$d5910800$80b31800$@gmail.com> ,<027201cdcf34$4438baf0$ccaa30d0$@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB75CAD@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <02ef01cdcf3f$a9ce6ee0$fd6b4ca0$@gmail.com> Thanks for the challenge Alejandro... There are roughly 1000 people on this list from what, 70+ countries, with a huge variety and depth of knowledge, skills and experience; which I'm sure dwarfs mine in any area relevant to what you are proposing... Perhaps we should turn this challenge (and this discussion) over to them... M -----Original Message----- From: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch [mailto:apisan at unam.mx] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 12:41 PM To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 Mike, let's assume - without conceding - that an overarching structure, or an underlying platform, is needed and is feasible. At least let's make this become an interesting exercise. Can you provide a skeleton of a design - just a prototype - which reconciliates ITU, WIPO, and WTO rulings for the Internet? Let's start with the simple part, known insittutions with fixed rules and participation of a small number of stakeholder groups in the decision-making. Adding Internet-proper Internet governance should be easy after that is solved, right? BTW if you prefer to start at the opposite end - say create an overarching structure or underlying platform to deal with phishing - I'm sure it will be equally instructive. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Enviado el: viernes, 30 de noviembre de 2012 13:52 Hasta: 'McTim'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org CC: 'Suresh Ramasubramanian'; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Asunto: RE: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 You are right McTim, rereading what I wrote, I should have put "belongs" in quotation marks because the issue isn't "ownership" in any classical sense (I presume) but rather issues such as those we discuss all the time--accountability, transparency, responsibility (for)--and of course, we want those most "suitable" to have "responsibility" in their specific (technical?) area. But we also have to recognize that there is a need for some overarching agreements on processes for decision making as each of those areas may in themselves be contentious as to definition and designation. Likely the least contentious areas will be those that are most technical, but even there there may be issues (as Suresh was pointing to, I believe... As we get into Internet related policy/practice issues that are less and less technical things will get more and more contentious I would expect and that to my mind is precisely the riptides that we are currently navigating and why univocal campaigns such as the current ones are to my mind counterproductive and why we need to be working from a rather wider base of tolerance of difference than seems to be currently manifest. (And just to say I do believe that in something like the UDHR we have a bedrock of shared values (and ways of identifying clearly aberrant behaviour) on which the normative framework necessary for building the decision making framework(s) can (and should) be built.) Best, M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 10:41 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320 121127 On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:26 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > maintain it in its current form. However, the very success of the > Internet --it's becoming a (and very soon "the") fundamental platform > for life in the 21st century--has meant that it no longer (can or > should) belong to those who created it or even those who (technically) > sustain it I think this is where you go off track in understanding my position. I don't think that the Internet "belongs" to anyone. -- 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