From nb at bollow.ch  Mon Apr  1 05:14:25 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 11:14:25 +0200
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group
 on Enhanced Cooperation
In-Reply-To: <65097FAF-79DA-4C09-824A-D3CC1406D698@hserus.net>
References: <OFC2788E76.650E99EE-ONC1257B36.0067C43C-C1257B36.0078DE95@unog.un.org>
	<5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org>
	<5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net>
	<6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net>
	<CACAaNxgnmodePEjSx5eqdheDffBwzWd28wiCzeDPQsAzsEYbxw@mail.gmail.com>
	<51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net>
	<515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net>
	<CACAaNxjU-zgSTWcMCrxiZugmX5wmRL2GMV0-+0CEf11DQFbXPA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net>
	<CAFabd1LTbpvh2q2576Otm96thaD24OwAeT=81G5a-8PnzwndiQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5156CF50.8080006@itforchange.net>
	<65097FAF-79DA-4C09-824A-D3CC1406D698@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <20130401111425.2cc11862@quill.bollow.ch>

Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

> As I asked guru, why is it any of your business who a focal point for
> another constituency chooses?

Why is it any of our business what anyone else does in execution of
their various roles and responsibilities?

Actually, caring about such matters, and questioning them where
something appears to be potentially questionable, is very much the
essence of what civil society is all about.

Greetings,
Norbert

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nb at bollow.ch  Mon Apr  1 05:50:30 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 11:50:30 +0200
Subject: [governance] Need to end the throwing of verbal stones (was Re:
 Final composition...)
In-Reply-To: <BB42B361-101E-414A-9E4A-F78B74384741@post.harvard.edu>
References: <OFC2788E76.650E99EE-ONC1257B36.0067C43C-C1257B36.0078DE95@unog.un.org>
	<5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org>
	<5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net>
	<6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net>
	<CACAaNxgnmodePEjSx5eqdheDffBwzWd28wiCzeDPQsAzsEYbxw@mail.gmail.com>
	<51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net>
	<515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net>
	<CACAaNxjU-zgSTWcMCrxiZugmX5wmRL2GMV0-+0CEf11DQFbXPA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net>
	<CAFabd1LTbpvh2q2576Otm96thaD24OwAeT=81G5a-8PnzwndiQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5156C9D8.4010203@itforchange.net>
	<B63AB9CD-D6AC-4216-8442-EDED74C1839F@acm.org>
	<13dbb4bd731.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
	<BB42B361-101E-414A-9E4A-F78B74384741@post.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <20130401115030.761e36fa@quill.bollow.ch>

[with IGC coordinator hat on]

David Allen <David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote:

> More generally - instead of verbal stones hurled back and forth,  
> useful discussion turns on finding common questions where there will  
> be civil discourse about differences.  As has been noted, that has  
> been in short supply.  Coordinators please note.

Thanks, David, for posting this reminder. :-)

I would add that it is very difficult if not impossible to have such
a civil discourse in a climate of personal attacks. These really need
to be stopped first.

There have been quite a few postings recently that can not be
reasonably understood as legitimately questioning viewpoints and
practices, but which are clearly personal attacks.

According to the Charter of this Caucus [1], personal attacks are not
acceptable, and it is a responsibility of the coordinators to take
action in reaction to such attacks being made, according to be a
specified procedure. In view of also having other responsibilities,
needing to coordinate between the coordinators who are in opposite time
zones, feeling a need to exercise the utmost fairness possible, and the
need to handle things in an "appeal-proof" matter, quick action in this
regard is not always immediately possible.
[1] http://igcaucus.org/charter

But I can assure you and everyone that Sala and I are aware of our
responsibility in this regard. It now looks likely that we will now
unfortunately have to take, at least in some instances, the matter
beyond the point of "formal private warnings". This shouldn't be done
without coordination, or in a hurry though. So a bit of patience may
be required in regard to the need for execution of the steps foreseen
in the Charter for this kind of situation.

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  Mon Apr  1 06:03:24 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 15:33:24 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group
 on Enhanced Cooperation
In-Reply-To: <20130401111425.2cc11862@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <OFC2788E76.650E99EE-ONC1257B36.0067C43C-C1257B36.0078DE95@unog.un.org> <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <CACAaNxgnmodePEjSx5eqdheDffBwzWd28wiCzeDPQsAzsEYbxw@mail.gmail.com> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxjU-zgSTWcMCrxiZugmX5wmRL2GMV0-+0CEf11DQFbXPA@mail.gmail.com> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1LTbpvh2q2576Otm96thaD24OwAeT=81G5a-8PnzwndiQ@mail.gmail.com> <5156CF50.8080006@itforchange.net> <65097FAF-79DA-4C09-824A-D3CC1406D698@hserus.net> <20130401111425.2cc11862@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <EC0A2196-3966-4392-AAEC-510FFE30787C@hserus.net>

To the extent that it is warranted.

Questioning the credentials of a nominee from another stakeholder group without even bothering to do a bare amount of due diligence such as a google search is not what you would expect of a responsible civil society.

--srs (iPad)

On 01-Apr-2013, at 14:44, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> 
>> As I asked guru, why is it any of your business who a focal point for
>> another constituency chooses?
> 
> Why is it any of our business what anyone else does in execution of
> their various roles and responsibilities?
> 
> Actually, caring about such matters, and questioning them where
> something appears to be potentially questionable, is very much the
> essence of what civil society is all about.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From kichango at gmail.com  Mon Apr  1 06:39:57 2013
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 10:39:57 +0000
Subject: [governance] Need to end the throwing of verbal stones (was Re:
 Final composition...)
In-Reply-To: <20130401115030.761e36fa@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <OFC2788E76.650E99EE-ONC1257B36.0067C43C-C1257B36.0078DE95@unog.un.org>
	<5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org>
	<5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net>
	<6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net>
	<CACAaNxgnmodePEjSx5eqdheDffBwzWd28wiCzeDPQsAzsEYbxw@mail.gmail.com>
	<51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net>
	<515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net>
	<CACAaNxjU-zgSTWcMCrxiZugmX5wmRL2GMV0-+0CEf11DQFbXPA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net>
	<CAFabd1LTbpvh2q2576Otm96thaD24OwAeT=81G5a-8PnzwndiQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5156C9D8.4010203@itforchange.net>
	<B63AB9CD-D6AC-4216-8442-EDED74C1839F@acm.org>
	<13dbb4bd731.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
	<BB42B361-101E-414A-9E4A-F78B74384741@post.harvard.edu>
	<20130401115030.761e36fa@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v-rsJBB+BtrV2mKb5j_Knjm0dLyWg3uWFWeEo+SsRf=EA@mail.gmail.com>

+1


On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> [with IGC coordinator hat on]
>
> David Allen <David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> > More generally - instead of verbal stones hurled back and forth,
> > useful discussion turns on finding common questions where there will
> > be civil discourse about differences.  As has been noted, that has
> > been in short supply.  Coordinators please note.
>
> Thanks, David, for posting this reminder. :-)
>
> I would add that it is very difficult if not impossible to have such
> a civil discourse in a climate of personal attacks. These really need
> to be stopped first.
>
> There have been quite a few postings recently that can not be
> reasonably understood as legitimately questioning viewpoints and
> practices, but which are clearly personal attacks.
>
> According to the Charter of this Caucus [1], personal attacks are not
> acceptable, and it is a responsibility of the coordinators to take
> action in reaction to such attacks being made, according to be a
> specified procedure. In view of also having other responsibilities,
> needing to coordinate between the coordinators who are in opposite time
> zones, feeling a need to exercise the utmost fairness possible, and the
> need to handle things in an "appeal-proof" matter, quick action in this
> regard is not always immediately possible.
> [1] http://igcaucus.org/charter
>
> But I can assure you and everyone that Sala and I are aware of our
> responsibility in this regard. It now looks likely that we will now
> unfortunately have to take, at least in some instances, the matter
> beyond the point of "formal private warnings". This shouldn't be done
> without coordination, or in a hurry though. So a bit of patience may
> be required in regard to the need for execution of the steps foreseen
> in the Charter for this kind of situation.
>
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130401/9bc560cc/attachment.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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com  Mon Apr  1 10:11:27 2013
From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 14:11:27 +0000
Subject: [governance] Shared Decision Making Procedures
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317E5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <OFC2788E76.650E99EE-ONC1257B36.0067C43C-C1257B36.0078DE95@unog.un.org>
 <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net>
 <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <CACAaNxgnmodePEjSx5eqdheDffBwzWd28wiCzeDPQsAzsEYbxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net>
 <CACAaNxjU-zgSTWcMCrxiZugmX5wmRL2GMV0-+0CEf11DQFbXPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net>
 <CACAaNxh0pXeh1Fy8S8cnJgV_rzOhyz9ZnbmtRX+4BszAB3+Jng@mail.gmail.com>
 <22C2D51B-662B-4929-930B-3C84FE853E5F@hserus.net> <3FE058A9-8921-41BA-B10F-8348235CE4F9@acm.org>
 <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD239FD9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317E5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <CAGF_KH9jSA_5bpoUN9Sr+pBBpb_ZaJzUDQwjfCAKJb7vT9FBbw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Three elements in this ongoing debate:

*On para 35a of the Tunis Agenda and the rights and responsibilities of
States:*

As we all know, this famous paragraph says:

*Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the
sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for
international Internet-related public policy issues. (aka IRPPI)*


There are two sentences here. Not just one, but two sentences. And this has
to be meaningful.

The paragraph could easily have read : "Policy authority for national and
international Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right
of states". That would have closed the debate and left no room for
interpretation. But this is not what is written.

The only way to understand the existence of two sentences is that the
rights and responsibilities of States are different at the national and the
international levels.

At the national level, the traditional territorial sovereignty paradigm
applies. It is the first sentence. and there is nothing new there.

But the second sentence says "(States) have rights and responsibilities for
international IRPPI". This introduces two important notions:

   - "*States have rights*" rightly affirms that they must be part of
   discussions regarding international IRPPI (contrary to J.P. Barlow's vision
   in his Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace), but it does not say
   they have "policy authority" as in the first sentence;
   - "*States have responsibilities*" is an even more interesting wording;
   it introduces a notion of balance vis-à-vis the rights (that could include
   for instance the responsibility to establish proper frameworks for the
   development of the Internet and the protection of their citizens'privacy or
   freedom of expression); but it also points towards the particular
    responsibility that States must accept for the trans-boundary impact of
   their national decisions (cf. the 2011 recommendation of the Council of
   Europe in that regard).


The second sentence is therefore very far from meaning that States and
States alone are fully responsible for the development of International
Internet-related public policy, whatever some countries try to argue.

In a nutshell, the global public interest is not the mere aggregation of
national interests; national governments are very legitimate
*local*authorities but at best, assemblies of government
representatives are, at
the global level, the equivalent of a Senate in bi-cameral parliamentary
systems; for a truly democratic international system, a more direct
involvement of citizens at the global level is necessary (and it is made
possible by the development of communication tools and transportation);
their respective governments cannot keep the monopoly of representation of
their interests.

The challenge today is to refine the mechanisms that allow to manage shared
international resources and cross-border online spaces, not to reimpose a
rigid separation of westphalian sovereignties and the exclusive
responsibility of diplomats to define global governance regimes.

*On "their respective roles"*

In repetitive statements in the IGF, I have indicated that these
"respective roles" are not set once and for all. The respective roles of
the different categories of stakeholders vary according to the issues, the
venue where they are discussed and the stage of the discussion.

Considering that all internet-related issues should be dealt within a
single international organization can only lead to a sterile and protracted
competition between potential candidate institutions and no solution to
concrete challenges.

The only viable approach is rather to build on the concept of distributed
governance frameworks, and build issue-based governance networks,
associating in a transparent and accountable manner the "relevant
stakeholders".

What those frameworks are, what form their establishment takes (Mutual
Affirmation of Commitments?), how the "relevant stakeholders" are
determined, how the decision-making procedures function, etc... are the
real and very exciting challenges.

The invention of the printing press triggered our current institutional
infrastructure: the westphalian system of separate sovereignties and
representative democracy. The Internet will no doubt have as strong a
political impact, as it forces us all to define the tools to enable
cohabitation of several billions of people in shared online spaces.

*On the "equal footing" in paragraph 69*

The famous paragraph 69 reads:

*"We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to
enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and
responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the
Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that
do not impact on international public policy issues."*


This paragraph clearly deals with two complementary dimensions:

1) Equal footing among States. This is the clearest and most explicit
meaning, reaffirming the equality of States that is the supposed foundation
of the international system. As the discussions during WSIS clearly showed,
this was intended to address the singular role of the United States
administration in the management of the domain name system (ICANN JPA and
IANA contracts). Irrespective of the changes introduced by the Affirmation
of Commitments (AoC) and the possible future evolutions of the IANA
framework, this part does not require specific interpretation. As a matter
of example, governments inside the GAC are on a equal footing.

2) Equal footing vis-à-vis other stakeholders. This is the most ambiguous
part and the subject of most of the discussions in the years since Tunis.
It clearly must be interpreted in the light of the other paragraphs.
However, the recent workshops and sessions held during the IGF in Baku and
the WSIS+10 meeting in Paris have shown a desire by most players to move
beyond sterile reiteration of divergent interpretations and explore how
multi-stakeholder cooperations can develop to concretely address pressing
issues. This is encouraging and we must hope that the format of the CSTD
Chair's Working Group on Enhanced cooperation will allow participants to
explore pragmatic solutions to form the issue-based governance networks
mentioned above.

___________

During the last few months, three conferences (IGF, WCIT, WSIS+10) have
helped clarify the landscape:

   - the existing Internet institutional ecosystem (RIRs, standards bodies
   like IETF or W3C, ICANN, etc...) is dealing in a distributed manner with
   the governance OF the Internet, but does not (and should not) provide a
   venue for issues related to the governance ON the Internet (privacy,
   freedom of expression, copyright, security, etc...)
   - management of these issues cannot easily be done through the
   reimposition of separated national sovereignties on a fundamentally
   cross-border infrastructure that produces shared spaces


These recent discussions show that there is a promising middle way
 emerging between a rigid defense of an insufficient status quo and the
perspective of a Digital Cold War:   the development of "*multi-stakeholder
enhanced cooperations*", to take the expression coined by the finnish
delegation in Paris.

Best

Bertrand




On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:03 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> Thanks Milton for moving the debate from the composition of the WG to the
> substance of enhanced cooperation.
>
> Two comments here:
>
> 1. we should not mix ITU with the UNCSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation. You
> are right both ITU and some UN member states have their own interpretation
> from the Tunis Agenda (TA). But this are two different processes and it
> should remain separat.
>
> 2. Be reading the Tunis Agenda you have to put para. 35 a into the context
> of para. 34. 35a reads: "a)  Policy authority for Internet-related public
> policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and
> responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues."
> This comes from the Geneva Declaration from 2003. But based on the Geneva
> language, WGIG started its work in 2004 and delivered the wanted definition
> in 2005 which includes not only the language of the "respective roles" but
> adds that this roles has to played out on the basis of "shared principles,
> norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the
> evolution and use of the Internet."
>
> My interpretation is that governments, if they execute their respective
> role and developing Internet related public policies, according to para. 34
> have to "share their decision making capacity" with the other stakeholders.
> With other words, Tunis went one step beyond Geneva and linked to sovereign
> rights of states to a procedure of sharing decision making with other
> stakeholders. In my eyes, this was the real substantial innovation in
> Tunis. What I have seen from arguments in Dubai, when the IG resolution
> became the subject of a controversy, was that some ITU member states
> (representing the same governments who will be also represented in the
> UNCSTD WG) try to play this game to put Geneva against Tunis by ignoring
> the progress which was reached via the WGIG.
>
> Additionally para. 37 is important in this context. It says "We seek to
> improve the coordination of the activities of international and
> intergovernmental organizations and other institutions concerned with
> Internet governance and the exchange of information among themselves. A
> multi-stakeholder approach should be adopted, as far as possible, at all
> levels." This is certainly an invitation to enhance cooperation among ITU
> and ICANN on an equal footing in their respective roles avoiding the
> duplication of mandates by enhancing communication, coordination and
> collaboration (the famous Meissen EC³). The ITU included in a footnote (for
> the first time in its history) in Resolution 102, 103 and 133 at its
> Plenipotentiary Conference in Guadalajara (2010) which expressed the wish
> for collaboration. But nothing practical came out. However, after Hammadoun
> and Fadi had breakfest in Baku (November 2012) and Dinner in Davos (January
> 2013) and the ITU invited Fadi to speak in Dubai and UNESCO invited Fadi to
> speak in Paris, the climate among the two leaders has moved beyond the
> frosty relationship between Toure and Beckstroem. This does not yet mean
> that we can reach progress quickly. The ITU and Mr. Toure is in the hands
> of the member states (as Fadi is in the hands of the constituencies).
> Insofar both the UNCSTD WG as well as the WTPF will be interesting
> indicators whether we can move forward with "shared decision making
> procedures" among stakeholders.
>
> My impression is that governments did not realize in Tunis what they
> signed when they accepted the definition in para. 34. To be frank, 34
> contradicts 35 fundamentally and it is the challenge now to find out, what
> "sharing" means when it comes to the execution of "sovereign rights and
> responsibilties of states" (will we see the emergence of a concept of
> shared or collaborative sovereignty?) and how this can be further enhanced
> on a collaborative basis with all stakeholders and put into a precedural
> framework. Insofar, the new Ad Hoc IGF Working Group on Internet Governance
> Principles will become another challenging playing ground.
>
> Wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Milton L Mueller
> Gesendet: So 31.03.2013 05:28
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Avri Doria
> Betreff: RE: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group
> on Enhanced Cooperation
>
>
>
> Avri
>
>
>
>
>
> As for the CSTD WG EC itself, as one of those who was honored with the
> choice, what is it this group thinks is important?  I would really like to
> hear what it is this group thinks needs to be done?
>
> [Milton L Mueller] Thanks for posing a useful and constructive question in
> this thread. I will elaborate my thoughts in greater detail in an upcoming
> blog post analyzing the ITU-SG report for the WTPF. But in a nutshell, I am
> concerned about the extent to which ITU and certain other advocates of
> "Enhanced Cooperation" (EC) are emphasizing the definition of
> "multi-stakeholderism" (MuSH) that emerged from the WSIS - i.e., the
> definition that reserves policy making authority to sovereigns and
> relegates the rest of to "our respective roles."
>
> While I recognize that these people have the wording of the Tunis Agenda
> on their side, the TA was in fact a document negotiated by and for states,
> without civil society or the private sector's full and equal participation,
> or consent, and thus imho it has no binding authority on the rest of us.
> Someone needs to uphold a more consistent and new-polity approach to MuSH
> which emphasizes the legitimacy and authority of new internet institutions
> to develop 'public policy', and someone needs to explain to states that
> their monopoly on "public policy" development in their own jurisdictions
> does not automatically translate into the same powers transnationally.
> Unless we take a firmer stand on this, I fear that Internet institutions
> such as the RIRs or ICANN will see it as being in their interests to strike
> an accommodation with sovereigns to give them veto powers or other forms of
> arbitrary intervention in putatively bottom-up policy processes (much as
> ICANN is already doing).
>
> That's for starters...;-)
>
> Insofar as EC is still about US control of the root - I do think that's
> still important, and should not be swept under the rug. As you probably
> know, I still believe that the answer is not "inter"nationalization but
> de-nationalization.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy (
www.internetjurisdiction.net)
Member, ICANN Board of Directors
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130401/35626f1d/attachment.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 lmcknigh at syr.edu  Mon Apr  1 10:26:23 2013
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 14:26:23 +0000
Subject: [governance] Shared Decision Making Procedures
In-Reply-To: <CAGF_KH9jSA_5bpoUN9Sr+pBBpb_ZaJzUDQwjfCAKJb7vT9FBbw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <OFC2788E76.650E99EE-ONC1257B36.0067C43C-C1257B36.0078DE95@unog.un.org>
 <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net>
 <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net>
 <CACAaNxgnmodePEjSx5eqdheDffBwzWd28wiCzeDPQsAzsEYbxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net>
 <CACAaNxjU-zgSTWcMCrxiZugmX5wmRL2GMV0-+0CEf11DQFbXPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net>
 <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net>
 <CACAaNxh0pXeh1Fy8S8cnJgV_rzOhyz9ZnbmtRX+4BszAB3+Jng@mail.gmail.com>
 <22C2D51B-662B-4929-930B-3C84FE853E5F@hserus.net>
 <3FE058A9-8921-41BA-B10F-8348235CE4F9@acm.org>
 <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD239FD9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317E5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>,<CAGF_KH9jSA_5bpoUN9Sr+pBBpb_ZaJzUDQwjfCAKJb7vT9FBbw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1E5C73@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

+/-1 to our Finnish and French friends on "multi-stakeholder enhanced cooperations"

It doesn't quite roll off the tongue, but is more precisely what some of us have been thinking if not sure how to express.

Ah the joys of frontier policymaking, Bertrand and the Finns coin a new term.

Whose meaning and merit we can argue about for months if not years. : )

Lee
________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Bertrand de La Chapelle [bdelachapelle at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 10:11 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
Cc: Milton L Mueller; Avri Doria
Subject: Re: [governance] Shared Decision Making Procedures

Dear all,

Three elements in this ongoing debate:

On para 35a of the Tunis Agenda and the rights and responsibilities of States:

As we all know, this famous paragraph says:

Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues. (aka IRPPI)

There are two sentences here. Not just one, but two sentences. And this has to be meaningful.

The paragraph could easily have read : "Policy authority for national and international Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of states". That would have closed the debate and left no room for interpretation. But this is not what is written.

The only way to understand the existence of two sentences is that the rights and responsibilities of States are different at the national and the international levels.

At the national level, the traditional territorial sovereignty paradigm applies. It is the first sentence. and there is nothing new there.

But the second sentence says "(States) have rights and responsibilities for international IRPPI". This introduces two important notions:

  *   "States have rights" rightly affirms that they must be part of discussions regarding international IRPPI (contrary to J.P. Barlow's vision in his Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace), but it does not say they have "policy authority" as in the first sentence;
  *   "States have responsibilities" is an even more interesting wording; it introduces a notion of balance vis-à-vis the rights (that could include for instance the responsibility to establish proper frameworks for the development of the Internet and the protection of their citizens'privacy or freedom of expression); but it also points towards the particular  responsibility that States must accept for the trans-boundary impact of their national decisions (cf. the 2011 recommendation of the Council of Europe in that regard).

The second sentence is therefore very far from meaning that States and States alone are fully responsible for the development of International Internet-related public policy, whatever some countries try to argue.

In a nutshell, the global public interest is not the mere aggregation of national interests; national governments are very legitimate local authorities but at best, assemblies of government representatives are, at the global level, the equivalent of a Senate in bi-cameral parliamentary systems; for a truly democratic international system, a more direct involvement of citizens at the global level is necessary (and it is made possible by the development of communication tools and transportation); their respective governments cannot keep the monopoly of representation of their interests.

The challenge today is to refine the mechanisms that allow to manage shared international resources and cross-border online spaces, not to reimpose a rigid separation of westphalian sovereignties and the exclusive responsibility of diplomats to define global governance regimes.

On "their respective roles"

In repetitive statements in the IGF, I have indicated that these "respective roles" are not set once and for all. The respective roles of the different categories of stakeholders vary according to the issues, the venue where they are discussed and the stage of the discussion.

Considering that all internet-related issues should be dealt within a single international organization can only lead to a sterile and protracted competition between potential candidate institutions and no solution to concrete challenges.

The only viable approach is rather to build on the concept of distributed governance frameworks, and build issue-based governance networks, associating in a transparent and accountable manner the "relevant stakeholders".

What those frameworks are, what form their establishment takes (Mutual Affirmation of Commitments?), how the "relevant stakeholders" are determined, how the decision-making procedures function, etc... are the real and very exciting challenges.

The invention of the printing press triggered our current institutional infrastructure: the westphalian system of separate sovereignties and representative democracy. The Internet will no doubt have as strong a political impact, as it forces us all to define the tools to enable cohabitation of several billions of people in shared online spaces.

On the "equal footing" in paragraph 69

The famous paragraph 69 reads:

"We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues."

This paragraph clearly deals with two complementary dimensions:

1) Equal footing among States. This is the clearest and most explicit meaning, reaffirming the equality of States that is the supposed foundation of the international system. As the discussions during WSIS clearly showed, this was intended to address the singular role of the United States administration in the management of the domain name system (ICANN JPA and IANA contracts). Irrespective of the changes introduced by the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) and the possible future evolutions of the IANA framework, this part does not require specific interpretation. As a matter of example, governments inside the GAC are on a equal footing.

2) Equal footing vis-à-vis other stakeholders. This is the most ambiguous part and the subject of most of the discussions in the years since Tunis. It clearly must be interpreted in the light of the other paragraphs. However, the recent workshops and sessions held during the IGF in Baku and the WSIS+10 meeting in Paris have shown a desire by most players to move beyond sterile reiteration of divergent interpretations and explore how multi-stakeholder cooperations can develop to concretely address pressing issues. This is encouraging and we must hope that the format of the CSTD Chair's Working Group on Enhanced cooperation will allow participants to explore pragmatic solutions to form the issue-based governance networks mentioned above.

___________

During the last few months, three conferences (IGF, WCIT, WSIS+10) have helped clarify the landscape:

  *   the existing Internet institutional ecosystem (RIRs, standards bodies like IETF or W3C, ICANN, etc...) is dealing in a distributed manner with the governance OF the Internet, but does not (and should not) provide a venue for issues related to the governance ON the Internet (privacy, freedom of expression, copyright, security, etc...)
  *   management of these issues cannot easily be done through the reimposition of separated national sovereignties on a fundamentally cross-border infrastructure that produces shared spaces

These recent discussions show that there is a promising middle way  emerging between a rigid defense of an insufficient status quo and the perspective of a Digital Cold War:   the development of "multi-stakeholder enhanced cooperations", to take the expression coined by the finnish delegation in Paris.

Best

Bertrand




On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:03 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de<mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>> wrote:
Thanks Milton for moving the debate from the composition of the WG to the substance of enhanced cooperation.

Two comments here:

1. we should not mix ITU with the UNCSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation. You are right both ITU and some UN member states have their own interpretation from the Tunis Agenda (TA). But this are two different processes and it should remain separat.

2. Be reading the Tunis Agenda you have to put para. 35 a into the context of para. 34. 35a reads: "a)  Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues." This comes from the Geneva Declaration from 2003. But based on the Geneva language, WGIG started its work in 2004 and delivered the wanted definition in 2005 which includes not only the language of the "respective roles" but adds that this roles has to played out on the basis of "shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet."

My interpretation is that governments, if they execute their respective role and developing Internet related public policies, according to para. 34 have to "share their decision making capacity" with the other stakeholders. With other words, Tunis went one step beyond Geneva and linked to sovereign rights of states to a procedure of sharing decision making with other stakeholders. In my eyes, this was the real substantial innovation in Tunis. What I have seen from arguments in Dubai, when the IG resolution became the subject of a controversy, was that some ITU member states (representing the same governments who will be also represented in the UNCSTD WG) try to play this game to put Geneva against Tunis by ignoring the progress which was reached via the WGIG.

Additionally para. 37 is important in this context. It says "We seek to improve the coordination of the activities of international and intergovernmental organizations and other institutions concerned with Internet governance and the exchange of information among themselves. A multi-stakeholder approach should be adopted, as far as possible, at all levels." This is certainly an invitation to enhance cooperation among ITU and ICANN on an equal footing in their respective roles avoiding the duplication of mandates by enhancing communication, coordination and collaboration (the famous Meissen EC³). The ITU included in a footnote (for the first time in its history) in Resolution 102, 103 and 133 at its Plenipotentiary Conference in Guadalajara (2010) which expressed the wish for collaboration. But nothing practical came out. However, after Hammadoun and Fadi had breakfest in Baku (November 2012) and Dinner in Davos (January 2013) and the ITU invited Fadi to speak in Dubai and UNESCO invited Fadi to speak in Paris, the climate among the two leaders has moved beyond the frosty relationship between Toure and Beckstroem. This does not yet mean that we can reach progress quickly. The ITU and Mr. Toure is in the hands of the member states (as Fadi is in the hands of the constituencies). Insofar both the UNCSTD WG as well as the WTPF will be interesting indicators whether we can move forward with "shared decision making procedures" among stakeholders.

My impression is that governments did not realize in Tunis what they signed when they accepted the definition in para. 34. To be frank, 34 contradicts 35 fundamentally and it is the challenge now to find out, what "sharing" means when it comes to the execution of "sovereign rights and responsibilties of states" (will we see the emergence of a concept of shared or collaborative sovereignty?) and how this can be further enhanced on a collaborative basis with all stakeholders and put into a precedural framework. Insofar, the new Ad Hoc IGF Working Group on Internet Governance Principles will become another challenging playing ground.

Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> im Auftrag von Milton L Mueller
Gesendet: So 31.03.2013 05<tel:31.03.2013%2005>:28
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Avri Doria
Betreff: RE: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation



Avri





As for the CSTD WG EC itself, as one of those who was honored with the choice, what is it this group thinks is important?  I would really like to hear what it is this group thinks needs to be done?

[Milton L Mueller] Thanks for posing a useful and constructive question in this thread. I will elaborate my thoughts in greater detail in an upcoming blog post analyzing the ITU-SG report for the WTPF. But in a nutshell, I am concerned about the extent to which ITU and certain other advocates of "Enhanced Cooperation" (EC) are emphasizing the definition of "multi-stakeholderism" (MuSH) that emerged from the WSIS - i.e., the definition that reserves policy making authority to sovereigns and relegates the rest of to "our respective roles."

While I recognize that these people have the wording of the Tunis Agenda on their side, the TA was in fact a document negotiated by and for states, without civil society or the private sector's full and equal participation, or consent, and thus imho it has no binding authority on the rest of us. Someone needs to uphold a more consistent and new-polity approach to MuSH which emphasizes the legitimacy and authority of new internet institutions to develop 'public policy', and someone needs to explain to states that their monopoly on "public policy" development in their own jurisdictions does not automatically translate into the same powers transnationally. Unless we take a firmer stand on this, I fear that Internet institutions such as the RIRs or ICANN will see it as being in their interests to strike an accommodation with sovereigns to give them veto powers or other forms of arbitrary intervention in putatively bottom-up policy processes (much as ICANN is already doing).

That's for starters...;-)

Insofar as EC is still about US control of the root - I do think that's still important, and should not be swept under the rug. As you probably know, I still believe that the answer is not "inter"nationalization but de-nationalization.



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t




--
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy (www.internetjurisdiction.net<http://www.internetjurisdiction.net>)
Member, ICANN Board of Directors
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130401/26fb2595/attachment.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Apr  1 10:37:58 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 20:07:58 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group
 on Enhanced Cooperation
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD239FD9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <OFC2788E76.650E99EE-ONC1257B36.0067C43C-C1257B36.0078DE95@unog.un.org> <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <CACAaNxgnmodePEjSx5eqdheDffBwzWd28wiCzeDPQsAzsEYbxw@mail.gmail.com> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxjU-zgSTWcMCrxiZugmX5wmRL2GMV0-+0CEf11DQFbXPA@mail.gmail.com> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net> <CACAaNxh0pXeh1Fy8S8cnJgV_rzOhyz9ZnbmtRX+4BszAB3+Jng@mail.gmail.com> <22C2D51B-662B-4929-930B-3C84FE853E5F@hserus.net> <3FE058A9-8921-41BA-B10F-8348235CE4F9@acm.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD239FD9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <51599BC6.6090603@itforchange.net>


Milton

At the highest level I do agree that there is, to some extent,  a new 
global public made largely possible by the Internet, and corresponding 
to it a new global polity, which are worth conceptualising, and then 
also pursuing at practical levels. I am ready to do both theorising and 
principles building around such an emergent global public and polity 
with you, as well as do thought experiments about how the new political 
structures should and could look like....

Agreed that nation statesd based representation model is imperfect in 
the present circumstances. Additional forms of public representations 
have to explored and developed. But of course these new explorations 
need to be based on some top level principles. The problem is - and I 
have articulated it often - I am yet to hear such top level principles 
for bringing in non nation state based public representative to global 
governance levels. Neither in fact one sees any progress towards 
articulating practical models of what really is meant by when for 
instance Wolfgang says that governments should "share their decision 
making capacity".

At the top principles level, two thing come to my mind very strongly

1) Means of selection of non gov representatives of the 'global public' 
in multistakeholder (MS) processes ( we have seen deep sensitivity in 
this group against discussing such things)

20 Role of businesses or private sector (one cannot understand that if 
business is not given a voting role in national polities, on what basis 
should they get a voting role in global polity, but happy to hear 
justifications)

(Also see inline)

On Sunday 31 March 2013 08:58 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> Avri
>
> As for the CSTD WG EC itself, as one of those who was honored with the 
> choice, what is it this group thinks is important?  I would really 
> like to hear what it is this group thinks needs to be done?
>
> */[Milton L Mueller] Thanks for posing a useful and constructive 
> question in this thread. I will elaborate my thoughts in greater 
> detail in an upcoming blog post analyzing the ITU-SG report for the 
> WTPF. But in a nutshell, I am concerned about the extent to which ITU 
> and certain other advocates of “Enhanced Cooperation” (EC) are 
> emphasizing the definition of “multi-stakeholderism” (MuSH) that 
> emerged from the WSIS – i.e., the definition that reserves policy 
> making authority to sovereigns and relegates the rest of to “our 
> respective roles.” /*
>

/*I have some problem with the WSIS 'respective role' definition but not 
going to the extent of claiming that all stakeholders have the same 
claim to policy making process. Do you say that they an equal role? If 
not what differential role do you see? */
>
> *//*
>
> */While I recognize that these people have the wording of the Tunis 
> Agenda on their side, the TA was in fact a document negotiated by and 
> for states, without civil society or the private sector’s full and 
> equal participation, or consent, and thus imho it has no binding 
> authority on the rest of us./*
>
/*Then perhaps US congress' decisions taken without consulting your 
university may also be considered non binding by your university. */

> */Someone needs to uphold a more consistent and new-polity approach to 
> MuSH which emphasizes the legitimacy and authority of new internet 
> institutions to develop ‘public policy’,/*
>

This is interesting. From below, I understand that by new institutions 
you mean ICANN, RIR etc. I agree with the existing policy making role of 
these institutions, and most developing countires like India also 
agree.... I think it is extremely important we dont confuse narrow 
technical policy role with larger public policy role in non tech areas 
like net neutrality, data protection and privacy, ecommerce taxation, 
cyber security and so on... Are you saying that these new institutions - 
ICANN etc - should have a role in these latter policy areas as well. And 
if so such a role should be equal to that of national governments? Pl be 
explicit about your policy making model,




> */and someone needs to explain to states that their monopoly on 
> “public policy” development in their own jurisdictions does not 
> automatically translate into the same powers transnationally. /*
>

Again very interesting. BTW, at which level does this power of nation 
states cease to be legitimate tran-nationally - at Council of Europe 
level, at OECD level, at Trans Pacific Partnerhsip level...... or is it, 
only at such levels where all countires are treated as peers and equals 
- meaning UN like mutlilateral system. This is an important point of 
clarification....

> */Unless we take a firmer stand on this, I fear that Internet 
> institutions such as the RIRs or ICANN will see it as being in their 
> interests to strike an accommodation with sovereigns to give them veto 
> powers or other forms of arbitrary intervention in putatively 
> bottom-up policy processes (much as ICANN is already doing)./*
>
Yes, we should stand against any form of arbitrary interventions in 
legitimate areas of technical policy making by the ICANN system - and 
the root signing authority of the US government and ICANN's 
answerability to US jurisdiction today are the two most significant 
levers for such 'arbitrary' intervention.

> *//*
>
> */That’s for starters…;-)/*
>
> */Insofar as EC is still about US control of the root – I do think 
> that’s still important, and should not be swept under the rug. As you 
> probably know, I still believe that the answer is not 
> “inter”nationalization but de-nationalization. /*
>
Again , pl propose your model. It is difficult to just stand up in the 
Working Group and say, we want it trans-nationalised, but right now we 
are not sure what is looks like practically. During preceding 
discussions I had suggested a few options.

1- ICANN self declares its independence, and from a given date just 
communicatesd all root changes simultaneously to all root zone 
operators, and let US gov follow other operators in makng the change or 
not (this should go along with better regional distribution of root 
operators). The burden of 'not playing along' will then get put on the 
US gov.

2. Root change authourisation is done by a Global Internet Technical 
Board, whose members are selected in a somewhat transnational manner 
(but not totally separated from national systems - a via media is reached)

in either case, either US agrees to do a host country agreement with 
ICANN, or ICANN moves to a country which is ready to do it.

If these options are 'plain silly' - just anticipating your response - 
please suggest your options of transnationality.

Also, pl suggest separately how democratic public policy in non 
technical areas, as listed above, can be done transnationally.. As I 
have often said, it is these social, economic, cultural policy areas 
that are much more important to be than critical Internet resources 
related policy making.

parminder






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130401/dad095f9/attachment.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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Apr  1 11:53:35 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 11:53:35 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group
 on Enhanced Cooperation
In-Reply-To: <51599BC6.6090603@itforchange.net>
References: <OFC2788E76.650E99EE-ONC1257B36.0067C43C-C1257B36.0078DE95@unog.un.org>
 <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net>
 <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <CACAaNxgnmodePEjSx5eqdheDffBwzWd28wiCzeDPQsAzsEYbxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net>
 <CACAaNxjU-zgSTWcMCrxiZugmX5wmRL2GMV0-+0CEf11DQFbXPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net>
 <CACAaNxh0pXeh1Fy8S8cnJgV_rzOhyz9ZnbmtRX+4BszAB3+Jng@mail.gmail.com>
 <22C2D51B-662B-4929-930B-3C84FE853E5F@hserus.net> <3FE058A9-8921-41BA-B10F-8348235CE4F9@acm.org>
 <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD239FD9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <51599BC6.6090603@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxiEVUsaMUuRR0qUwwQwaD8yQOpXAT-h6rfRdcdbXj1H_Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 10:37 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> Milton
>
> At the highest level I do agree that there is, to some extent,  a new global
> public made largely possible by the Internet, and corresponding to it a new
> global polity, which are worth conceptualising, and then also pursuing at
> practical levels. I am ready to do both theorising and principles building
> around such an emergent global public and polity with you, as well as do
> thought experiments about how the new political structures should and could
> look like....
>
> Agreed that nation statesd based representation model is imperfect in the
> present circumstances. Additional forms of public representations have to
> explored and developed. But of course these new explorations need to be
> based on some top level principles. The problem is - and I have articulated
> it often - I am yet to hear such top level principles for bringing in non
> nation state based public representative to global governance levels.
> Neither in fact one sees any progress towards articulating practical models
> of what really is meant by when for instance Wolfgang says that governments
> should "share their decision making capacity".
>
> At the top principles level, two thing come to my mind very strongly
>
> 1) Means of selection of non gov representatives of the 'global public' in
> multistakeholder (MS) processes ( we have seen deep sensitivity in this
> group against discussing such things)

Why does there have to be "representation" beyond representing oneself?

>
> 20 Role of businesses or private sector (one cannot understand that if
> business is not given a voting role in national polities, on what basis
> should they get a voting role in global polity, but happy to hear
> justifications)

Why does there have to be voting?

Decisions can be made on consensus as well as by a vote!

See Bertrand's excellent post under the thread: "Shared Decision
Making Procedures"  for more answers to your queries!


-- 
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 parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Apr  1 12:14:25 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 21:44:25 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group
 on Enhanced Cooperation
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxiEVUsaMUuRR0qUwwQwaD8yQOpXAT-h6rfRdcdbXj1H_Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <OFC2788E76.650E99EE-ONC1257B36.0067C43C-C1257B36.0078DE95@unog.un.org> <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <CACAaNxgnmodePEjSx5eqdheDffBwzWd28wiCzeDPQsAzsEYbxw@mail.gmail.com> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxjU-zgSTWcMCrxiZugmX5wmRL2GMV0-+0CEf11DQFbXPA@mail.gmail.com> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net> <CACAaNxh0pXeh1Fy8S8cnJgV_rzOhyz9ZnbmtRX+4BszAB3+Jng@mail.gmail.com> <22C2D51B-662B-4929-930B-3C84FE853E5F@hserus.net> <3FE058A9-8921-41BA-B10F-8348235CE4F9@acm.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD239FD9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <51599BC6.6090603@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxiEVUsaMUuRR0qUwwQwaD8yQOpXAT-h6rfRdcdbXj1H_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5159B261.9020303@itforchange.net>


On Monday 01 April 2013 09:23 PM, McTim wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 10:37 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>> <snip?
>>
>> At the top principles level, two thing come to my mind very strongly
>>
>> 1) Means of selection of non gov representatives of the 'global public' in
>> multistakeholder (MS) processes ( we have seen deep sensitivity in this
>> group against discussing such things)
> Why does there have to be "representation" beyond representing oneself?

McTim, At this stage I am not even pressing one view against another. I 
am simply seeking clarity about people's views on key issues. Now, you 
are quite explicit - you do not see any (or in any case, any important) 
role of the concept of representativity in the new proposed polity. 
Fine. Just want to know if Milton, Wolfgang and Bertrand also do not see 
any role for this concept. And if they do see a role - comes the all 
important question of how non gov reps are selected so that they can 
claim legitimacy, on which issue they may want to give their views.

>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>> See Bertrand's excellent post under the thread: "Shared Decision
>> Making Procedures"  for more answers to your queries!

Issue based networks as the prime form of polity are expressions of 
Castellian description of how power flows and self aggrandizes in a 
network - how networks constant change shape and form, with the single 
motive of such aggrandizement. The quote of Jack Welsh on how every MNC 
should keep its plant always ready to be shipped from one jurisdiction 
to another, as best suits profit, also comes to my mind. That is what an 
issue based network of self selected 'stakeholders' is all about - 
skipping accountability and self declaring legitimacy. Such hyper post 
modern political descriptions often hide more than they show - they hide 
raw power and its illegitimacy. I do believe in new age networked 
governance systems, but they also have strong institutional anchorages. 
It has to be in-between models with both flexibility and solidity.

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 gurstein at gmail.com  Mon Apr  1 13:56:50 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 10:56:50 -0700
Subject: [governance] Ex-White House Official Joins Group Fighting
 "Excessive" Online Privacy Laws
Message-ID: <093d01ce2f02$50eafaa0$f2c0efe0$@gmail.com>

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/daniel-weitzner-internet-privacy
-coalition

Regulatory capture in action?

And what better way to ensure regulatory capture at the global level than to
ensure that there are no global regulatory frameworks or mechanisms that
will ultimately need to be captured?

M


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ocl at gih.com  Mon Apr  1 19:07:09 2013
From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 01:07:09 +0200
Subject: [governance] Report on WCIT // Suggested Next Steps
In-Reply-To: <51587463.10300@gih.com>
References: <51587463.10300@gih.com>
Message-ID: <515A131D.80907@gih.com>

Hello all,

a number of people have asked for a URL to download the paper without
having to register.
This should work:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BymSF9LysHAKbDNySHVkeTd0d0U/edit?usp=sharing

Kind regards,

Olivier

On 31/03/2013 19:37, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I have recently shared my report about the December 2012 Dubai "World
> Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT)" with colleagues
> in ICANN's At-Large community.
>
> This report is divided into two parts:
>
> 1. What happened at WCIT
> 2. Suggested next steps for ICANN/At-Large
>
> Although this report contains my personal interpretation of the events
> that took place, I also make recommendations for the actors of the
> multi-stakeholder model to address in the near future.
>
> The report can be downloaded from:
> http://www.slideshare.net/ocl999/what-happened-at-wcit-in-december-2012
>
> Happy reading,
>
> Olivier
>

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Apr  2 00:55:48 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 10:25:48 +0530
Subject: [governance] Ex-White House Official Joins Group Fighting
 "Excessive" Online Privacy Laws
In-Reply-To: <093d01ce2f02$50eafaa0$f2c0efe0$@gmail.com>
References: <093d01ce2f02$50eafaa0$f2c0efe0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <515A64D4.9050600@itforchange.net>


On Monday 01 April 2013 11:26 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
> http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/daniel-weitzner-internet-privacy
> -coalition
>
> Regulatory capture in action?
>
> And what better way to ensure regulatory capture at the global level than to
> ensure that there are no global regulatory frameworks or mechanisms that
> will ultimately need to be captured?

"Coalition for Privacy and Free Trade " is exactly the kind of issue 
based network that are getting formed. (Bertrand, please note.) And we 
know what they are upto. Soon there will be others, that is the trend, 
like perhaps one led by Shell on green economy, and Nike on labour 
friendliness.... No, this is not acceptable, We are better off with 
evolving old fashioned democratic systems from within, with a deepening 
democracy focus.... We have seen movements, especially in Europe, of a 
new kind of democratic politics bypassing the existing political party 
captures - that is where I would put my hopes instead of these dangerous 
neolib trends. I appeal to the civil society to recognise the dangers 
that we are headed towards in all this mushy talk of "equality of all 
stakeholders in decision making" (read, corporate led 'governance' 
systems), and issue based networks as the prime next gen governance 
paradigm...

parminder


>
> M
>
>


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From fulvio.frati at unimi.it  Tue Apr  2 05:21:22 2013
From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 11:21:22 +0200
Subject: [governance] SIMPDA 2013: Third International Symposium on
 Data-driven Process Discovery and Analysis
Message-ID: <00d701ce2f83$7120a870$5361f950$@unimi.it>

 

[Apologies if you receives multiple copies of this CFP]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------

    Third International Symposium on Data-driven Process Discovery and
Analysis SIMPDA 2013   

                IFIP Working Groups 2.6 and 2.12/12.4

                In conjunction with the 39th international conference on
Very Large Databases (VLDB 2013)

                Riva del Garda, Trento, Italy, August 30th

                http://sesar.dti.unimi.it/SIMPDA2013/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------

* About SIMPDA

With the increasing automation of business processes, growing amounts of
process data become available. This opens new research opportunities for
business process data analysis, mining and modeling. The aim of the IFIP 2.6
- 2.12 International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis
is to offer a forum where researchers from different communities and the
industry can share their insight in this hot new field.

This year the symposium will be inserted among the VLDB 2013 workshops and
will feature a number presentations on recent research results and
competitive PhD seminar. All this in the charming setting of Riva del Garda
at the north-western corner of Lake Garda, at the southern edge of the
Italian Alps, near the Dolomites.

        

* Call for Papers

The IFIP International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and
Analysis (SIMPDA 2013) offers a unique opportunity to present new approaches
and research results to researchers and practitioners working in business
process data modeling, representation and privacy-aware analysis. 

The symposium will bring together leading researchers, engineers and
scientists from around the world. Full papers must not exceed 15 pages.
Short papers are limited to at most 4 pages. All papers must be original
contributions, not previously published or under review for publication
elsewhere. All contributions must be written in English and must follow the
LNCS Springer Verlag format. Templates can be downloaded from:
http://www.springer.de/comp/lncs/authors.html

Accepted papers will be published in a pre-proceeding volume with an ISBN.
The authors of the accepted papers will be invited to submit extended
articles to a post-symposium proceedings volume hich will be published in
the LNBIP series (Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing,
http://www.springer.com/series/7911), scheduled for early 2014 (extended
papers length will be between 7000 and 9000 words). Around 10-15 papers will
be selected for publication after a second round of review.

* Topics

- Topics of interest for submission include, but are not limited to:

- Business Process modeling languages, notations and methods

- Data-aware and data-centric approaches 

- Variability and configuration of process models

- Process Mining with Big Data 

- Process simulation and static analyses

- Process data query languages

- Process data mining

- Privacy-aware process data mining

- Process metadata and semantic reasoning

- Process patterns and standards

- Foundations of business process models

- Resource management in business process execution

- Process tracing and monitoring

- Process change management and evolution

- Business process lifecycle

- Case studies and experience reports 

- Social process discovery

- Crowdsourced process definition and discovery

* Workshop Format:

In accordance to our historical tradition of proposing SIMPDA as a
symposium, we propose an innovative format for this workshop:

The number of sessions depend on the number of submissions but, considering
the previous editions, we envisage to have four sessions, with 4-5 related
papers assigned to each session. A special session (with a specific review
process) will be dedicated to discuss research plan from PhD students.

Papers are pre-circulated to the authors that will be expected to read all
papers in advance but to avoid exceptional overhead, two are assigned to be
prepared with particular care,  making ready comments and suggestions. 

The bulk of the time during each session will be dedicated to open
conversations about all of the papers in a given session, along with any
linkages to the papers and discussions within an earlier session. 

The closing session (30 minutes), will include a panel about open challenges
during which every participant will be asked to assemble their
thoughts/project ideas/goals/etc
 that they got out of the workshop.

* Call for PhD Research Plans

The SIMPDA PhD Seminar is a workshop for Ph.D. students from all over the
world. The goal of the Seminar is to help students with their thesis and
research plans by providing feedback and general advice on how to use their
research results.

Students interested in participating in the Seminar should submit an
extended abstract describing their research. Submissions can relate to any
aspect of Process Data: technical advances, usage and impact studies, policy
analyses, social and institutional implications, theoretical contributions,
interaction and design advances, innovative applications, and social
implications.

Research plans should be at most of 4 page long and should be organized
following the following structure: 

Abstract: summarizes, in 5 line, the research aims and significance.

Research Question: defines what will be accomplished by eliciting the
relevant the research questions.

Background: defines the background knowledge providing the 5 most relevant
references (papers or books).

Significance: explains the relevance of the general topic and of the
specific contribution.

Research design and methods: describes and motivates the method adopted
focusing on: assumptions, solutions, data sources, validation of results,
limitations of the approach.

Research stage: describes what the student has done so far.

* SIMPDA PhD award

A doctoral award will be given by the SIMPDA PhD Jury to the best research
plan submitted.

- Student Scholarships

                An application for a limited number of scholarships aimed at
students coming from emerging countries has been submitted to IFIP.

                In order to apply, please contact paolo.ceravolo at unimi.it

* Organizers

CHAIRS 

- Rafael Accorsi, University of Freiburg, Germany

- Paolo Ceravolo, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy

- Philippe Cudré-Mauroux , University of Fribourg, Switzerland

ADVISORY BOARD 

- Karl Aberer, EPFL, Switzerland

- Ernesto Damiani, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy

- Tharam Dillon, La Trobe University, Australia

- Dragan Gasevic, Athabasca University, Canada

- Marcello Leida, EBTIC (Etisalat BT Innovation Centre), UAE

- Erich Neuhold, University of Vienna, Austria

- Maurice van Keulen, University of Twente, The Netherlands

* Important Dates

- Submission of Full Papers:         June 10th 2013

- Submission of PhD Research Plans:       June 10th 2013

- Notification of Acceptance:      July 10th 2013

- Submission of Camera Ready Papers: August 5th 2013

* Venue

The conference will take place in the Conference Center of Riva del Garda:

More info on: http://www.vldb.org/2013/conference_venue.html

    

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130402/a1fb3b4f/attachment.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 b.schombe at gmail.com  Tue Apr  2 06:46:49 2013
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 12:46:49 +0200
Subject: [governance] Report on WCIT // Suggested Next Steps
In-Reply-To: <51587463.10300@gih.com>
References: <51587463.10300@gih.com>
Message-ID: <CAHj_20iwZV18Q1EVCmpxVgS2XpKzM0rE7jLVAj=R35Z4sNAf5g@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Olivier,
thank you for the reminder and I had completely escaped yet it is a very
important report that I must use for exchanges at the local level.
Again, thank you for this reminder. the report is downloaded and will be
sharing all away.

SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN

Téléphone mobile:+243998983491
email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com
skype                 : b.schombe
blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr
Site Web             : www.ticafrica.net




2013/3/31 Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>

> Dear all,
>
> I have recently shared my report about the December 2012 Dubai "World
> Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT)" with colleagues
> in ICANN's At-Large community.
>
> This report is divided into two parts:
>
> 1. What happened at WCIT
> 2. Suggested next steps for ICANN/At-Large
>
> Although this report contains my personal interpretation of the events
> that took place, I also make recommendations for the actors of the
> multi-stakeholder model to address in the near future.
>
> The report can be downloaded from:
> http://www.slideshare.net/ocl999/what-happened-at-wcit-in-december-2012
>
> Happy reading,
>
> Olivier
>
> --
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130402/c6f2d88b/attachment.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 nb at bollow.ch  Tue Apr  2 09:27:53 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:27:53 +0200
Subject: [governance] Report on WCIT // Suggested Next Steps
In-Reply-To: <CAHj_20iwZV18Q1EVCmpxVgS2XpKzM0rE7jLVAj=R35Z4sNAf5g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <51587463.10300@gih.com>
	<CAHj_20iwZV18Q1EVCmpxVgS2XpKzM0rE7jLVAj=R35Z4sNAf5g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130402152753.32647772@quill.bollow.ch>

Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com> wrote:

> thank you for the reminder and I had completely escaped yet it is a
> very important report that I must use for exchanges at the local
> level. Again, thank you for this reminder. the report is downloaded
> and will be sharing all away.
> > The report can be downloaded from:
> > http://www.slideshare.net/ocl999/what-happened-at-wcit-in-december-2012

Here's one significant point that I think would be worthwhile to
discuss:

Page 24 contains this observation:

  It is generally believed by many countries from the “South” that the
  Internet is actually run and controlled by the United States and its
  allies – and that the network is used as a spearhead to weaken their
  own economies by bringing enormous social and political change at a
  pace that is disruptive, with no ability for those affected to
  control this. It is felt that the Internet is governed by the world’s
  strongest economies and multi-nationals for their own purposes. These
  are real concerns, not only by the government delegates present at
  WCIT, but felt by the average citizen in many of these countries.

Which parts of these observed fears and concerns are real unsolved
problems, and which parts are just fruits of rhetorical dramatizations
and fears that would go away if the concerned people would simply
inform themselves reasonably well?

Greetings,
Norbert

P.S. [Note with coordinator's hat:] Just as a quick reminder: Attacks
against a person's ability to effectively participate in the discussions
on this list, and to be taken seriously in such discussions, are not
allowed. For details see our charter http://igcaucus.org/charter .

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Tue Apr  2 09:51:47 2013
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:51:47 +0200
Subject: [governance] Report on WCIT // Suggested Next Steps
In-Reply-To: <20130402152753.32647772@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <51587463.10300@gih.com> <CAHj_20iwZV18Q1EVCmpxVgS2XpKzM0rE7jLVAj=R35Z4sNAf5g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130402152753.32647772@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <CAHj_20irTq4uFd-Dkrig=awpVyMPvLYJkf5O2HKVVVjNCA7ZNw@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Norbert,
I share your point of view. Also note the disparity in the appropriation of
ICT policy makers in developing countries. That both institutions and
individuals. One of the biggest barriers also lies in the lack of political
will to make ICT a tool for real reasons we started to clearly identify:
the rejection of rationality in public administration, ease in the
corruption, generation of conflict, let it go by easier and scheming of any
kind .... The list is long. Based on these handicaps, there are several
poles of decision making that are generally poorly coordinated and in other
cases not.

Nature abhors a vacuum and if the internet is controlled by the U.S. and
its allies must take into account all these factors. it is evident
regardless of the presence of actors, all of which are of interest are, for
some, being managed and, in others, sent directly into their pockets.

Very slowly but surely, the rising generation, which is the generation of
digital technology and mastering this technology begins to weigh in the
balance the use and appropriation of digital technology.

It all depends on the methodology that we will use to give them the
opportunity to exhibit their talent.

SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN

Téléphone mobile:+243998983491
email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com
skype                 : b.schombe
blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr
Site Web             : www.ticafrica.net




2013/4/2 Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>

> Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > thank you for the reminder and I had completely escaped yet it is a
> > very important report that I must use for exchanges at the local
> > level. Again, thank you for this reminder. the report is downloaded
> > and will be sharing all away.
> > > The report can be downloaded from:
> > >
> http://www.slideshare.net/ocl999/what-happened-at-wcit-in-december-2012
>
> Here's one significant point that I think would be worthwhile to
> discuss:
>
> Page 24 contains this observation:
>
>   It is generally believed by many countries from the “South” that the
>   Internet is actually run and controlled by the United States and its
>   allies – and that the network is used as a spearhead to weaken their
>   own economies by bringing enormous social and political change at a
>   pace that is disruptive, with no ability for those affected to
>   control this. It is felt that the Internet is governed by the world’s
>   strongest economies and multi-nationals for their own purposes. These
>   are real concerns, not only by the government delegates present at
>   WCIT, but felt by the average citizen in many of these countries.
>
> Which parts of these observed fears and concerns are real unsolved
> problems, and which parts are just fruits of rhetorical dramatizations
> and fears that would go away if the concerned people would simply
> inform themselves reasonably well?
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
> P.S. [Note with coordinator's hat:] Just as a quick reminder: Attacks
> against a person's ability to effectively participate in the discussions
> on this list, and to be taken seriously in such discussions, are not
> allowed. For details see our charter http://igcaucus.org/charter .
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130402/f4c7250d/attachment.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 suresh at hserus.net  Tue Apr  2 10:17:10 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:47:10 +0530
Subject: [governance] Report on WCIT // Suggested Next Steps
In-Reply-To: <20130402152753.32647772@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <51587463.10300@gih.com> <CAHj_20iwZV18Q1EVCmpxVgS2XpKzM0rE7jLVAj=R35Z4sNAf5g@mail.gmail.com> <20130402152753.32647772@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <CDF15AFB-8B0F-4AA0-8ADC-B83CF8F4342C@hserus.net>

On 02-Apr-2013, at 18:57, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Which parts of these observed fears and concerns are real unsolved
> problems, and which parts are just fruits of rhetorical dramatizations
> and fears that would go away if the concerned people would simply
> inform themselves reasonably well?
> 

The additional questions are bound to be - which of these observed fears and concerns actually have other, entirely different, causes including but not limited to -

1. A closed / government monopoly economy, including expensive and controlled internet and telecom access [the control might even exist for political or censorship reasons in a relatively more open economy]

2. A flight of capital, in particular intellectual capital, to other countries, due to the lack of an enabling environment for business in the country itself [such as just how many Indians and Chinese work for Google and Facebook rather than setting up startups in India and China]

3. Other localized micro / macro economic factors, as well as enabling factors including education, electricity, a stable and democratic government ..

4. How much of this "belief" is caused and fuelled by the people believing this opposing "the north" and in particular the USA on ideological or political grounds, to the extent that any news at all in this area is interpreted with an ideological slant and selectively skewed to fit whichever ideology the individual concerned holds to, using the classic tools that a propagandist has at his or her disposal?   

The perpetrators of this last are not by and large not likely to modify their behavior by "informing themselves well", though people who they may influence could certainly benefit from alternate sources of information and discourse.  I am aware that political and personal beliefs will definitely influence thoughts and behavior but this goes rather beyond that.  And an axiom of propaganda is that repeating something patently false often enough, and unopposed, tends to lend even a blatant canard a veneer of truth.  

I welcome the thoughts of this caucus.

--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  Tue Apr  2 10:17:44 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:47:44 +0530
Subject: [governance] Report on WCIT // Suggested Next Steps
In-Reply-To: <CAHj_20irTq4uFd-Dkrig=awpVyMPvLYJkf5O2HKVVVjNCA7ZNw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <51587463.10300@gih.com> <CAHj_20iwZV18Q1EVCmpxVgS2XpKzM0rE7jLVAj=R35Z4sNAf5g@mail.gmail.com> <20130402152753.32647772@quill.bollow.ch> <CAHj_20irTq4uFd-Dkrig=awpVyMPvLYJkf5O2HKVVVjNCA7ZNw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <707CCE4B-89A6-46B2-8F2D-A935D4DC8043@hserus.net>

Thank you for putting the other factors at play in this question very clearly.

--srs (iPad)

On 02-Apr-2013, at 19:21, Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Norbert,
> I share your point of view. Also note the disparity in the appropriation of ICT policy makers in developing countries. That both institutions and individuals. One of the biggest barriers also lies in the lack of political will to make ICT a tool for real reasons we started to clearly identify: the rejection of rationality in public administration, ease in the corruption, generation of conflict, let it go by easier and scheming of any kind .... The list is long. Based on these handicaps, there are several poles of decision making that are generally poorly coordinated and in other cases not.
> 
> Nature abhors a vacuum and if the internet is controlled by the U.S. and its allies must take into account all these factors. it is evident regardless of the presence of actors, all of which are of interest are, for some, being managed and, in others, sent directly into their pockets.
> 
> Very slowly but surely, the rising generation, which is the generation of digital technology and mastering this technology begins to weigh in the balance the use and appropriation of digital technology.
> 
> It all depends on the methodology that we will use to give them the opportunity to exhibit their talent.
> 
> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
> 
> Téléphone mobile:+243998983491
> email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com
> skype                 : b.schombe
> blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr
> Site Web             : www.ticafrica.net
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 2013/4/2 Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
>> Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > thank you for the reminder and I had completely escaped yet it is a
>> > very important report that I must use for exchanges at the local
>> > level. Again, thank you for this reminder. the report is downloaded
>> > and will be sharing all away.
>> > > The report can be downloaded from:
>> > > http://www.slideshare.net/ocl999/what-happened-at-wcit-in-december-2012
>> 
>> Here's one significant point that I think would be worthwhile to
>> discuss:
>> 
>> Page 24 contains this observation:
>> 
>>   It is generally believed by many countries from the “South” that the
>>   Internet is actually run and controlled by the United States and its
>>   allies – and that the network is used as a spearhead to weaken their
>>   own economies by bringing enormous social and political change at a
>>   pace that is disruptive, with no ability for those affected to
>>   control this. It is felt that the Internet is governed by the world’s
>>   strongest economies and multi-nationals for their own purposes. These
>>   are real concerns, not only by the government delegates present at
>>   WCIT, but felt by the average citizen in many of these countries.
>> 
>> Which parts of these observed fears and concerns are real unsolved
>> problems, and which parts are just fruits of rhetorical dramatizations
>> and fears that would go away if the concerned people would simply
>> inform themselves reasonably well?
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>> 
>> P.S. [Note with coordinator's hat:] Just as a quick reminder: Attacks
>> against a person's ability to effectively participate in the discussions
>> on this list, and to be taken seriously in such discussions, are not
>> allowed. For details see our charter http://igcaucus.org/charter .
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130402/bf2e24ce/attachment.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 gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Apr  2 10:54:52 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 07:54:52 -0700
Subject: [governance] Report on WCIT // Suggested Next Steps
In-Reply-To: <20130402152753.32647772@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <51587463.10300@gih.com>	<CAHj_20iwZV18Q1EVCmpxVgS2XpKzM0rE7jLVAj=R35Z4sNAf5g@mail.gmail.com> <20130402152753.32647772@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <0d7801ce2fb2$0ea4d250$2bee76f0$@gmail.com>

Excellent to raise these issues, Norbert, but I think it is inappropriate to cast these matters as "fears and concerns"... they are (potentially) statements of fact and the issue is how/when/who will effectively undertake the research needed to establish some of this.  (It seems like a useful undertaking for UNCTAD with its renewed research mandate for example.)

The problem in doing the research is that so many of the categories and assumptions of conventional research in this area are immensely value laden (take a look at how GNP is calculated sometime for example) but if one starts one's research from an attempt to determine who is benefiting from ICT induced/enabled social and economic change (and who is not) and with the overall goal of finding policy mechanisms to help to ensure some degree of equity in longer term outcomes of these changes then we will be some considerable way along the path of understanding.

As I was trying to say in my comments to the WSIS +10 Review, I think that this is perhaps the most important area to be discussed in the WSIS +10 meeting itself (and to direct the research leading up to that meeting...

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 6:28 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Report on WCIT // Suggested Next Steps

Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com> wrote:

> thank you for the reminder and I had completely escaped yet it is a 
> very important report that I must use for exchanges at the local 
> level. Again, thank you for this reminder. the report is downloaded 
> and will be sharing all away.
> > The report can be downloaded from:
> > http://www.slideshare.net/ocl999/what-happened-at-wcit-in-december-2
> > 012

Here's one significant point that I think would be worthwhile to
discuss:

Page 24 contains this observation:

  It is generally believed by many countries from the “South” that the
  Internet is actually run and controlled by the United States and its
  allies – and that the network is used as a spearhead to weaken their
  own economies by bringing enormous social and political change at a
  pace that is disruptive, with no ability for those affected to
  control this. It is felt that the Internet is governed by the world’s
  strongest economies and multi-nationals for their own purposes. These
  are real concerns, not only by the government delegates present at
  WCIT, but felt by the average citizen in many of these countries.

Which parts of these observed fears and concerns are real unsolved problems, and which parts are just fruits of rhetorical dramatizations and fears that would go away if the concerned people would simply inform themselves reasonably well?

Greetings,
Norbert

P.S. [Note with coordinator's hat:] Just as a quick reminder: Attacks against a person's ability to effectively participate in the discussions on this list, and to be taken seriously in such discussions, are not allowed. For details see our charter http://igcaucus.org/charter .



-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr  2 11:06:19 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 17:06:19 +0200
Subject: [governance] Report on WCIT // Suggested Next Steps
In-Reply-To: <0d7801ce2fb2$0ea4d250$2bee76f0$@gmail.com>
References: <51587463.10300@gih.com>
	<CAHj_20iwZV18Q1EVCmpxVgS2XpKzM0rE7jLVAj=R35Z4sNAf5g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130402152753.32647772@quill.bollow.ch>
	<0d7801ce2fb2$0ea4d250$2bee76f0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130402170619.509515b8@quill.bollow.ch>

Hi Michael,

How would you describe the objectives of the needed research?

Is there anything that the Caucus could reasonably do to contribute to
making the needed research happen?

Greetings,
Norbert


Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Excellent to raise these issues, Norbert, but I think it is
> inappropriate to cast these matters as "fears and concerns"... they
> are (potentially) statements of fact and the issue is how/when/who
> will effectively undertake the research needed to establish some of
> this.  (It seems like a useful undertaking for UNCTAD with its
> renewed research mandate for example.)
> 
> The problem in doing the research is that so many of the categories
> and assumptions of conventional research in this area are immensely
> value laden (take a look at how GNP is calculated sometime for
> example) but if one starts one's research from an attempt to
> determine who is benefiting from ICT induced/enabled social and
> economic change (and who is not) and with the overall goal of finding
> policy mechanisms to help to ensure some degree of equity in longer
> term outcomes of these changes then we will be some considerable way
> along the path of understanding.
> 
> As I was trying to say in my comments to the WSIS +10 Review, I think
> that this is perhaps the most important area to be discussed in the
> WSIS +10 meeting itself (and to direct the research leading up to
> that meeting...
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert
> Bollow Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 6:28 AM To:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Report on
> WCIT // Suggested Next Steps
> 
> Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > thank you for the reminder and I had completely escaped yet it is a 
> > very important report that I must use for exchanges at the local 
> > level. Again, thank you for this reminder. the report is downloaded 
> > and will be sharing all away.
> > > The report can be downloaded from:
> > > http://www.slideshare.net/ocl999/what-happened-at-wcit-in-december-2
> > > 012
> 
> Here's one significant point that I think would be worthwhile to
> discuss:
> 
> Page 24 contains this observation:
> 
>   It is generally believed by many countries from the “South” that the
>   Internet is actually run and controlled by the United States and its
>   allies – and that the network is used as a spearhead to weaken their
>   own economies by bringing enormous social and political change at a
>   pace that is disruptive, with no ability for those affected to
>   control this. It is felt that the Internet is governed by the
> world’s strongest economies and multi-nationals for their own
> purposes. These are real concerns, not only by the government
> delegates present at WCIT, but felt by the average citizen in many of
> these countries.
> 
> Which parts of these observed fears and concerns are real unsolved
> problems, and which parts are just fruits of rhetorical
> dramatizations and fears that would go away if the concerned people
> would simply inform themselves reasonably well?
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> P.S. [Note with coordinator's hat:] Just as a quick reminder: Attacks
> against a person's ability to effectively participate in the
> discussions on this list, and to be taken seriously in such
> discussions, are not allowed. For details see our charter
> http://igcaucus.org/charter .
> 
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr  2 11:22:53 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 08:22:53 -0700
Subject: [governance] Report on WCIT // Suggested Next Steps
In-Reply-To: <CDF15AFB-8B0F-4AA0-8ADC-B83CF8F4342C@hserus.net>
References: <51587463.10300@gih.com> <CAHj_20iwZV18Q1EVCmpxVgS2XpKzM0rE7jLVAj=R35Z4sNAf5g@mail.gmail.com> <20130402152753.32647772@quill.bollow.ch> <CDF15AFB-8B0F-4AA0-8ADC-B83CF8F4342C@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <0d7901ce2fb5$fca83070$f5f89150$@gmail.com>

Again, these are potentially empirical questions cast within an ideological
frame... 

Well worth researching, but by parties rather more neutral than for example,
the proponents/beneficiaries of the policy positions implied by your stream
of argument).

FWIW I have had the opportunity to participate in some "expert" discussions
on related matters within the OECD and I've discussed some of the
limitations built into conventional approaches in much of the research being
produced in this area...
http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/measuring-the-unmeasurable-internet
-and-why-it-matters/

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh
Ramasubramanian
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 7:17 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Report on WCIT // Suggested Next Steps

On 02-Apr-2013, at 18:57, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Which parts of these observed fears and concerns are real unsolved 
> problems, and which parts are just fruits of rhetorical dramatizations 
> and fears that would go away if the concerned people would simply 
> inform themselves reasonably well?
> 

The additional questions are bound to be - which of these observed fears and
concerns actually have other, entirely different, causes including but not
limited to -

1. A closed / government monopoly economy, including expensive and
controlled internet and telecom access [the control might even exist for
political or censorship reasons in a relatively more open economy]

2. A flight of capital, in particular intellectual capital, to other
countries, due to the lack of an enabling environment for business in the
country itself [such as just how many Indians and Chinese work for Google
and Facebook rather than setting up startups in India and China]

3. Other localized micro / macro economic factors, as well as enabling
factors including education, electricity, a stable and democratic government
..

4. How much of this "belief" is caused and fuelled by the people believing
this opposing "the north" and in particular the USA on ideological or
political grounds, to the extent that any news at all in this area is
interpreted with an ideological slant and selectively skewed to fit
whichever ideology the individual concerned holds to, using the classic
tools that a propagandist has at his or her disposal?   

The perpetrators of this last are not by and large not likely to modify
their behavior by "informing themselves well", though people who they may
influence could certainly benefit from alternate sources of information and
discourse.  I am aware that political and personal beliefs will definitely
influence thoughts and behavior but this goes rather beyond that.  And an
axiom of propaganda is that repeating something patently false often enough,
and unopposed, tends to lend even a blatant canard a veneer of truth.  

I welcome the thoughts of this caucus.

--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  Tue Apr  2 11:28:34 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 20:58:34 +0530
Subject: [governance] Report on WCIT // Suggested Next Steps
In-Reply-To: <0d7901ce2fb5$fca83070$f5f89150$@gmail.com>
References: <51587463.10300@gih.com> <CAHj_20iwZV18Q1EVCmpxVgS2XpKzM0rE7jLVAj=R35Z4sNAf5g@mail.gmail.com> <20130402152753.32647772@quill.bollow.ch> <CDF15AFB-8B0F-4AA0-8ADC-B83CF8F4342C@hserus.net> <0d7901ce2fb5$fca83070$f5f89150$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E71E374F-94D1-4704-96A9-015F057A5132@hserus.net>

Ah - that is just meeting an extreme point with a counterpoint from the opposite extreme

The two of us (and possibly the more vocal advocates of 'the south' on this caucus) are probably entirely the wrong people to draft a neutral and unbiased position.

--srs (iPad)

On 02-Apr-2013, at 20:52, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Again, these are potentially empirical questions cast within an ideological
> frame... 
> 
> Well worth researching, but by parties rather more neutral than for example,
> the proponents/beneficiaries of the policy positions implied by your stream
> of argument).
> 
> FWIW I have had the opportunity to participate in some "expert" discussions
> on related matters within the OECD and I've discussed some of the
> limitations built into conventional approaches in much of the research being
> produced in this area...
> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/measuring-the-unmeasurable-internet
> -and-why-it-matters/
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh
> Ramasubramanian
> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 7:17 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Report on WCIT // Suggested Next Steps
> 
> On 02-Apr-2013, at 18:57, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> 
>> Which parts of these observed fears and concerns are real unsolved 
>> problems, and which parts are just fruits of rhetorical dramatizations 
>> and fears that would go away if the concerned people would simply 
>> inform themselves reasonably well?
>> 
> 
> The additional questions are bound to be - which of these observed fears and
> concerns actually have other, entirely different, causes including but not
> limited to -
> 
> 1. A closed / government monopoly economy, including expensive and
> controlled internet and telecom access [the control might even exist for
> political or censorship reasons in a relatively more open economy]
> 
> 2. A flight of capital, in particular intellectual capital, to other
> countries, due to the lack of an enabling environment for business in the
> country itself [such as just how many Indians and Chinese work for Google
> and Facebook rather than setting up startups in India and China]
> 
> 3. Other localized micro / macro economic factors, as well as enabling
> factors including education, electricity, a stable and democratic government
> ..
> 
> 4. How much of this "belief" is caused and fuelled by the people believing
> this opposing "the north" and in particular the USA on ideological or
> political grounds, to the extent that any news at all in this area is
> interpreted with an ideological slant and selectively skewed to fit
> whichever ideology the individual concerned holds to, using the classic
> tools that a propagandist has at his or her disposal?   
> 
> The perpetrators of this last are not by and large not likely to modify
> their behavior by "informing themselves well", though people who they may
> influence could certainly benefit from alternate sources of information and
> discourse.  I am aware that political and personal beliefs will definitely
> influence thoughts and behavior but this goes rather beyond that.  And an
> axiom of propaganda is that repeating something patently false often enough,
> and unopposed, tends to lend even a blatant canard a veneer of truth.  
> 
> I welcome the thoughts of this caucus.
> 
> --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 gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Apr  2 11:48:52 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 08:48:52 -0700
Subject: [governance] Report on WCIT // Suggested Next Steps
In-Reply-To: <20130402170619.509515b8@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <51587463.10300@gih.com>	<CAHj_20iwZV18Q1EVCmpxVgS2XpKzM0rE7jLVAj=R35Z4sNAf5g@mail.gmail.com>	<20130402152753.32647772@quill.bollow.ch>	<0d7801ce2fb2$0ea4d250$2bee76f0$@gmail.com> <20130402170619.509515b8@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <0dac01ce2fb9$9c4d2600$d4e77200$@gmail.com>

Hi Norbert,

Since I've just now been thinking about these issues within an OECD frame, the best simple set of objectives might be those articulated in the OECD Secretary-General’s Strategic Orientations "Ensuring that (ICT enabled) growth is socially responsible and for the benefit of all" (I'm sure that within the WSIS documents there are similar such phrases...

And the Caucus could I think, contribute to this research by agreeing on a statement that proposed that issues arising from these objectives (as for example the question of the impact of Internet based development on economic and social equality/inequality both intra-nationally and globally) would become a guiding theme for the WSIS +10 Summit and that resources within the UN system be directed to undertaking research in this regard (as for example through UNCTAD) in preparation for this meeting.

M 

-----Original Message-----
From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 8:06 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
Subject: Re: [governance] Report on WCIT // Suggested Next Steps

Hi Michael,

How would you describe the objectives of the needed research?

Is there anything that the Caucus could reasonably do to contribute to making the needed research happen?

Greetings,
Norbert


Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Excellent to raise these issues, Norbert, but I think it is 
> inappropriate to cast these matters as "fears and concerns"... they 
> are (potentially) statements of fact and the issue is how/when/who 
> will effectively undertake the research needed to establish some of 
> this.  (It seems like a useful undertaking for UNCTAD with its renewed 
> research mandate for example.)
> 
> The problem in doing the research is that so many of the categories 
> and assumptions of conventional research in this area are immensely 
> value laden (take a look at how GNP is calculated sometime for
> example) but if one starts one's research from an attempt to determine 
> who is benefiting from ICT induced/enabled social and economic change 
> (and who is not) and with the overall goal of finding policy 
> mechanisms to help to ensure some degree of equity in longer term 
> outcomes of these changes then we will be some considerable way along 
> the path of understanding.
> 
> As I was trying to say in my comments to the WSIS +10 Review, I think 
> that this is perhaps the most important area to be discussed in the 
> WSIS +10 meeting itself (and to direct the research leading up to that 
> meeting...
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert 
> Bollow Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 6:28 AM To:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Report on WCIT 
> // Suggested Next Steps
> 
> Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > thank you for the reminder and I had completely escaped yet it is a 
> > very important report that I must use for exchanges at the local 
> > level. Again, thank you for this reminder. the report is downloaded 
> > and will be sharing all away.
> > > The report can be downloaded from:
> > > http://www.slideshare.net/ocl999/what-happened-at-wcit-in-december
> > > -2
> > > 012
> 
> Here's one significant point that I think would be worthwhile to
> discuss:
> 
> Page 24 contains this observation:
> 
>   It is generally believed by many countries from the “South” that the
>   Internet is actually run and controlled by the United States and its
>   allies – and that the network is used as a spearhead to weaken their
>   own economies by bringing enormous social and political change at a
>   pace that is disruptive, with no ability for those affected to
>   control this. It is felt that the Internet is governed by the 
> world’s strongest economies and multi-nationals for their own 
> purposes. These are real concerns, not only by the government 
> delegates present at WCIT, but felt by the average citizen in many of 
> these countries.
> 
> Which parts of these observed fears and concerns are real unsolved 
> problems, and which parts are just fruits of rhetorical dramatizations 
> and fears that would go away if the concerned people would simply 
> inform themselves reasonably well?
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> P.S. [Note with coordinator's hat:] Just as a quick reminder: Attacks 
> against a person's ability to effectively participate in the 
> discussions on this list, and to be taken seriously in such 
> discussions, are not allowed. For details see our charter 
> http://igcaucus.org/charter .
> 
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr  2 11:56:33 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 21:26:33 +0530
Subject: [governance] Report on WCIT // Suggested Next Steps
In-Reply-To: <0dac01ce2fb9$9c4d2600$d4e77200$@gmail.com>
References: <51587463.10300@gih.com> <CAHj_20iwZV18Q1EVCmpxVgS2XpKzM0rE7jLVAj=R35Z4sNAf5g@mail.gmail.com> <20130402152753.32647772@quill.bollow.ch> <0d7801ce2fb2$0ea4d250$2bee76f0$@gmail.com> <20130402170619.509515b8@quill.bollow.ch> <0dac01ce2fb9$9c4d2600$d4e77200$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75FF6A75-C1C7-4B3F-ACA0-4B9FE419F36D@hserus.net>

I will agree that this is a significant topic for the caucus to work on, but would propose that we be very clear on its scope.

The caucus might additionally suggest concrete steps on how they think ICT enabled growth can be facilitated in their various countries, and then once key issues in each country are identified, try to match existing / available skills and resources to areas where they are most needed.

--srs (iPad)

On 02-Apr-2013, at 21:18, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Norbert,
> 
> Since I've just now been thinking about these issues within an OECD frame, the best simple set of objectives might be those articulated in the OECD Secretary-General’s Strategic Orientations "Ensuring that (ICT enabled) growth is socially responsible and for the benefit of all" (I'm sure that within the WSIS documents there are similar such phrases...
> 
> And the Caucus could I think, contribute to this research by agreeing on a statement that proposed that issues arising from these objectives (as for example the question of the impact of Internet based development on economic and social equality/inequality both intra-nationally and globally) would become a guiding theme for the WSIS +10 Summit and that resources within the UN system be directed to undertaking research in this regard (as for example through UNCTAD) in preparation for this meeting.
> 
> M 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 8:06 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
> Subject: Re: [governance] Report on WCIT // Suggested Next Steps
> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> How would you describe the objectives of the needed research?
> 
> Is there anything that the Caucus could reasonably do to contribute to making the needed research happen?
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> 
> Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Excellent to raise these issues, Norbert, but I think it is 
>> inappropriate to cast these matters as "fears and concerns"... they 
>> are (potentially) statements of fact and the issue is how/when/who 
>> will effectively undertake the research needed to establish some of 
>> this.  (It seems like a useful undertaking for UNCTAD with its renewed 
>> research mandate for example.)
>> 
>> The problem in doing the research is that so many of the categories 
>> and assumptions of conventional research in this area are immensely 
>> value laden (take a look at how GNP is calculated sometime for
>> example) but if one starts one's research from an attempt to determine 
>> who is benefiting from ICT induced/enabled social and economic change 
>> (and who is not) and with the overall goal of finding policy 
>> mechanisms to help to ensure some degree of equity in longer term 
>> outcomes of these changes then we will be some considerable way along 
>> the path of understanding.
>> 
>> As I was trying to say in my comments to the WSIS +10 Review, I think 
>> that this is perhaps the most important area to be discussed in the 
>> WSIS +10 meeting itself (and to direct the research leading up to that 
>> meeting...
>> 
>> M
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert 
>> Bollow Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 6:28 AM To:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Report on WCIT 
>> // Suggested Next Steps
>> 
>> Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> thank you for the reminder and I had completely escaped yet it is a 
>>> very important report that I must use for exchanges at the local 
>>> level. Again, thank you for this reminder. the report is downloaded 
>>> and will be sharing all away.
>>>> The report can be downloaded from:
>>>> http://www.slideshare.net/ocl999/what-happened-at-wcit-in-december
>>>> -2
>>>> 012
>> 
>> Here's one significant point that I think would be worthwhile to
>> discuss:
>> 
>> Page 24 contains this observation:
>> 
>>  It is generally believed by many countries from the “South” that the
>>  Internet is actually run and controlled by the United States and its
>>  allies – and that the network is used as a spearhead to weaken their
>>  own economies by bringing enormous social and political change at a
>>  pace that is disruptive, with no ability for those affected to
>>  control this. It is felt that the Internet is governed by the 
>> world’s strongest economies and multi-nationals for their own 
>> purposes. These are real concerns, not only by the government 
>> delegates present at WCIT, but felt by the average citizen in many of 
>> these countries.
>> 
>> Which parts of these observed fears and concerns are real unsolved 
>> problems, and which parts are just fruits of rhetorical dramatizations 
>> and fears that would go away if the concerned people would simply 
>> inform themselves reasonably well?
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>> 
>> P.S. [Note with coordinator's hat:] Just as a quick reminder: Attacks 
>> against a person's ability to effectively participate in the 
>> discussions on this list, and to be taken seriously in such 
>> discussions, are not allowed. For details see our charter 
>> http://igcaucus.org/charter .
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Apr  2 12:08:05 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:08:05 -0700
Subject: [governance] Report on WCIT // Suggested Next Steps
In-Reply-To: <E71E374F-94D1-4704-96A9-015F057A5132@hserus.net>
References: <51587463.10300@gih.com> <CAHj_20iwZV18Q1EVCmpxVgS2XpKzM0rE7jLVAj=R35Z4sNAf5g@mail.gmail.com> <20130402152753.32647772@quill.bollow.ch> <CDF15AFB-8B0F-4AA0-8ADC-B83CF8F4342C@hserus.net> <0d7901ce2fb5$fca83070$f5f89150$@gmail.com> <E71E374F-94D1-4704-96A9-015F057A5132@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <0de101ce2fbc$490514f0$db0f3ed0$@gmail.com>

Suresh,

This is a typical trick being used for example in the current attempts to
discredit expert knowledge/research in the climate change discussions.
Informed interventions are countered by ill-informed (often "greenwashed")
assertions and the media for example, ill-advisedly looks for a happy medium
"between the extremes".

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 8:29 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] Report on WCIT // Suggested Next Steps

Ah - that is just meeting an extreme point with a counterpoint from the
opposite extreme

The two of us (and possibly the more vocal advocates of 'the south' on this
caucus) are probably entirely the wrong people to draft a neutral and
unbiased position.

--srs (iPad)

On 02-Apr-2013, at 20:52, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Again, these are potentially empirical questions cast within an 
> ideological frame...
> 
> Well worth researching, but by parties rather more neutral than for 
> example, the proponents/beneficiaries of the policy positions implied 
> by your stream of argument).
> 
> FWIW I have had the opportunity to participate in some "expert" 
> discussions on related matters within the OECD and I've discussed some 
> of the limitations built into conventional approaches in much of the 
> research being produced in this area...
> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/measuring-the-unmeasurable-in
> ternet
> -and-why-it-matters/
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh 
> Ramasubramanian
> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 7:17 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Report on WCIT // Suggested Next Steps
> 
> On 02-Apr-2013, at 18:57, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> 
>> Which parts of these observed fears and concerns are real unsolved 
>> problems, and which parts are just fruits of rhetorical 
>> dramatizations and fears that would go away if the concerned people 
>> would simply inform themselves reasonably well?
>> 
> 
> The additional questions are bound to be - which of these observed 
> fears and concerns actually have other, entirely different, causes 
> including but not limited to -
> 
> 1. A closed / government monopoly economy, including expensive and 
> controlled internet and telecom access [the control might even exist 
> for political or censorship reasons in a relatively more open economy]
> 
> 2. A flight of capital, in particular intellectual capital, to other 
> countries, due to the lack of an enabling environment for business in 
> the country itself [such as just how many Indians and Chinese work for 
> Google and Facebook rather than setting up startups in India and 
> China]
> 
> 3. Other localized micro / macro economic factors, as well as enabling 
> factors including education, electricity, a stable and democratic 
> government ..
> 
> 4. How much of this "belief" is caused and fuelled by the people 
> believing this opposing "the north" and in particular the USA on 
> ideological or political grounds, to the extent that any news at all 
> in this area is interpreted with an ideological slant and selectively 
> skewed to fit whichever ideology the individual concerned holds to, using
the classic
> tools that a propagandist has at his or her disposal?   
> 
> The perpetrators of this last are not by and large not likely to 
> modify their behavior by "informing themselves well", though people 
> who they may influence could certainly benefit from alternate sources 
> of information and discourse.  I am aware that political and personal 
> beliefs will definitely influence thoughts and behavior but this goes 
> rather beyond that.  And an axiom of propaganda is that repeating 
> something patently false often enough, and unopposed, tends to lend even a
blatant canard a veneer of truth.
> 
> I welcome the thoughts of this caucus.
> 
> --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  Tue Apr  2 12:13:21 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 21:43:21 +0530
Subject: [governance] Report on WCIT // Suggested Next Steps
In-Reply-To: <0de101ce2fbc$490514f0$db0f3ed0$@gmail.com>
References: <51587463.10300@gih.com> <CAHj_20iwZV18Q1EVCmpxVgS2XpKzM0rE7jLVAj=R35Z4sNAf5g@mail.gmail.com> <20130402152753.32647772@quill.bollow.ch> <CDF15AFB-8B0F-4AA0-8ADC-B83CF8F4342C@hserus.net> <0d7901ce2fb5$fca83070$f5f89150$@gmail.com> <E71E374F-94D1-4704-96A9-015F057A5132@hserus.net> <0de101ce2fbc$490514f0$db0f3ed0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D1CCE040-E1B8-4117-988E-DBCCC87AF255@hserus.net>

Well yes, now that you mention it, I see it - and other adversarial debating tactics - being used all the time on this caucus.  More's the pity.

A happy medium between the extremes tends to be very useful in building bridges - except where there's a noticeable resistance to seeing such a bridge come into place, or maybe hack down any existing bridges (such as trying to crowd out and marginalize, or question the credentials of, the technical and academic community, in a recent incident).

Thank you so very much for raising this.

--srs (iPad)

On 02-Apr-2013, at 21:38, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Suresh,
> 
> This is a typical trick being used for example in the current attempts to
> discredit expert knowledge/research in the climate change discussions.
> Informed interventions are countered by ill-informed (often "greenwashed")
> assertions and the media for example, ill-advisedly looks for a happy medium
> "between the extremes".
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 8:29 AM
> To: michael gurstein
> Cc: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Report on WCIT // Suggested Next Steps
> 
> Ah - that is just meeting an extreme point with a counterpoint from the
> opposite extreme
> 
> The two of us (and possibly the more vocal advocates of 'the south' on this
> caucus) are probably entirely the wrong people to draft a neutral and
> unbiased position.
> 
> --srs (iPad)
> 
> On 02-Apr-2013, at 20:52, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Again, these are potentially empirical questions cast within an 
>> ideological frame...
>> 
>> Well worth researching, but by parties rather more neutral than for 
>> example, the proponents/beneficiaries of the policy positions implied 
>> by your stream of argument).
>> 
>> FWIW I have had the opportunity to participate in some "expert" 
>> discussions on related matters within the OECD and I've discussed some 
>> of the limitations built into conventional approaches in much of the 
>> research being produced in this area...
>> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/measuring-the-unmeasurable-in
>> ternet
>> -and-why-it-matters/
>> 
>> M
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh 
>> Ramasubramanian
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 7:17 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow
>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Report on WCIT // Suggested Next Steps
>> 
>> On 02-Apr-2013, at 18:57, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> 
>>> Which parts of these observed fears and concerns are real unsolved 
>>> problems, and which parts are just fruits of rhetorical 
>>> dramatizations and fears that would go away if the concerned people 
>>> would simply inform themselves reasonably well?
>> 
>> The additional questions are bound to be - which of these observed 
>> fears and concerns actually have other, entirely different, causes 
>> including but not limited to -
>> 
>> 1. A closed / government monopoly economy, including expensive and 
>> controlled internet and telecom access [the control might even exist 
>> for political or censorship reasons in a relatively more open economy]
>> 
>> 2. A flight of capital, in particular intellectual capital, to other 
>> countries, due to the lack of an enabling environment for business in 
>> the country itself [such as just how many Indians and Chinese work for 
>> Google and Facebook rather than setting up startups in India and 
>> China]
>> 
>> 3. Other localized micro / macro economic factors, as well as enabling 
>> factors including education, electricity, a stable and democratic 
>> government ..
>> 
>> 4. How much of this "belief" is caused and fuelled by the people 
>> believing this opposing "the north" and in particular the USA on 
>> ideological or political grounds, to the extent that any news at all 
>> in this area is interpreted with an ideological slant and selectively 
>> skewed to fit whichever ideology the individual concerned holds to, using
> the classic
>> tools that a propagandist has at his or her disposal?   
>> 
>> The perpetrators of this last are not by and large not likely to 
>> modify their behavior by "informing themselves well", though people 
>> who they may influence could certainly benefit from alternate sources 
>> of information and discourse.  I am aware that political and personal 
>> beliefs will definitely influence thoughts and behavior but this goes 
>> rather beyond that.  And an axiom of propaganda is that repeating 
>> something patently false often enough, and unopposed, tends to lend even a
> blatant canard a veneer of truth.
>> 
>> I welcome the thoughts of this caucus.
>> 
>> --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 jefsey at jefsey.com  Tue Apr  2 17:43:27 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 23:43:27 +0200
Subject: [governance] Report on WCIT // Suggested Next Steps
In-Reply-To: <515A131D.80907@gih.com>
References: <51587463.10300@gih.com>
 <515A131D.80907@gih.com>
Message-ID: <E1UN8x7-0008NB-Kw@igcaucus.org>

At 01:07 02/04/2013, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>Hello all,
>a number of people have asked for a URL to download the paper without
>having to register.
>This should work:
>
>https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BymSF9LysHAKbDNySHVkeTd0d0U/edit?usp=sharing
>Kind regards,
>Olivier

Dear Olivier,
when working on an important document, I use to format it for a 
mediawiki, so one may embed notes/links in it. Is your document in CC 
or protected?
Thank you. And thank you for making available such a professionnal 
and useful report.
jfc



>On 31/03/2013 19:37, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I have recently shared my report about the December 2012 Dubai "World
> > Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT)" with colleagues
> > in ICANN's At-Large community.
> >
> > This report is divided into two parts:
> >
> > 1. What happened at WCIT
> > 2. Suggested next steps for ICANN/At-Large
> >
> > Although this report contains my personal interpretation of the events
> > that took place, I also make recommendations for the actors of the
> > multi-stakeholder model to address in the near future.
> >
> > The report can be downloaded from:
> > http://www.slideshare.net/ocl999/what-happened-at-wcit-in-december-2012
> >
> > Happy reading,
> >
> > Olivier
> >


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mueller at syr.edu  Tue Apr  2 17:51:52 2013
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 21:51:52 +0000
Subject: [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] Ex-White House Official Joins Group
 Fighting "Excessive" Online Privacy Laws
In-Reply-To: <093d01ce2f02$50eafaa0$f2c0efe0$@gmail.com>
References: <093d01ce2f02$50eafaa0$f2c0efe0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A230F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> 
> And what better way to ensure regulatory capture at the global level
> than to ensure that there are no global regulatory frameworks or
> mechanisms that will ultimately need to be captured?

[Milton L Mueller]  Um. Either I don't understand what you are saying or you don't quite understand the concept of regulatory capture. We can have a coherent debate on "we need global regulation" vs. "we don't need it", and we can have a coherent debate about whether regulatory agency X has or has not been captured, but I would submit that the assertion above is literally meaningless.



-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr  2 18:25:43 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:25:43 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] Ex-White House Official Joins
 Group Fighting "Excessive" Online Privacy Laws
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A230F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <093d01ce2f02$50eafaa0$f2c0efe0$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A230F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <0ffc01ce2ff1$0c8994d0$259cbe70$@gmail.com>

You are right, a wee bit too cryptic...

To rephrase "And what better way (for those who are benefiting from the
current status quo and its absence of regulation) than to ensure that there
are no global regulatory frameworks or mechanisms that will ultimately need
to be captured" (shall we call it the "prophylactic strategy")?

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 2:52 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; IRP
Subject: [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] Ex-White House Official Joins Group
Fighting "Excessive" Online Privacy Laws


> -----Original Message-----
> 
> And what better way to ensure regulatory capture at the global level 
> than to ensure that there are no global regulatory frameworks or 
> mechanisms that will ultimately need to be captured?

[Milton L Mueller]  Um. Either I don't understand what you are saying or you
don't quite understand the concept of regulatory capture. We can have a
coherent debate on "we need global regulation" vs. "we don't need it", and
we can have a coherent debate about whether regulatory agency X has or has
not been captured, but I would submit that the assertion above is literally
meaningless.





-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr  2 18:31:20 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 18:31:20 -0400
Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] RE: Ex-White House Official Joins
 Group Fighting "Excessive" Online Privacy Laws
In-Reply-To: <0ffc01ce2ff1$0c8994d0$259cbe70$@gmail.com>
References: <093d01ce2f02$50eafaa0$f2c0efe0$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A230F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
 <0ffc01ce2ff1$0c8994d0$259cbe70$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxjy1b=ko1LHhXixtvPzfxMfDSoXR-Wp0kB3eYXkL1F+vw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 6:25 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> You are right, a wee bit too cryptic...
>
> To rephrase "And what better way (for those who are benefiting from the
> current status quo and its absence of regulation)


If you think there is an " absence of regulation", then I don't think
you've been paying attention!


-- 
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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com  Wed Apr  3 04:15:52 2013
From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (riaz.tayob at gmail.com)
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 11:15:52 +0300
Subject: [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] Ex-White House Official Joins
 Group Fighting "Excessive" Online Privacy Laws
In-Reply-To: <0ffc01ce2ff1$0c8994d0$259cbe70$@gmail.com>
References: <093d01ce2f02$50eafaa0$f2c0efe0$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A230F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0ffc01ce2ff1$0c8994d0$259cbe70$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C3DD5527-BF96-4477-969D-26623644FD4D@gmail.com>

Under neoliberal globalization, as opposed to pragmatic Keynesianism practiced by the rich countries pre  Reagan and thatcher, deregulation, or minimal regulation, has been shown in a number of sectors to favour the powerful, dominant, monopolistic or oligopolistic players in the field. 

As we see from the self imposed mess of the financial crises in the rich countries, of which revolving doors and regulatory capture and criminal immunity are key features, fragmentation of governance), complexity (regulators could not understand the complex products they were selling, not even the CEOs knew what they were in fact) and direct participation of foxes guarding the hen houses were key elements of the strategy to ensure big finance made a buck, the public interest be damned (quite literally). 

There is a need for cooperation, however codified, but it very much depends on how the issue is framed. But with clear advantages to some players in the current arrangements I would be much inclined to hear from the likes of Curran about his ideas of representation and framing as there is some values convergence, as opposed to views that are valid but IMHO mere defenders of the status quo who often are laggard when it comes even to the dynamism that icann shows. 

So MG, do not be dissuaded by calls to precision as the gist of what you say is in the right direction. After all, at some point we must simply agree to disagree, and deepen the analysis. 

...,...

On 03 Apr 2013, at 1:25 AM, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> You are right, a wee bit too cryptic...
> 
> To rephrase "And what better way (for those who are benefiting from the
> current status quo and its absence of regulation) than to ensure that there
> are no global regulatory frameworks or mechanisms that will ultimately need
> to be captured" (shall we call it the "prophylactic strategy")?
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 2:52 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; IRP
> Subject: [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] Ex-White House Official Joins Group
> Fighting "Excessive" Online Privacy Laws
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> 
>> And what better way to ensure regulatory capture at the global level 
>> than to ensure that there are no global regulatory frameworks or 
>> mechanisms that will ultimately need to be captured?
> 
> [Milton L Mueller]  Um. Either I don't understand what you are saying or you
> don't quite understand the concept of regulatory capture. We can have a
> coherent debate on "we need global regulation" vs. "we don't need it", and
> we can have a coherent debate about whether regulatory agency X has or has
> not been captured, but I would submit that the assertion above is literally
> meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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 Apr  3 04:18:37 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 13:48:37 +0530
Subject: [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] Ex-White House Official Joins
 Group Fighting "Excessive" Online Privacy Laws
In-Reply-To: <C3DD5527-BF96-4477-969D-26623644FD4D@gmail.com>
References: <093d01ce2f02$50eafaa0$f2c0efe0$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A230F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0ffc01ce2ff1$0c8994d0$259cbe70$@gmail.com> <C3DD5527-BF96-4477-969D-26623644FD4D@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3DCF21D0-75E7-4EF2-B8A2-51DD4F1360EA@hserus.net>

Why is this restricted to "the north", to "neoliberals", or to reaganomics?  

Crony capitalism, regulatory capture (or at a more benign level, a quest to leverage to the hilt whatever loopholes the law may offer) etc are trends present worldwide, and perhaps even more so in some countries of the south that have regimes that are more amenable to a discreet transfer of cash to a swiss account, replacing the cliched old briefcase full of currency notes.

--srs (iPad)

On 03-Apr-2013, at 13:45, riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote:

> Under neoliberal globalization, as opposed to pragmatic Keynesianism practiced by the rich countries pre  Reagan and thatcher, deregulation, or minimal regulation, has been shown in a number of sectors to favour the powerful, dominant, monopolistic or oligopolistic players in the field. 
> 
> As we see from the self imposed mess of the financial crises in the rich countries, of which revolving doors and regulatory capture and criminal immunity are key features, fragmentation of governance), complexity (regulators could not understand the complex products they were selling, not even the CEOs knew what they were in fact) and direct participation of foxes guarding the hen houses were key elements of the strategy to ensure big finance made a buck, the public interest be damned (quite literally). 
> 
> There is a need for cooperation, however codified, but it very much depends on how the issue is framed. But with clear advantages to some players in the current arrangements I would be much inclined to hear from the likes of Curran about his ideas of representation and framing as there is some values convergence, as opposed to views that are valid but IMHO mere defenders of the status quo who often are laggard when it comes even to the dynamism that icann shows. 
> 
> So MG, do not be dissuaded by calls to precision as the gist of what you say is in the right direction. After all, at some point we must simply agree to disagree, and deepen the analysis. 
> 
> ...,...
> 
> On 03 Apr 2013, at 1:25 AM, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> You are right, a wee bit too cryptic...
>> 
>> To rephrase "And what better way (for those who are benefiting from the
>> current status quo and its absence of regulation) than to ensure that there
>> are no global regulatory frameworks or mechanisms that will ultimately need
>> to be captured" (shall we call it the "prophylactic strategy")?
>> 
>> M
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 2:52 PM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; IRP
>> Subject: [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] Ex-White House Official Joins Group
>> Fighting "Excessive" Online Privacy Laws
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> 
>>> And what better way to ensure regulatory capture at the global level 
>>> than to ensure that there are no global regulatory frameworks or 
>>> mechanisms that will ultimately need to be captured?
>> 
>> [Milton L Mueller]  Um. Either I don't understand what you are saying or you
>> don't quite understand the concept of regulatory capture. We can have a
>> coherent debate on "we need global regulation" vs. "we don't need it", and
>> we can have a coherent debate about whether regulatory agency X has or has
>> not been captured, but I would submit that the assertion above is literally
>> meaningless.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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 Apr  3 09:44:24 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:44:24 +0800
Subject: [governance] Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on
 Enhanced Cooperation
In-Reply-To: <5159B261.9020303@itforchange.net>
References: <OFC2788E76.650E99EE-ONC1257B36.0067C43C-C1257B36.0078DE95@unog.un.org> <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <CACAaNxgnmodePEjSx5eqdheDffBwzWd28wiCzeDPQsAzsEYbxw@mail.gmail.com> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxjU-zgSTWcMCrxiZugmX5wmRL2GMV0-+0CEf11DQFbXPA@mail.gmail.com> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net> <CACAaNxh0pXeh1Fy8S8cnJgV_rzOhyz9ZnbmtRX+4BszAB3+Jng@mail.gmail.com> <22C2D51B-662B-4929-930B-3C84FE853E5F@hserus.net> <3FE058A9-8921-41BA-B10F-8348235CE4F9@acm.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD239FD9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <51599BC6.6090603@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxiEVUsaMUuRR0qUwwQwaD8yQOpXAT-h6rfRdcdbXj1H_Q@mail.gmail.com> <5159B261.9020303@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <A7B74C71-AE66-4A8E-A0EF-6F817B1154C0@ciroap.org>

On 31/03/2013, at 17:35 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:

> +1
> 
> On 29 Mar 2013 13:57, "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> 
> > Because the technical community keeps acting against the broader public
> > interest
> 
> Public interest as you see it, but it seems they have of course been
> responsible for ALL of the evolution of the highly inclusive IG
> systems over many decades.  These systems have created the most
> successful, open and inclusive communications platform in history.

The network at my office was put together by a local firm called Abadi IT.  They did a great job, I really can't fault them on it.  It was more than just plugging cables together, they did some custom development for us too (using free open source software, which I insist on).  We rely on them heavily to manage the technical aspects of our connection.  And they're nice people.  Their head engineer, Firdaus, invited me to his wedding last year.

But we have cause to be worried about the governance of this network.  In the lead-up to the general election (Parliament was dissolved today in fact), here have been veiled threats against NGOs, especially on their use of online communications.  Threats have been made to invoke laws against those who "spread false information" through blogs.  Just last week, a new independent online radio station, Free Malaysia Radio, was subject to a DDOS attack.  Pro-opposition websites have also been targetted.  Bugs have been planted, and websites hacked.  Earlier this year Malaysia's most respected human rights NGO, Suaram, was targetted in a series of government attacks on both their physical and online infrastructure.

Firdaus insists that he can manage such threats to our network through his "highly inclusive systems", which appear to be an online bulletin board and a monthly meeting of the local technical community that takes place in the back room of a restaurant ("in which anyone can participate", he assures us).

Nonetheless, we take to thinking that the time has come for us to look beyond Firdaus and his colleagues.  The issues and forces involved are now much bigger than they can handle.  Maybe we need to get together with some other NGOs to create a broader public interest platform through which we can challenge the government to uphold our rights online.  We might involve human rights NGOs like Suaram, maybe the Centre for Independent Journalism, invite the police and other government ministries to join us in dialogue, along with representatives of the opposition parties.  We would invite representatives of Internet providers too.  And of course, we would invite Firdaus due to his technical expertise.

But Firdaus might get a little jealous of this sudden demotion, from the person who built our network from scratch, to somebody who now is just one stakeholder involved in its ongoing management.  He might feel such umbrage at this that he gets together with some mates from the registry that handles our domain and some engineers at our ISP, to block the formation of our nascent platform, claiming that "the network we built for you was the most successful, open and inclusive that you ever had".  If the platform is formed nonetheless, he might ensure that he is appointed to chair its meetings, would stack those meetings with his friends, and ensure that no resolutions are made other than those that support their own technical work.

Thankfully, Firdaus wouldn't do this.  He realises that just because he built the network doesn't make him any special claim of authority or expertise over every aspect of its governance.  But then again, Firdaus isn't isn't a Director of ISOC.

-- 
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

WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013

@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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130403/ee3fcb3f/attachment.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 suresh at hserus.net  Wed Apr  3 10:01:38 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 19:31:38 +0530
Subject: [governance] Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on
 Enhanced Cooperation
In-Reply-To: <A7B74C71-AE66-4A8E-A0EF-6F817B1154C0@ciroap.org>
References: <OFC2788E76.650E99EE-ONC1257B36.0067C43C-C1257B36.0078DE95@unog.un.org>
 <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org>
 <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net>
 <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net>
 <CACAaNxgnmodePEjSx5eqdheDffBwzWd28wiCzeDPQsAzsEYbxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net>
 <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net>
 <CACAaNxjU-zgSTWcMCrxiZugmX5wmRL2GMV0-+0CEf11DQFbXPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net>
 <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net>
 <CACAaNxh0pXeh1Fy8S8cnJgV_rzOhyz9ZnbmtRX+4BszAB3+Jng@mail.gmail.com>
 <22C2D51B-662B-4929-930B-3C84FE853E5F@hserus.net>
 <3FE058A9-8921-41BA-B10F-8348235CE4F9@acm.org>
 <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD239FD9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
 <51599BC6.6090603@itforchange.net>
 <CACAaNxiEVUsaMUuRR0qUwwQwaD8yQOpXAT-h6rfRdcdbXj1H_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5159B261.9020303@itforchange.net>
 <A7B74C71-AE66-4A8E-A0EF-6F817B1154C0@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <13dd0331f61.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

That is as wild a leap in inductive reasoning as it has been my dubious 
privilege to see on this list.

And an over estimation of what civil society is capable of in this area.

--srs (htc one x)



On 3 April 2013 7:14:24 PM Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> On 31/03/2013, at 17:35 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On 29 Mar 2013 13:57, "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Because the technical community keeps acting against the broader public
> > > interest
> >
> > Public interest as you see it, but it seems they have of course been
> > responsible for ALL of the evolution of the highly inclusive IG
> > systems over many decades.  These systems have created the most
> > successful, open and inclusive communications platform in history.
>
> The network at my office was put together by a local firm called Abadi 
> IT.  They did a great job, I really can't fault them on it.  It was 
> more than just plugging cables together, they did some custom 
> development for us too (using free open source software, which I insist 
> on).  We rely on them heavily to manage the technical aspects of our 
> connection.  And they're nice people.  Their head engineer, Firdaus, 
> invited me to his wedding last year.
>
> But we have cause to be worried about the governance of this network.  
> In the lead-up to the general election (Parliament was dissolved today 
> in fact), here have been veiled threats against NGOs, especially on 
> their use of online communications.  Threats have been made to invoke 
> laws against those who "spread false information" through blogs.  Just 
> last week, a new independent online radio station, Free Malaysia Radio, 
> was subject to a DDOS attack.  Pro-opposition websites have also been 
> targetted.  Bugs have been planted, and websites hacked.  Earlier this 
> year Malaysia's most respected human rights NGO, Suaram, was targetted 
> in a series of government attacks on both their physical and online 
> infrastructure.
>
> Firdaus insists that he can manage such threats to our network through 
> his "highly inclusive systems", which appear to be an online bulletin 
> board and a monthly meeting of the local technical community that takes 
> place in the back room of a restaurant ("in which anyone can 
> participate", he assures us).
>
> Nonetheless, we take to thinking that the time has come for us to look 
> beyond Firdaus and his colleagues.  The issues and forces involved are 
> now much bigger than they can handle.  Maybe we need to get together 
> with some other NGOs to create a broader public interest platform 
> through which we can challenge the government to uphold our rights 
> online.  We might involve human rights NGOs like Suaram, maybe the 
> Centre for Independent Journalism, invite the police and other 
> government ministries to join us in dialogue, along with 
> representatives of the opposition parties.  We would invite 
> representatives of Internet providers too.  And of course, we would 
> invite Firdaus due to his technical expertise.
>
> But Firdaus might get a little jealous of this sudden demotion, from 
> the person who built our network from scratch, to somebody who now is 
> just one stakeholder involved in its ongoing management.  He might feel 
> such umbrage at this that he gets together with some mates from the 
> registry that handles our domain and some engineers at our ISP, to 
> block the formation of our nascent platform, claiming that "the network 
> we built for you was the most successful, open and inclusive that you 
> ever had".  If the platform is formed nonetheless, he might ensure that 
> he is appointed to chair its meetings, would stack those meetings with 
> his friends, and ensure that no resolutions are made other than those 
> that support their own technical work.
>
> Thankfully, Firdaus wouldn't do this.  He realises that just because he 
> built the network doesn't make him any special claim of authority or 
> expertise over every aspect of its governance.  But then again, Firdaus 
> isn't isn't a Director of ISOC.
>
> --
> 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
>
> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: 
> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013
>
> @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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130403/1acb8f7f/attachment.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 David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu  Wed Apr  3 10:54:49 2013
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 10:54:49 -0400
Subject: [governance] Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on
 Enhanced Cooperation
In-Reply-To: <13dd0331f61.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
References: <OFC2788E76.650E99EE-ONC1257B36.0067C43C-C1257B36.0078DE95@unog.un.org> <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <CACAaNxgnmodePEjSx5eqdheDffBwzWd28wiCzeDPQsAzsEYbxw@mail.gmail.com> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxjU-zgSTWcMCrxiZugmX5wmRL2GMV0-+0CEf11DQFbXPA@mail.gmail.com> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net> <CACAaNxh0pXeh1Fy8S8cnJgV_rzOhyz9ZnbmtRX+4BszAB3+Jng@mail.gmail.com> <22C2D51B-662B-4929-930B-3C84FE853E5F@hserus.net> <3FE058A9-8921-41BA-B10F-8348235CE4F9@acm.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD239FD9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <51599BC6.6090603@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxiEVUsaMUuRR0qUwwQwaD8yQOpXAT-h6rfRdcdbXj1H_Q@mail.gmail.com> <5159B261.9020303@itforchange.net> <A7B74C71-AE66-4A8E-A0EF-6F817B1154C0@ciroap.org> <13dd0331f61.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <34C0C91E-3E80-4F54-8A5C-C77B010910B7@post.harvard.edu>

Many will find this a delightful 'leap of inductive reasoning' - just  
the sort of advance we may expect of a most thoughtful contributor  
hereon.

Notably, the ability to step back from an immediate situation, and  
frame it a bit more neutrally, is one of the tools for insight.   
Taking ourselves out of the immediate, so that we may see a bit more  
clearly.  Then the frame and its elements may come a bit more into  
view.  And hence more available for discourse.

Whatever direction one's analysis may go, from there.

(Nor is slighting, with 'dubious,' conducive to exchange.  Facts, and  
analysis, carry matters forward.  Not slights.)

David


On Apr 3, 2013, at 10:01 AM:

> That is as wild a leap in inductive reasoning as it has been my  
> dubious privilege to see on this list.
>
> And an over estimation of what civil society is capable of in this  
> area.
>
>
>
> On 3 April 2013 7:14:24 PM Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
>> On 31/03/2013, at 17:35 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart  
>> <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On 29 Mar 2013 13:57, "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Jeremy Malcolm  
>>> <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Because the technical community keeps acting against the broader  
>>> public
>>> > interest
>>>
>>> Public interest as you see it, but it seems they have of course been
>>> responsible for ALL of the evolution of the highly inclusive IG
>>> systems over many decades.  These systems have created the most
>>> successful, open and inclusive communications platform in history.
>>
>> The network at my office was put together by a local firm called  
>> Abadi IT.  They did a great job, I really can't fault them on it.   
>> It was more than just plugging cables together, they did some  
>> custom development for us too (using free open source software,  
>> which I insist on).  We rely on them heavily to manage the  
>> technical aspects of our connection.  And they're nice people.   
>> Their head engineer, Firdaus, invited me to his wedding last year.
>>
>> But we have cause to be worried about the governance of this  
>> network.  In the lead-up to the general election (Parliament was  
>> dissolved today in fact), here have been veiled threats against  
>> NGOs, especially on their use of online communications.  Threats  
>> have been made to invoke laws against those who "spread false  
>> information" through blogs.  Just last week, a new independent  
>> online radio station, Free Malaysia Radio, was subject to a DDOS  
>> attack.  Pro-opposition websites have also been targetted.  Bugs  
>> have been planted, and websites hacked.  Earlier this year  
>> Malaysia's most respected human rights NGO, Suaram, was targetted  
>> in a series of government attacks on both their physical and online  
>> infrastructure.
>>
>> Firdaus insists that he can manage such threats to our network  
>> through his "highly inclusive systems", which appear to be an  
>> online bulletin board and a monthly meeting of the local technical  
>> community that takes place in the back room of a restaurant ("in  
>> which anyone can participate", he assures us).
>>
>> Nonetheless, we take to thinking that the time has come for us to  
>> look beyond Firdaus and his colleagues.  The issues and forces  
>> involved are now much bigger than they can handle.  Maybe we need  
>> to get together with some other NGOs to create a broader public  
>> interest platform through which we can challenge the government to  
>> uphold our rights online.  We might involve human rights NGOs like  
>> Suaram, maybe the Centre for Independent Journalism, invite the  
>> police and other government ministries to join us in dialogue,  
>> along with representatives of the opposition parties.  We would  
>> invite representatives of Internet providers too.  And of course,  
>> we would invite Firdaus due to his technical expertise.
>>
>> But Firdaus might get a little jealous of this sudden demotion,  
>> from the person who built our network from scratch, to somebody who  
>> now is just one stakeholder involved in its ongoing management.  He  
>> might feel such umbrage at this that he gets together with some  
>> mates from the registry that handles our domain and some engineers  
>> at our ISP, to block the formation of our nascent platform,  
>> claiming that "the network we built for you was the most  
>> successful, open and inclusive that you ever had".  If the platform  
>> is formed nonetheless, he might ensure that he is appointed to  
>> chair its meetings, would stack those meetings with his friends,  
>> and ensure that no resolutions are made other than those that  
>> support their own technical work.
>>
>> Thankfully, Firdaus wouldn't do this.  He realises that just  
>> because he built the network doesn't make him any special claim of  
>> authority or expertise over every aspect of its governance.  But  
>> then again, Firdaus isn't isn't a Director of ISOC.
>>
>> -- 
>> 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
>>
>>
>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main 
>>  | #wcrd2013
>>
>>
>> @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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130403/23a4dc8f/attachment.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 suresh at hserus.net  Wed Apr  3 11:31:25 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 21:01:25 +0530
Subject: [governance] Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on
 Enhanced Cooperation
In-Reply-To: <34C0C91E-3E80-4F54-8A5C-C77B010910B7@post.harvard.edu>
References: <OFC2788E76.650E99EE-ONC1257B36.0067C43C-C1257B36.0078DE95@unog.un.org>
 <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org>
 <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net>
 <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net>
 <CACAaNxgnmodePEjSx5eqdheDffBwzWd28wiCzeDPQsAzsEYbxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net>
 <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net>
 <CACAaNxjU-zgSTWcMCrxiZugmX5wmRL2GMV0-+0CEf11DQFbXPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net>
 <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net>
 <CACAaNxh0pXeh1Fy8S8cnJgV_rzOhyz9ZnbmtRX+4BszAB3+Jng@mail.gmail.com>
 <22C2D51B-662B-4929-930B-3C84FE853E5F@hserus.net>
 <3FE058A9-8921-41BA-B10F-8348235CE4F9@acm.org>
 <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD239FD9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
 <51599BC6.6090603@itforchange.net>
 <CACAaNxiEVUsaMUuRR0qUwwQwaD8yQOpXAT-h6rfRdcdbXj1H_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5159B261.9020303@itforchange.net>
 <A7B74C71-AE66-4A8E-A0EF-6F817B1154C0@ciroap.org>
 <13dd0331f61.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <34C0C91E-3E80-4F54-8A5C-C77B010910B7@post.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <13dd0857908.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

I am afraid that Jeremy does not have as much background on how 
security issues and apt threats of the sort that regularly target civil 
society and religious groups are mitigated through large scale 
operational coordination.

Maybe on a rather larger and more systematic scale than meetings in the 
back room of a restaurant or over drinks in a bar, though those too 
occur as a subset of such coordination. I see enough of it, across 
stakeholder groups, and do my best to foster it, and here I see efforts 
to split the two communities.

He may not have all that much insight into isoc's functioning either, 
given that his email implied an astonishing degree of hubris on the 
part of an unnamed director of isoc, because of what, maybe a 
difference of opinion he has with some action of isoc in this current 
spat about selection of technical and academic community representatives?

I suppose that statement now marks me as a 'status quoist', to use 
another canting phrase I saw used in another email on the list. If so, 
so be it.

--srs (htc one x)



On 3 April 2013 8:24:49 PM David Allen 
<David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote:
> Many will find this a delightful 'leap of inductive reasoning' - just
> the sort of advance we may expect of a most thoughtful contributor
> hereon.
>
> Notably, the ability to step back from an immediate situation, and
> frame it a bit more neutrally, is one of the tools for insight.
> Taking ourselves out of the immediate, so that we may see a bit more
> clearly.  Then the frame and its elements may come a bit more into
> view.  And hence more available for discourse.
>
> Whatever direction one's analysis may go, from there.
>
> (Nor is slighting, with 'dubious,' conducive to exchange.  Facts, and
> analysis, carry matters forward.  Not slights.)
>
> David
>
>
> On Apr 3, 2013, at 10:01 AM:
>
> > That is as wild a leap in inductive reasoning as it has been my
> > dubious privilege to see on this list.
> >
> > And an over estimation of what civil society is capable of in this
> > area.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 3 April 2013 7:14:24 PM Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> >
> >> On 31/03/2013, at 17:35 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart
> >> <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>> On 29 Mar 2013 13:57, "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Jeremy Malcolm
> >>> <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Because the technical community keeps acting against the broader
> >>> public
> >>> > interest
> >>>
> >>> Public interest as you see it, but it seems they have of course been
> >>> responsible for ALL of the evolution of the highly inclusive IG
> >>> systems over many decades.  These systems have created the most
> >>> successful, open and inclusive communications platform in history.
> >>
> >> The network at my office was put together by a local firm called
> >> Abadi IT.  They did a great job, I really can't fault them on it.
> >> It was more than just plugging cables together, they did some
> >> custom development for us too (using free open source software,
> >> which I insist on).  We rely on them heavily to manage the
> >> technical aspects of our connection.  And they're nice people.
> >> Their head engineer, Firdaus, invited me to his wedding last year.
> >>
> >> But we have cause to be worried about the governance of this
> >> network.  In the lead-up to the general election (Parliament was
> >> dissolved today in fact), here have been veiled threats against
> >> NGOs, especially on their use of online communications.  Threats
> >> have been made to invoke laws against those who "spread false
> >> information" through blogs.  Just last week, a new independent
> >> online radio station, Free Malaysia Radio, was subject to a DDOS
> >> attack.  Pro-opposition websites have also been targetted.  Bugs
> >> have been planted, and websites hacked.  Earlier this year
> >> Malaysia's most respected human rights NGO, Suaram, was targetted
> >> in a series of government attacks on both their physical and online
> >> infrastructure.
> >>
> >> Firdaus insists that he can manage such threats to our network
> >> through his "highly inclusive systems", which appear to be an
> >> online bulletin board and a monthly meeting of the local technical
> >> community that takes place in the back room of a restaurant ("in
> >> which anyone can participate", he assures us).
> >>
> >> Nonetheless, we take to thinking that the time has come for us to
> >> look beyond Firdaus and his colleagues.  The issues and forces
> >> involved are now much bigger than they can handle.  Maybe we need
> >> to get together with some other NGOs to create a broader public
> >> interest platform through which we can challenge the government to
> >> uphold our rights online.  We might involve human rights NGOs like
> >> Suaram, maybe the Centre for Independent Journalism, invite the
> >> police and other government ministries to join us in dialogue,
> >> along with representatives of the opposition parties.  We would
> >> invite representatives of Internet providers too.  And of course,
> >> we would invite Firdaus due to his technical expertise.
> >>
> >> But Firdaus might get a little jealous of this sudden demotion,
> >> from the person who built our network from scratch, to somebody who
> >> now is just one stakeholder involved in its ongoing management.  He
> >> might feel such umbrage at this that he gets together with some
> >> mates from the registry that handles our domain and some engineers
> >> at our ISP, to block the formation of our nascent platform,
> >> claiming that "the network we built for you was the most
> >> successful, open and inclusive that you ever had".  If the platform
> >> is formed nonetheless, he might ensure that he is appointed to
> >> chair its meetings, would stack those meetings with his friends,
> >> and ensure that no resolutions are made other than those that
> >> support their own technical work.
> >>
> >> Thankfully, Firdaus wouldn't do this.  He realises that just
> >> because he built the network doesn't make him any special claim of
> >> authority or expertise over every aspect of its governance.  But
> >> then again, Firdaus isn't isn't a Director of ISOC.
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: 
> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main
> >>  | #wcrd2013
> >>
> >>
> >> @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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130403/4597fca1/attachment.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 mueller at syr.edu  Wed Apr  3 12:32:49 2013
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 16:32:49 +0000
Subject: [governance] Ex-White House Official Joins Group Fighting
 "Excessive" Online Privacy Laws
In-Reply-To: <515A64D4.9050600@itforchange.net>
References: <093d01ce2f02$50eafaa0$f2c0efe0$@gmail.com>
 <515A64D4.9050600@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A270B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>


> "Coalition for Privacy and Free Trade " is exactly the kind of issue
> based network that are getting formed. (Bertrand, please note.) And we
> know what they are upto. Soon there will be others, that is the trend,
> like perhaps one led by Shell on green economy, and Nike on labour
> friendliness.... No, this is not acceptable, We are better off with
> evolving old fashioned democratic systems from within, with a deepening
> democracy focus.... We have seen movements, especially in Europe, of a
> new kind of democratic politics bypassing the existing political party
> captures - that is where I would put my hopes instead of these dangerous
> neolib trends. I appeal to the civil society to recognise the dangers
> that we are headed towards in all this mushy talk of "equality of all
> stakeholders in decision making" (read, corporate led 'governance'
> systems), and issue based networks as the prime next gen governance
> paradigm... 

Let me see if I understand your point. This issue network is bad and should not be allowed because you don't agree with their policy agenda? In the name of democracy you are saying that private sector actors (or presumably anyone else you don't agree with) should be prevented from organizing transnational issue networks to influence policy, and/or that corporate stakeholders should not be considered equal stakeholders? 

If you're rabidly anti-corporate that all sounds fine and good, I suppose, but if you believe in democracy, free expression and free association it does not sound so good. I would like to know how you can limit one group's political participation without limiting everyone's political participation. Organizations, ranging from labor unions to business corps to public interest organizations that are inevitably incorporated, as well as individuals, are going to lobby and jostle for benefit from the political process - regardless of whether we are talking about the national level or the transnational level. 

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr  3 13:45:24 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 13:45:24 -0400
Subject: [governance] Ex-White House Official Joins Group Fighting
 "Excessive" Online Privacy Laws
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A270B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <093d01ce2f02$50eafaa0$f2c0efe0$@gmail.com> <515A64D4.9050600@itforchange.net>
 <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A270B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxij34CbTLptWCxe7pTVmygMrQoDPQzOFdwKvFY0Bc2ZfQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>> "Coalition for Privacy and Free Trade " is exactly the kind of issue
>> based network that are getting formed. (Bertrand, please note.) And we
>> know what they are upto. Soon there will be others, that is the trend,
>> like perhaps one led by Shell on green economy, and Nike on labour
>> friendliness.... No, this is not acceptable, We are better off with
>> evolving old fashioned democratic systems from within, with a deepening
>> democracy focus.... We have seen movements, especially in Europe, of a
>> new kind of democratic politics bypassing the existing political party
>> captures - that is where I would put my hopes instead of these dangerous
>> neolib trends. I appeal to the civil society to recognise the dangers
>> that we are headed towards in all this mushy talk of "equality of all
>> stakeholders in decision making" (read, corporate led 'governance'
>> systems), and issue based networks as the prime next gen governance
>> paradigm...
>
> Let me see if I understand your point. This issue network is bad and should not be allowed because you don't agree with their policy agenda?

I think it is more like people are afraid of what they perceive their
policy agenda to be, not what it actually is!  For example, here is a
quote from another network of folk working on, inter alia, privacy

“America’s online privacy law was written 30 years ago, before the
birth of the modern Internet. Currently, law enforcement agencies are
not required to obtain a warrant to access email and other online
documents stored for longer than six months. This analog era law must
be updated for the digital age. The Internet Association strongly
supports updating our privacy laws to preserve the principle that law
enforcement access to online content should require a warrant, no
matter where it is stored or for how long .An email in your inbox
deserves the same legal protections as a letter in your mailbox.”

http://internetassociation.org/the-internet-association-statement-on-bipartisan-leahy-lee-ecpa-reform-bill-ecpa-law-must-be-updated-for-the-digital-age/

If we were to follow PJS's logic, we would reject this perfectly
reasonable statement not because of the content, but because of the
source!

You make a valid point.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Apr  3 15:07:35 2013
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 19:07:35 +0000
Subject: [governance] Ex-White House Official Joins Group Fighting
 "Excessive" Online Privacy Laws
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxij34CbTLptWCxe7pTVmygMrQoDPQzOFdwKvFY0Bc2ZfQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <093d01ce2f02$50eafaa0$f2c0efe0$@gmail.com>
 <515A64D4.9050600@itforchange.net>
 <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A270B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
 <CACAaNxij34CbTLptWCxe7pTVmygMrQoDPQzOFdwKvFY0Bc2ZfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A2886@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> 
> http://internetassociation.org/the-internet-association-statement-on-
> bipartisan-leahy-lee-ecpa-reform-bill-ecpa-law-must-be-updated-for-the-
> digital-age/
> 
> If we were to follow PJS's logic, we would reject this perfectly
> reasonable statement not because of the content, but because of the
> source!

Yes, McTim, that is a different point than the one I was making, but as a matter of historical fact there has often been a CS-PS coalition on some key privacy and civil liberties issues that has some important accomplishments under its belt, ranging from encryption liberalization in the early 1990s to SOPA/PIPA today. 

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr  3 15:32:48 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 12:32:48 -0700
Subject: [governance] Ex-White House Official Joins Group Fighting
 "Excessive" Online Privacy Laws
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A270B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <093d01ce2f02$50eafaa0$f2c0efe0$@gmail.com> <515A64D4.9050600@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A270B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <148001ce30a2$0d3fe710$27bfb530$@gmail.com>

Milton, more silliness... Parminder's point as I understand it is not to attempt to deny anyone the right to express an opinion but rather to warn against the outcome of a process where certain (and quite self-interested) opinions are given rather more weight (because for example, of their wealth and associated power) than those representing (for example) a broader public interest as for example this...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/eu-trade-deal_n_2994410.html

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is pursuing a free trade agreement with the European Union that would grant corporations new political power to challenge an array of regulations both at home and abroad, according to an administration official involved in the negotiations.

While the plan is still in its early stages, the effort alarms consumer and environmental advocates who worry it will lead to a roll-back of important rules and put multinational companies on the same political plane as sovereign nations.

If states are unable to pass and enforce laws within their borders, it could change the nature of their community and government, nonprofit groups emphasize. Exactly how broad these corporate political powers will be is undetermined, but one aspect of the agreement, known as "investor-state dispute resolution," would allow a company to appeal a regulatory rule or law to an international court, most likely the World Bank. The international body would be given authority to impose economic sanctions against any country that violated its verdict, including the United States.

A spokesperson for the Office of the United States Trade Representative confirmed to HuffPost that the agency, "will seek the inclusion of procedures for expeditious, fair and transparent investor-state dispute resolution" under a new pact with the E.U., but said that the new legal framework will be "subject to appropriate safeguards and the protection of legitimate government regulatory interests."
The investor-state resolution is opposed by many public interest groups.

"These provisions elevate corporations to the level of nation states and allow them to sue governments over nearly any law or policy which reduces their future profits," said Ilana Solomon, trade specialist for the Sierra Club, an environmental protection group.

She said investor-state resolution is "terribly risky for communities, the environment, and our climate."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been advocating for a new trade deal between the U.S. and E.U. for more than a year, and President Barack Obama endorsed the project in his 2013 State of the Union address.

Since E.U. nations and the U.S. are already party to World Trade Organization treaties, there are relatively few tariffs that could be eliminated among the countries. In written reports, the Chamber, a lobbying group representing large corporations, has pushed for increased "regulatory compatibility" and "updated and comprehensive" investment terms to "prevent discrimination against investors" in the trade pact. The Chamber declined to discuss the deal for this article.

Investor-state resolution has been a common component of U.S.-negotiated pacts with individual nations since the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994. But such resolution is not currently permitted in disputes with the U.S. and E.U., which are governed by the WTO. All trade deals feature some kind of international resolution for disputes, but the direct empowerment of corporations to unilaterally bring trade cases against sovereign countries is not part of WTO treaties. Under WTO rules, a company must persuade a sovereign nation that it has been wronged, leaving the decision to bring a trade case before the WTO in the hands of elected governments.

Traditionally, this proposed political empowerment for corporations has been defended as a way to protect companies from arbitrary governments or weakened court systems in developing countries. But the expansion of the practice to first-world relations exposes that rationale as disingenuous. Rule of law in the U.S. and E.U. is considered strong; the court systems are among the most sophisticated and expert in the world. Most cases brought against the United States under NAFTA have been dismissed or abandoned before an international court issued a ruling.

But companies have grown increasingly ambitious in recent years, with major outfits including Exxon Mobil and Dow Chemical challenging Canadian rules that apply to offshore oil drilling, hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") and the use of pesticides. In December, drug giant Eli Lilly brought a NAFTA case against the Canadian government after it invalidated a patent for one of the company's medications.

"The Chapter 11 investor state arbitration mechanism provided for in NAFTA has been used more than 60 times since the treaty was signed," Eli Lilly spokesman Michael McDougall told HuffPost in a written statement. "Many trade treaties have dispute resolution and compensation mechanisms. We believe the current test for determining whether an invention is 'useful' under the patent statute in Canada has become deeply flawed, inconsistent with international norms and treaties, and needs correction."

Companies have won some of those rulings, but opponents of investor-state rules argue that the mere threat of an international case can be enough to dissuade governments from adopting or enforcing important rules.

"The dirty little secret about [the negotiation] is that it is not mainly about trade, but rather would target for elimination the strongest consumer, health, safety, privacy, environmental and other public interest policies on either side of the Atlantic," said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. "The starkest evidence ... is the plan for it to include the infamous investor-state system that empowers individual corporations and investors to skirt domestic courts and laws and drag signatory governments to foreign tribunals."

The Obama administration is also pursuing an aggressive investor-state resolution system under the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal with several Pacific nations.
Talks with the E.U. are at the earliest stages and will take several months to conclude. A USTR spokesperson told HuffPost that it will consult with public interest groups and Congress before pursuing any specific language for the treaty.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 9:33 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'parminder'
Subject: RE: [governance] Ex-White House Official Joins Group Fighting "Excessive" Online Privacy Laws


> "Coalition for Privacy and Free Trade " is exactly the kind of issue 
> based network that are getting formed. (Bertrand, please note.) And we 
> know what they are upto. Soon there will be others, that is the trend, 
> like perhaps one led by Shell on green economy, and Nike on labour 
> friendliness.... No, this is not acceptable, We are better off with 
> evolving old fashioned democratic systems from within, with a 
> deepening democracy focus.... We have seen movements, especially in 
> Europe, of a new kind of democratic politics bypassing the existing 
> political party captures - that is where I would put my hopes instead 
> of these dangerous neolib trends. I appeal to the civil society to 
> recognise the dangers that we are headed towards in all this mushy 
> talk of "equality of all stakeholders in decision making" (read, corporate led 'governance'
> systems), and issue based networks as the prime next gen governance 
> paradigm...

Let me see if I understand your point. This issue network is bad and should not be allowed because you don't agree with their policy agenda? In the name of democracy you are saying that private sector actors (or presumably anyone else you don't agree with) should be prevented from organizing transnational issue networks to influence policy, and/or that corporate stakeholders should not be considered equal stakeholders? 

If you're rabidly anti-corporate that all sounds fine and good, I suppose, but if you believe in democracy, free expression and free association it does not sound so good. I would like to know how you can limit one group's political participation without limiting everyone's political participation. Organizations, ranging from labor unions to business corps to public interest organizations that are inevitably incorporated, as well as individuals, are going to lobby and jostle for benefit from the political process - regardless of whether we are talking about the national level or the transnational level. 



-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr  3 15:42:42 2013
From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 22:42:42 +0300
Subject: [governance] Ex-White House Official Joins Group Fighting
 "Excessive" Online Privacy Laws
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A2886@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <093d01ce2f02$50eafaa0$f2c0efe0$@gmail.com> <515A64D4.9050600@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A270B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <CACAaNxij34CbTLptWCxe7pTVmygMrQoDPQzOFdwKvFY0Bc2ZfQ@mail.gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A2886@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <515C8632.1050407@gmail.com>

Milton

All estates should be involved. But do you consider formal equality the 
only modality for engagement, or would you be in favour of more 
equitable approaches to representation?

  Both a valid, one favouring procedural equality, the other is more 
substantive.

Riaz
On 2013/04/03 10:07 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Apr  3 15:52:23 2013
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 19:52:23 +0000
Subject: [governance] Shared Decision Making Procedures
In-Reply-To: <CAGF_KH9jSA_5bpoUN9Sr+pBBpb_ZaJzUDQwjfCAKJb7vT9FBbw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <OFC2788E76.650E99EE-ONC1257B36.0067C43C-C1257B36.0078DE95@unog.un.org>
 <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net>
 <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net>
 <CACAaNxgnmodePEjSx5eqdheDffBwzWd28wiCzeDPQsAzsEYbxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net>
 <CACAaNxjU-zgSTWcMCrxiZugmX5wmRL2GMV0-+0CEf11DQFbXPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net>
 <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net>
 <CACAaNxh0pXeh1Fy8S8cnJgV_rzOhyz9ZnbmtRX+4BszAB3+Jng@mail.gmail.com>
 <22C2D51B-662B-4929-930B-3C84FE853E5F@hserus.net>
 <3FE058A9-8921-41BA-B10F-8348235CE4F9@acm.org>
 <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD239FD9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013317E5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <CAGF_KH9jSA_5bpoUN9Sr+pBBpb_ZaJzUDQwjfCAKJb7vT9FBbw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A3053@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>



From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com]

As we all know, this famous paragraph says:

Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues. (aka IRPPI)

There are two sentences here. Not just one, but two sentences. And this has to be meaningful.

The paragraph could easily have read : "Policy authority for national and international Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of states". That would have closed the debate and left no room for interpretation. But this is not what is written.

MM:
Bertrand.
First, I forgive you for creating a new acronym that vies for recognition as one of the world's ugliest: IIRPPI.

Now, I cannot go along with these kinds of verbal games as a guide to what governments intended or, more importantly, what governments actually believe and try to enact. It is just wishful thinking.

As a matter of linguistic interpretation, your argument rests on very shaky ground. The basic subject of the sentence is the term "policy authority." Not "domestic" or "international" policy authority, just "policy authority." The term "Internet-related public policy issues" could easily be read to mean ALL internet-related public policy issues, both domestic and international. There is a bald assertion that "policy authority for IRPPI is the sovereign right of states." Not domestic IRPPI, just IRPPI.  Therefore your idea (and this is the first time I have ever heard that interpretation) that the first sentence applies to domestic and the second to international is very _creative_ shall we say. But not convincing. At all.

Further, we have tons of other contexts in which to interpret the claim of "policy authority" or the idea that "public policy" is the exclusive domain of states. Let's take, for starters, ICANN's own bylaws.

Section 2.1.a. of Article XI says

a.       The Governmental Advisory Committee should consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN's policies and various laws and international agreements or where they may affect public policy issues.

Note that this section specifically mentions "laws, international agreements or....public policy issues." In other words, PP is distinct from law and international agreements and there is no distinction in GAC's mandate between domestic and international; indeed, since everything ICANN does is de facto global, the concept of "public policy" in its bylaws MUST apply to international or global pp.

And you know as well as I that in the ICANN context GAC's trump card is the PP word. All they have to do is claim that something is PP and they get to claim authority over the final outcome. At which point GAC becomes nothing more than an intergovernmental organization that dictates PP - only it is, in fact, far worse than any IGO because it is governed by no law, subject to no treaty ratification process, and can make decisions that violate the constitutions of specific countries while giving citizens of those countries no legal recourse.

And how about this WCIT resolution - unsuccessful, to be sure, but reflecting what the sovereigntist states really think and believe. There was a motion in Dubai to add the following phrase to the International Telecommunication Regulations:

"3A.3 Member states shall have the sovereign right to establish and implement public policy, including international policy, on matters of Internet governance...."

Our point of disagreement does not seem to be substantive, in that we would both like to clear a space for new, more open, non-governmental policy making institutions. Where we disagree - and it is an important disagreement - is that you seem to think we have already succeeded in transcending the sovereigntist mindset, and I do not.

I think we are still deeply engaged in a major long term struggle over that principle. We need to explicitly recognize that we are in that struggle and not twist the words of the TA to make it seem as if we have already won. I also think that we are in danger of losing that battle because a very large segment of the people trying to move away from the governmental paradigm are not thinking clearly about it. They are relying on flawed, wrong statements of principle such as the Tunis Agenda or, worse, mouthing platitudes about "The Multistakeholder Model" when there is no single, well-defined MuSH model and the issue of whether MuSH gives states exclusive authority over "public policy" making and confines other SH to "their respective roles" is still a topic of intense debate.

In a nutshell, the global public interest is not the mere aggregation of national interests; national governments are very legitimate local authorities but at best, assemblies of government representatives are, at the global level, the equivalent of a Senate in bi-cameral parliamentary systems; for a truly democratic international system, a more direct involvement of citizens at the global level is necessary (and it is made possible by the development of communication tools and transportation); their respective governments cannot keep the monopoly of representation of their interests.

Here we are in violent agreement - although I would not even give states the status of a separate house in a bi-cameral political structure. States do not have rights but are merely delegates of individuals - would you propose also a "corporation house"? I think individuals who happen to work for governments can and should participate on the same basis as everyone else. As in, e.g., the IETF.

Considering that all internet-related issues should be dealt within a single international organization can only lead to a sterile and protracted competition between potential candidate institutions and no solution to concrete challenges. The only viable approach is rather to build on the concept of distributed governance frameworks, and build issue-based governance networks, associating in a transparent and accountable manner the "relevant stakeholders".

Yes, networks focused on specific issues.

What those frameworks are, what form their establishment takes (Mutual Affirmation of Commitments?), how the "relevant stakeholders" are determined, how the decision-making procedures function, etc... are the real and very exciting challenges.

Agreed.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130403/98e43618/attachment.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 mueller at syr.edu  Wed Apr  3 17:02:46 2013
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:02:46 +0000
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group
 on Enhanced Cooperation
In-Reply-To: <51599BC6.6090603@itforchange.net>
References: <OFC2788E76.650E99EE-ONC1257B36.0067C43C-C1257B36.0078DE95@unog.un.org>
 <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net>
 <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net>
 <CACAaNxgnmodePEjSx5eqdheDffBwzWd28wiCzeDPQsAzsEYbxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net>
 <CACAaNxjU-zgSTWcMCrxiZugmX5wmRL2GMV0-+0CEf11DQFbXPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net>
 <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net>
 <CACAaNxh0pXeh1Fy8S8cnJgV_rzOhyz9ZnbmtRX+4BszAB3+Jng@mail.gmail.com>
 <22C2D51B-662B-4929-930B-3C84FE853E5F@hserus.net>
 <3FE058A9-8921-41BA-B10F-8348235CE4F9@acm.org>
 <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD239FD9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
 <51599BC6.6090603@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A30C6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>

Milton

At the highest level I do agree that there is, to some extent,  a new global public made largely possible by the Internet, and corresponding to it a new global polity, which are worth conceptualising, and then also pursuing at practical levels. I am ready to do both theorising and principles building around such an emergent global public and polity with you, as well as do thought experiments about how the new political structures should and could look like....
Wonderful. Have you read my book yet? ;-) only partly kidding. It is not only mine, but many others you should read if you are serious about "thought experiments" with new political structures. I am not trying to turn you into an academic, but on the other hand mailing lists are not the best place to get carefully thought-out ideas.
Agreed that nation states based representation model is imperfect in the present circumstances. Additional forms of public representations have to explored and developed.
It is not just about "public representation" because that may imply a standard legislative structure with traditional forms of political authority but expanded, frighteningly, to a global scope. There are large parts of the internet, possibly all of it, that should not be governed via that paradigm at all.
So there are a wide variety of new institutional mechanisms for aggregating users and suppliers into policy making processes, such as networked cooperation among ISPs, the mechanisms used by RIRs to elect their ACs and Boards,
But of course these new explorations need to be based on some top level principles. The problem is - and I have articulated it often - I am yet to hear such top level principles for bringing in non nation state based public representative to global governance levels. Neither in fact one sees any progress towards articulating practical models of what really is meant by when for instance Wolfgang says that governments should "share their decision making capacity".
Well, I partly agree that "sharing decision making capacity" is a well-intended, but not terribly meaningful description of a regime. It obfuscates the sticky issues, which we see in livid color in ICANN's GAC.
At the top principles level, two thing come to my mind very strongly

1) Means of selection of non gov representatives of the 'global public' in multistakeholder (MS) processes ( we have seen deep sensitivity in this group against discussing such things)
We may have a conceptual disconnect here if, when you talk about "representatives of the global public," you are talking about a single, hierarchical global legislative - regulatory agency that covers all aspects of "the internet." No system of representation is going to make that a good idea. To me it is first a question of what authority the process has, how it gets that authority and how it is scoped, the degree to which it is voluntary or hierarchical, subject to market discipline, or choice, or not. Those things are primary. Then you can tackle questions about representation.
But to give you a more specific response, I was and still am an advocate of publicly elected ICANN board members. I see no reason why simple electoral democracy, with some  structural safeguards such as regional distribution, should not be used for the board. The standard risks and problems with direct democracy are limited because of the limited scope of ICANN's authority. ICANN would still need a better "constitution" delimiting its authority, and it may well be that the best place to get that constitution in the current world is from an intergovernmental process involving international law with MS participation in its negotiation.
And not all MS participation has to be "representative" - it can also be organized along the lines of the traditional Internet institutions, i.e., open participation by individuals who represent only themselves. Indeed, as a principle the governing well-defined sectors that require specialized knowledge, that can be a very good method.
20 Role of businesses or private sector (one cannot understand that if business is not given a voting role in national polities, on what basis should they get a voting role in global polity, but happy to hear justifications)
All businesses should be expropriated and replaced by the dictatorship of the public interest advocates, in line with the precepts of Parminder-Gurstein thought!
Just kidding.
(Had you there for a moment, no?)
Not all governance is about voting. Markets are a form of governance, one that works well in many, many contexts.
Where general public input is needed, the "open participation by individuals" paradigm does not need to distinguish representation by status. I do not favor corporatist models that try to assign a certain number of representative slots to people based on some category such as "business," "labor" "civil society" or whatever.
However, some aspects of governance _can_ actually best be governed through industry associations where  there is a direct alignment between the economic stakes of the actors and the effectiveness of the overall system. The administration of credit card number assignments, for example, is handled perfectly well by a self-governing industry association. Of course, it is also possible that such systems become cartels or have other adverse public interest effects and need to be broken up or regulated opened up to broader public participation.
I have some problem with the WSIS 'respective role' definition but not going to the extent of claiming that all stakeholders have the same claim to policy making process. Do you say that they an equal role? If not what differential role do you see?

My point of reference, again, is the individual. In that respect all individuals are equal.

Then perhaps US congress' decisions taken without consulting your university may also be considered non binding by your university.

No, because we live under the political authority of the US federal government and have some opportunity to participate in selecting the congress's members. I do not, however, have any representation in the 30 African governments, dozens of European governments, China, Asian countries, etc. who negotiated the WSIS documents.

This is interesting. From below, I understand that by new institutions you mean ICANN, RIR etc. I agree with the existing policy making role of these institutions, and most developing countires like India also agree.... I think it is extremely important we dont confuse narrow technical policy role with larger public policy role in non tech areas like net neutrality, data protection and privacy, ecommerce taxation, cyber security and so on... Are you saying that these new institutions - ICANN etc - should have a role in these latter policy areas as well.

No. their mandate should remain limited.
Most of the issues you list can be handled via standard national regulatory processes. Certainly NN can be and is being so handled. The one clear exception might be cybersecurity, we may need new institutional arramgenets for that; privacy/dp may also be an exception, although there are extensive and quite vigorous national and supra-national regulatory institutions (EC) around that so it probably is not an exception.

Yes, we should stand against any form of arbitrary interventions in legitimate areas of technical policy making by the ICANN system - and the root signing authority of the US government and ICANN's answerability to US jurisdiction today are the two most significant levers for such 'arbitrary' intervention.

Agreed.

Again , pl propose your model. It is difficult to just stand up in the Working Group and say, we want it trans-nationalised, but right now we are not sure what is looks like practically. During preceding discussions I had suggested a few options.
By "Again," are you referring to the fact that you've asked me this question about 3 times before and I have put before you a fairly detailed proposal in response each time, based on the IGP response to the 2009 NTIA RFC?? Forgive me if I pass up another round.





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130403/015b9a95/attachment.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 suresh at hserus.net  Wed Apr  3 20:40:17 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 06:10:17 +0530
Subject: [governance] Ex-White House Official Joins Group Fighting
 "Excessive" Online Privacy Laws
In-Reply-To: <515C8632.1050407@gmail.com>
References: <093d01ce2f02$50eafaa0$f2c0efe0$@gmail.com> <515A64D4.9050600@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A270B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <CACAaNxij34CbTLptWCxe7pTVmygMrQoDPQzOFdwKvFY0Bc2ZfQ@mail.gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A2886@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <515C8632.1050407@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C1613517-67C7-4768-BFD9-23D20CC2FF0B@hserus.net>

Equity so to speak. An ideal goal, Wo a very difficult implementation.  How do you determine and maintain it?  

In some cases, Just giving the stakeholder a seat at the table is often not enough.  Longer term enablement and capacity building to help them make a meaningful contribution, funding to participate .. And on the other side, is a stake solely in order to have a stake rather than to meaningfully contribute as important as other goals a process has?

In other cases what work would you consider meaningful to develop a joint and shared position, and benefit from each others skills and capabilities in a given area?

--srs (iPad)

On 04-Apr-2013, at 1:12, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:

> Milton
> 
> All estates should be involved. But do you consider formal equality the only modality for engagement, or would you be in favour of more equitable approaches to representation?
> 
> Both a valid, one favouring procedural equality, the other is more substantive.
> 
> Riaz
> On 2013/04/03 10:07 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Thu Apr  4 01:53:11 2013
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 14:53:11 +0900
Subject: [governance] Need to end the throwing of verbal stones (was Re:
 Final composition...)
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v-rsJBB+BtrV2mKb5j_Knjm0dLyWg3uWFWeEo+SsRf=EA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <OFC2788E76.650E99EE-ONC1257B36.0067C43C-C1257B36.0078DE95@unog.un.org>
 <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net>
 <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <CACAaNxgnmodePEjSx5eqdheDffBwzWd28wiCzeDPQsAzsEYbxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net>
 <CACAaNxjU-zgSTWcMCrxiZugmX5wmRL2GMV0-+0CEf11DQFbXPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1LTbpvh2q2576Otm96thaD24OwAeT=81G5a-8PnzwndiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5156C9D8.4010203@itforchange.net> <B63AB9CD-D6AC-4216-8442-EDED74C1839F@acm.org>
 <13dbb4bd731.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <BB42B361-101E-414A-9E4A-F78B74384741@post.harvard.edu> <20130401115030.761e36fa@quill.bollow.ch>
 <CACTo+v-rsJBB+BtrV2mKb5j_Knjm0dLyWg3uWFWeEo+SsRf=EA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKjKp=bHn44kN-DmxOABNgGgUXN8O=uT1hq87a02QSwSdg@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Norbert,  big +1.

Verbal stones are sometimes much larger than the one who throws.
What is writer's own intention may not be same as the receiver's or others'.

izumi


2013/4/1 Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>

> +1
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
>> [with IGC coordinator hat on]
>>
>> David Allen <David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > More generally - instead of verbal stones hurled back and forth,
>> > useful discussion turns on finding common questions where there will
>> > be civil discourse about differences.  As has been noted, that has
>> > been in short supply.  Coordinators please note.
>>
>> Thanks, David, for posting this reminder. :-)
>>
>> I would add that it is very difficult if not impossible to have such
>> a civil discourse in a climate of personal attacks. These really need
>> to be stopped first.
>>
>> There have been quite a few postings recently that can not be
>> reasonably understood as legitimately questioning viewpoints and
>> practices, but which are clearly personal attacks.
>>
>> According to the Charter of this Caucus [1], personal attacks are not
>> acceptable, and it is a responsibility of the coordinators to take
>> action in reaction to such attacks being made, according to be a
>> specified procedure. In view of also having other responsibilities,
>> needing to coordinate between the coordinators who are in opposite time
>> zones, feeling a need to exercise the utmost fairness possible, and the
>> need to handle things in an "appeal-proof" matter, quick action in this
>> regard is not always immediately possible.
>> [1] http://igcaucus.org/charter
>>
>> But I can assure you and everyone that Sala and I are aware of our
>> responsibility in this regard. It now looks likely that we will now
>> unfortunately have to take, at least in some instances, the matter
>> beyond the point of "formal private warnings". This shouldn't be done
>> without coordination, or in a hurry though. So a bit of patience may
>> be required in regard to the need for execution of the steps foreseen
>> in the Charter for this kind of situation.
>>
>> 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
>
>


-- 
                     >> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130404/0d25d669/attachment.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 suresh at hserus.net  Thu Apr  4 02:39:53 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 23:39:53 -0700
Subject: [governance] Need to end the throwing of verbal stones (was Re:
 Final composition...)
In-Reply-To: <CA+YNoKjKp=bHn44kN-DmxOABNgGgUXN8O=uT1hq87a02QSwSdg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACAaNxjU-zgSTWcMCrxiZugmX5wmRL2GMV0-+0CEf11DQFbXPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net>
 <CAFabd1LTbpvh2q2576Otm96thaD24OwAeT=81G5a-8PnzwndiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5156C9D8.4010203@itforchange.net>
 <B63AB9CD-D6AC-4216-8442-EDED74C1839F@acm.org>
 <13dbb4bd731.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <BB42B361-101E-414A-9E4A-F78B74384741@post.harvard.edu>
 <20130401115030.761e36fa@quill.bollow.ch>
 <CACTo+v-rsJBB+BtrV2mKb5j_Knjm0dLyWg3uWFWeEo+SsRf=EA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+YNoKjKp=bHn44kN-DmxOABNgGgUXN8O=uT1hq87a02QSwSdg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130404063953.GA303@hserus.net>

verbal stones versus conspiracy theories?

like this one. in an entirely different area of civil society that
campaigns against genetically modified crops, and shot itself in the foot
with this article :
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/322920/is-bill-gates-using-epicyte.html

Izumi AIZU [04/04/13 14:53 +0900]:
>Thanks Norbert,  big +1.
>
>Verbal stones are sometimes much larger than the one who throws.
>What is writer's own intention may not be same as the receiver's or others'.
>
>izumi
>
>
>2013/4/1 Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
>
>> +1
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> [with IGC coordinator hat on]
>>>
>>> David Allen <David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> > More generally - instead of verbal stones hurled back and forth,
>>> > useful discussion turns on finding common questions where there will
>>> > be civil discourse about differences.  As has been noted, that has
>>> > been in short supply.  Coordinators please note.
>>>
>>> Thanks, David, for posting this reminder. :-)
>>>
>>> I would add that it is very difficult if not impossible to have such
>>> a civil discourse in a climate of personal attacks. These really need
>>> to be stopped first.
>>>
>>> There have been quite a few postings recently that can not be
>>> reasonably understood as legitimately questioning viewpoints and
>>> practices, but which are clearly personal attacks.
>>>
>>> According to the Charter of this Caucus [1], personal attacks are not
>>> acceptable, and it is a responsibility of the coordinators to take
>>> action in reaction to such attacks being made, according to be a
>>> specified procedure. In view of also having other responsibilities,
>>> needing to coordinate between the coordinators who are in opposite time
>>> zones, feeling a need to exercise the utmost fairness possible, and the
>>> need to handle things in an "appeal-proof" matter, quick action in this
>>> regard is not always immediately possible.
>>> [1] http://igcaucus.org/charter
>>>
>>> But I can assure you and everyone that Sala and I are aware of our
>>> responsibility in this regard. It now looks likely that we will now
>>> unfortunately have to take, at least in some instances, the matter
>>> beyond the point of "formal private warnings". This shouldn't be done
>>> without coordination, or in a hurry though. So a bit of patience may
>>> be required in regard to the need for execution of the steps foreseen
>>> in the Charter for this kind of situation.
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>                     >> 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 mueller at syr.edu  Thu Apr  4 07:27:31 2013
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 11:27:31 +0000
Subject: [governance] FW: [IGP Announce] Internet Governance Project
 Headlines
In-Reply-To: <MAIL067YFdmWlMooayw0000001f@mail06.feedblitz.com>
References: <MAIL067YFdmWlMooayw0000001f@mail06.feedblitz.com>
Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A33AC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>


[http://www.internetgovernance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/IGP-Masthead-final-WP2.jpg]

April 03, 2013

One World, One Internet: An open discussion…in China
How ARIN and U.S. Commerce Department were duped by the ITU
The End of Needs Assessments in IPv4?
Regulating the Market for Zero-day Exploits: Look to the demand side
Freedom to innovate and new top level domains
China, the US and cybersecurity: is Mandiant promoting a Cold War mentality?
On second thought, let’s NOT kill all the lawyers
Search Internet Governance Project Headlines<http://www.feedblitz.com/f?Search=175425>
________________________________
One World, One Internet: An open discussion…in China<http://p.feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=75240677&f=175425&u=11399627&c=4570886>

ICANN’s Noncommercial Users Constituency, which represents civil society and individuals in the domain name policy making process, has established a traditional of holding policy conferences at ICANN meetings that are usually far more interesting and creative than the official workshops put on by ICANN. The Beijing meeting is no exception. NCUC is facilitating a dialogue [...]
[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/fblike20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/28/75240677/One+World%2c+One+Internet%3a+An+open+discussion…in+China>[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/googleplus20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/30/75240677/One+World%2c+One+Internet%3a+An+open+discussion…in+China>[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/linkedin20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/16/75240677/One+World%2c+One+Internet%3a+An+open+discussion…in+China>[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/pinterest20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/29/75240677/One+World%2c+One+Internet%3a+An+open+discussion…in+China,http%3a%2f%2ffeeds.feedburner.com%2f~r%2fIGPBlogCombined%2f~4%2fH1ippP3FZ48>[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/twitter20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/24/75240677/One+World%2c+One+Internet%3a+An+open+discussion…in+China>
• Email to a friend<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Fwd2FriendEdit=175425;7346807;http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IGPBlogCombined/~3/H1ippP3FZ48/;One%20World,%20One%20Internet:%20An%20open%20discussion…in%20China;4570886> • Article Search<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;7346807;Uncategorized;One%20World,%20One%20Internet:%20An%20open%20discussion…in%20China;4570886> • View comments<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/www.internetgovernance.org/2013/04/03/one-world-one-internet-an-open-discussion-in-china/#comments> • Track comments<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Track=http%3a%2f%2fwww.internetgovernance.org%2f2013%2f04%2f03%2fone-world-one-internet-an-open-discussion-in-china%2ffeed%2f&ref=comment:175425> •


How ARIN and U.S. Commerce Department were duped by the ITU<http://p.feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=75025194&f=175425&u=11399627&c=4570886>

ARIN is the Internet numbers registry for the North American region. It likes to present itself as a paragon of multistakeholder governance and a staunch opponent of the International Telecommunication Union’s encroachments into Internet governance. Surely, if anyone wants to keep the ITU out of Internet addressing and routing policy, it would be ARIN. And [...]
[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/fblike20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/28/75025194/How+ARIN+and+U.S.+Commerce+Department+were+duped+by+the+ITU>[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/googleplus20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/30/75025194/How+ARIN+and+U.S.+Commerce+Department+were+duped+by+the+ITU>[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/linkedin20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/16/75025194/How+ARIN+and+U.S.+Commerce+Department+were+duped+by+the+ITU>[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/pinterest20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/29/75025194/How+ARIN+and+U.S.+Commerce+Department+were+duped+by+the+ITU,http%3a%2f%2ffeeds.feedburner.com%2f~r%2fIGPBlogCombined%2f~4%2fSCxY6eb2bHw>[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/twitter20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/24/75025194/How+ARIN+and+U.S.+Commerce+Department+were+duped+by+the+ITU>
• Email to a friend<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Fwd2FriendEdit=175425;7346807;http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IGPBlogCombined/~3/SCxY6eb2bHw/;How%20ARIN%20and%20U.S.%20Commerce%20Department%20were%20duped%20by%20the%20ITU;4570886> • Article Search<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;7346807;Uncategorized;How%20ARIN%20and%20U.S.%20Commerce%20Department%20were%20duped%20by%20the%20ITU;4570886> • View comments<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/www.internetgovernance.org/2013/03/28/how-arin-and-u-s-commerce-department-were-duped-by-the-itu/#comments> • Track comments<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Track=http%3a%2f%2fwww.internetgovernance.org%2f2013%2f03%2f28%2fhow-arin-and-u-s-commerce-department-were-duped-by-the-itu%2ffeed%2f&ref=comment:175425> •


The End of Needs Assessments in IPv4?<http://p.feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=74708922&f=175425&u=11399627&c=4570886>

A policy change now being considered by the European IP address registry RIPE-NCC would completely eliminate needs assessments as an eligibility criterion for acquiring IPv4 number blocks. If successful, policy proposal 2013-3 would liberalize the allocation and use of IPv4 number blocks, and open the door to a much more efficient and predictable market for [...]
[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/fblike20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/28/74708922/The+End+of+Needs+Assessments+in+IPv4%3f>[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/googleplus20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/30/74708922/The+End+of+Needs+Assessments+in+IPv4%3f>[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/linkedin20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/16/74708922/The+End+of+Needs+Assessments+in+IPv4%3f>[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/pinterest20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/29/74708922/The+End+of+Needs+Assessments+in+IPv4%3f,http%3a%2f%2ffeeds.feedburner.com%2f~r%2fIGPBlogCombined%2f~4%2fFOgsR0SGxsI>[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/twitter20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/24/74708922/The+End+of+Needs+Assessments+in+IPv4%3f>
• Email to a friend<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Fwd2FriendEdit=175425;7346807;http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IGPBlogCombined/~3/FOgsR0SGxsI/;The%20End%20of%20Needs%20Assessments%20in%20IPv4?;4570886> • Article Search<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;7346807;Uncategorized;The%20End%20of%20Needs%20Assessments%20in%20IPv4?;4570886> • View comments<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/www.internetgovernance.org/2013/03/20/the-end-of-needs-assessments-in-ipv4/#comments> • Track comments<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Track=http%3a%2f%2fwww.internetgovernance.org%2f2013%2f03%2f20%2fthe-end-of-needs-assessments-in-ipv4%2ffeed%2f&ref=comment:175425> •


Regulating the Market for Zero-day Exploits: Look to the demand side<http://p.feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=74374510&f=175425&u=11399627&c=4570886>

A market has developed in which specialized firms discover new vulnerabilities in software and sell that knowledge for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. These vulnerabilities are known as “zero day exploits” because there is no advance knowledge of them before they are used. In this blog post, we recognize that this market may [...]
[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/fblike20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/28/74374510/Regulating+the+Market+for+Zero-day+Exploits%3a+Look+to+the+demand+side>[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/googleplus20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/30/74374510/Regulating+the+Market+for+Zero-day+Exploits%3a+Look+to+the+demand+side>[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/linkedin20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/16/74374510/Regulating+the+Market+for+Zero-day+Exploits%3a+Look+to+the+demand+side>[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/pinterest20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/29/74374510/Regulating+the+Market+for+Zero-day+Exploits%3a+Look+to+the+demand+side,http%3a%2f%2ffeeds.feedburner.com%2f~r%2fIGPBlogCombined%2f~4%2fWJj02ayT_js>[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/twitter20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/24/74374510/Regulating+the+Market+for+Zero-day+Exploits%3a+Look+to+the+demand+side>
• Email to a friend<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Fwd2FriendEdit=175425;7346807;http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IGPBlogCombined/~3/WJj02ayT_js/;Regulating%20the%20Market%20for%20Zero-day%20Exploits:%20Look%20to%20the%20demand%20side;4570886> • Article Search<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;7346807;Uncategorized;Regulating%20the%20Market%20for%20Zero-day%20Exploits:%20Look%20to%20the%20demand%20side;4570886> • View comments<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/www.internetgovernance.org/2013/03/15/regulating-the-market-for-zero-day-exploits-look-to-the-demand-side/#comments> • Track comments<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Track=http%3a%2f%2fwww.internetgovernance.org%2f2013%2f03%2f15%2fregulating-the-market-for-zero-day-exploits-look-to-the-demand-side%2ffeed%2f&ref=comment:175425> •


Freedom to innovate and new top level domains<http://p.feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=73976089&f=175425&u=11399627&c=4570886>

There are hundreds of applications for generic words in ICANN’s new top level domain program. They include .BOOK, .MUSIC, .CLOUD, .ACCOUNTANT, .ARAB and .ART. Some of the applicants for these domains have chosen to make direct use of the name space under the TLD for their own sites rather than offering them for broad general [...]
[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/fblike20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/28/73976089/Freedom+to+innovate+and+new+top+level+domains>[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/googleplus20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/30/73976089/Freedom+to+innovate+and+new+top+level+domains>[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/linkedin20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/16/73976089/Freedom+to+innovate+and+new+top+level+domains>[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/pinterest20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/29/73976089/Freedom+to+innovate+and+new+top+level+domains,http%3a%2f%2ffeeds.feedburner.com%2f~r%2fIGPBlogCombined%2f~4%2feHPdqAqk7gI>[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/twitter20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/24/73976089/Freedom+to+innovate+and+new+top+level+domains>
• Email to a friend<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Fwd2FriendEdit=175425;7346807;http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IGPBlogCombined/~3/eHPdqAqk7gI/;Freedom%20to%20innovate%20and%20new%20top%20level%20domains;4570886> • Article Search<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;7346807;Uncategorized;Freedom%20to%20innovate%20and%20new%20top%20level%20domains;4570886> • View comments<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/www.internetgovernance.org/2013/03/06/freedom-to-innovate-and-new-top-level-domains/#comments> • Track comments<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Track=http%3a%2f%2fwww.internetgovernance.org%2f2013%2f03%2f06%2ffreedom-to-innovate-and-new-top-level-domains%2ffeed%2f&ref=comment:175425> •


China, the US and cybersecurity: is Mandiant promoting a Cold War mentality?<http://p.feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=73436730&f=175425&u=11399627&c=4570886>

The release of the Mandiant report on “Advanced Persistent Threat 1″ (APT1) marked a watershed in US-China relations on cybersecurity. We are glad the security company released the report: it is good that we are now discussing specific allegations backed with specific items of evidence instead of vague accusations about “Chinese hackers” and pro forma [...]
[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/fblike20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/28/73436730/China%2c+the+US+and+cybersecurity%3a+is+Mandiant+promoting+a+Cold+War+mentality%3f>[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/googleplus20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/30/73436730/China%2c+the+US+and+cybersecurity%3a+is+Mandiant+promoting+a+Cold+War+mentality%3f>[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/linkedin20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/16/73436730/China%2c+the+US+and+cybersecurity%3a+is+Mandiant+promoting+a+Cold+War+mentality%3f>[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/pinterest20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/29/73436730/China%2c+the+US+and+cybersecurity%3a+is+Mandiant+promoting+a+Cold+War+mentality%3f,http%3a%2f%2ffeeds.feedburner.com%2f~r%2fIGPBlogCombined%2f~4%2fBiJvBGuW0iI>[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/twitter20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/24/73436730/China%2c+the+US+and+cybersecurity%3a+is+Mandiant+promoting+a+Cold+War+mentality%3f>
• Email to a friend<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Fwd2FriendEdit=175425;7346807;http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IGPBlogCombined/~3/BiJvBGuW0iI/;China,%20the%20US%20and%20cybersecurity:%20is%20Mandiant%20promoting%20a%20Cold%20War%20mentality?;4570886> • Article Search<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;7346807;Uncategorized;China,%20the%20US%20and%20cybersecurity:%20is%20Mandiant%20promoting%20a%20Cold%20War%20mentality?;4570886> • View comments<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/www.internetgovernance.org/2013/02/21/china-the-us-and-cybersecurity-is-mandiant-promoting-a-cold-war-mentality/#comments> • Track comments<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Track=http%3a%2f%2fwww.internetgovernance.org%2f2013%2f02%2f21%2fchina-the-us-and-cybersecurity-is-mandiant-promoting-a-cold-war-mentality%2ffeed%2f&ref=comment:175425> •


On second thought, let’s NOT kill all the lawyers<http://p.feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=73101442&f=175425&u=11399627&c=4570886>

The “Independent Objector” (IO) is one of those unique ICANN creations that shows just how complicated and fraught with politics the simple act of coordinating top level domain name assignments can become.  The IO is a special officer mandated by ICANN to review applications for new top level domains and “object to highly objectionable gTLD [...]
[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/fblike20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/28/73101442/On+second+thought%2c+let’s+NOT+kill+all+the+lawyers>[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/googleplus20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/30/73101442/On+second+thought%2c+let’s+NOT+kill+all+the+lawyers>[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/linkedin20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/16/73101442/On+second+thought%2c+let’s+NOT+kill+all+the+lawyers>[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/pinterest20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/29/73101442/On+second+thought%2c+let’s+NOT+kill+all+the+lawyers,http%3a%2f%2ffeeds.feedburner.com%2f~r%2fIGPBlogCombined%2f~4%2fYJ5l2rVDvjs>[http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/twitter20.png]<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/p.feedblitz.com/f.share?_/24/73101442/On+second+thought%2c+let’s+NOT+kill+all+the+lawyers>
• Email to a friend<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Fwd2FriendEdit=175425;7346807;http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IGPBlogCombined/~3/YJ5l2rVDvjs/;On%20second%20thought,%20let’s%20NOT%20kill%20all%20the%20lawyers;4570886> • Article Search<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;7346807;Uncategorized;On%20second%20thought,%20let’s%20NOT%20kill%20all%20the%20lawyers;4570886> • View comments<http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/4570886/www.internetgovernance.org/2013/02/12/on-second-thought-lets-not-kill-all-the-lawyers/#comments> • Track comments<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Track=http%3a%2f%2fwww.internetgovernance.org%2f2013%2f02%2f12%2fon-second-thought-lets-not-kill-all-the-lawyers%2ffeed%2f&ref=comment:175425> •






________________________________
Click here to safely unsubscribe<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?EmailRemove=_11399627%7c175425%7c990508d99583b5f14a8ad705bf5e94e8%7c4570886_> from "Internet Governance Project Headlines." Click here to view mailing archives<http://archive.feedblitz.com/175425>, here to change your preferences<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Subscriptions=175425>, or here to subscribe<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Sub=175425> • Privacy<http://www.feedblitz.com/f?Privacy> [http://p.feedblitz.com/logos/4570886/175425/11399627/logo.gif] <http://www.feedblitz.com/f>
________________________________
________________________________
Your requested content delivery powered by FeedBlitz<http://www.feedblitz.com>, LLC, 9 Thoreau Way, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA. +1.978.776.9498



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130404/b8ec6332/attachment.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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com  Thu Apr  4 10:46:02 2013
From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 17:46:02 +0300
Subject: [governance] Tangential, Top Swedish judge defends Wikileaks'
 Assange - Asia-Pacific - Al Jazeera English
Message-ID: <515D922A.3020209@gmail.com>

While some on this list have been tepid on the war crimes that have been 
revealed by the leaks, here is some more action on freedom of expression...

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2013/04/201344101924549129.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 pouzin at well.com  Thu Apr  4 18:25:41 2013
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 00:25:41 +0200
Subject: [governance] Linguistic Diversity Essential For Innovation,
 Development, Roundtable Speakers Say
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYp=eQyjJF4o53mn1cwWuy8=MTt3+BFyVFuCYW_5d6T7mA@mail.gmail.com>

OIFMultilingualism not only expands cultural horizons but also provides a
tool for innovation, speakers gathered at an international roundtable
yesterday said. However, language uniformity is a tempting road taken by
many – often for cost-related reasons – while multilingualism should be
promoted as a factor in development, they said.

Read on ..

http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/04/04/linguistic-diversity-essential-for-innovation-development-roundtable-speakers-say/?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130405/f2376984/attachment.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 fulvio.frati at unimi.it  Fri Apr  5 04:25:04 2013
From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati)
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 10:25:04 +0200
Subject: [governance] IEEE DEST-CEE2013 - Submission Deadline Approaching:
 15 April
Message-ID: <019901ce31d7$12d5e360$3881aa20$@unimi.it>

SUBMISSION DEADLINE APPROACHING: 15 APRIL, 2013

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

IEEE DEST 2013

7th IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies

Special Theme - Complex Environment Engineering

24-26 July 2013 – Menlo Park, California, USA

http://dest2013.digital-ecology.org/ 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

 

About IEEE DEST 2013:

What are Digital Ecosystems?

Digital Ecosystems inherit concepts of open, loosely coupled, demand-driven,
domain clustered, agent-based self-organized collaborative environments
where species/agents form a temporary coalition (or longer term) for a
specific purpose or goals. Within this environment everyone is proactive and
responsive for their own benefit or profit. The essence of digital
ecosystems is the adoption of ecological system concepts, and creating value
by making connections through collective intelligence and promoting
collaboration instead of unbridled competition and ICT-based catalyst
effects in a number of domains, to produce networked enriched communities
and solutions. 

 

What are Digital Ecosystem Technologies?

In the present Digital Age, strong development of digital network
infrastructure has dominated our service delivery, economic growth and life
style. Future applications in domains such as Health-Science, Energy, Social
Networks and Logistics demand infrastructures that are more agile than those
operated currently. Digital Ecosystems aim to capture the notion of such
agile and adaptive infrastructures. Digital Ecosystem Technologies encompass
the advent of the whole spectrum of Internet technologies, starting from the
hyperlinked web towards pervasive internet applications, from Peer-to-Peer
systems to Grid middleware, followed by Cloud Services, Agent technologies,
Sensor Networks and Cyber Physical Systems, which has become a major theme
for business process digitalization. 

 

Complex Environment Engineering - Special Theme for IEEE-DEST 2013

Today's global challenges such as in Energy and Sustainability, Healthcare
and an Aging Society, Public Safety and Security, or Democracy and
Participation/Involvement confront us with the most Complex Environments.
Traditional ICT-support has often increased complexity, thus making the
challenges even more severe. The Digital Ecosystem perspective aims to
address the two-fold challenge of Complex Environment Engineering and
Digital Ecosystem Technology mapping. The complexity of both the challenges
and the technological solutions has to be acknowledged. 

IEEE DEST 2013 with its special theme of - Complex Environment Engineering
recognizes the key role of business process data modeling, representation
and privacy-aware analysis for Digital Ecosystems, and vice versa. In 2013,
the distinguished SEED Inauguration Workshop "Building a Digital Ecosystem
for Societal Empowerment" will take place in cooperation with IEEE DEST
2013. Further, the Innovation Adoption Forum underpins the importance of
public-private partnership as the key for delivering sustainable solutions
for our Complex Living and Business Environment – and thus our Digital
Ecosystem Habitat. Our Keynotes, Panels and Sessions will tackle the
multifaceted challenges and solutions from various stakeholders’
perspectives.

Important Dates:

- Submission of Tutorial: Dec 15, 2012

- Notification of Acceptance of Tutorial/Workshop/Special Session: Jan 15,
2013

- Paper Submission: April 15, 2013

- Author Notification: May  6, 2013

- Camera Ready Version: May 20, 2013

Contact Information:

 

Conference Secretary & Treasurer

- Gaurangi Potdar

  Dest2013 at digital-ecology.org

  Gaurangi at digital-ecology.org

 

Webmaster & Graphic Designer

- Samin Mirgheshmi

  Samin at digital-ecology.org

Paper Submission:

Papers should be original works and up to 6 pages in length. All submitted
papers will be peer reviewed by at least 3 independent reviewers. Papers
submitted for this conference must be formatted to fit on A4 paper in a two
column format. The author should use a word processor or desktop publishing
system to produce a "camera ready" paper on A4 paper.

All manuscripts submitted for this conference must be in IEEE
Xplore-compatible PDF format. To assist authors in meeting this requirement
, IEEE has established a web based service called PDF Xpress. We strongly
suggest that you use this service. Complete  information on the papers
submission system for IEEE DEST 2013 will be made available shortly on
http://dest2013.digital-ecology.org/index.php/paper-submission  

 

Conference Location and Context:

The IEEE DEST-CEE 2013 will be hosted in Menlo Park, California. Situated in
the heart of the Silicon Valley, it´s right in the epicenter of the Digital
Ecosystem revolution. The research and innovation ecosystem here is
legendary, fuelled by the unique spirit and entrepreneurship of The Valley
and The Bay Area. Bridging the Bay, UC Berkeley and Stanford University are
world renown for their global impact in science and technology, trends
setting in society and ecology/sustainability, and economic development.
Companies such as IBM, Intel, Google, Facebook linked-in and numerous other
technology drivers are in direct proximity. From San Jose to Woodside to
Berkeley, the spirit is “in the air” – today as much as in the past decades.
IEEE DEST-CEE 2013 will take place in the heart of the Silicon Valley, at
stunning conference locations in Menlo Park and at Stanford University.
People around the globe enjoy the Californian Way of Life, blending it´s
vibrant socio-technological momentum with the tranquillity of the Pacific,
it´s redwood forests, and San Francisco and Berkeley as the spirited places
for those who still see it as the counter-culture centre of the Sixties.
Free Speech and “Flower Power” are forever in Berkeley´s and San Francisco´s
“DNA,” as much as Venture Capital Companies and technology leaders team up
in The Valley. IEEE DEST-CEE 2013 taps and gets involved into this
ecosystem. We look forward to your involvement!

                                                                

SEED Inauguration Workshop

 

Building a Digital Ecosystem for Societal Empowerment

Pre-conference symposium: July 23, and then with IEEE DEST 2013

Conference Tracks:

AREA I: FOUNDATIONS AND TECHNOLOGIES

Area I deals with the basic ICT foundations of digital ecosystems, including
large-scale, virtualized infrastructures, hosting ecosystem services and
processes. Ecosystems require a novel approach to ICT technology
development, closely related to the engineering of complex systems. Area I
includes two one-day tracks that feature contributions on how the
technological support for digital ecosystems is emerging. 

 

Track A: Foundations of Digital Ecosystems & Complex Environment Engineering


Track B: Convergence of Technologies for Sustainable Infrastructures

AREA II: SUSTAINABLE DOMAIN SOLUTIONS

Area II presents contributions in various application domains, Just as the
development of Smart Grids required the convergence of energy and
information system infrastructures, radically new approaches to the design,
convergence, and adoption of systems are required for future solutions in a
variety of domains. Radically increasing the involvement of stakeholders
with complex environments is one potential route for providing solutions in
these domains, for example in energy systems or healthcare. In the longer
term, approaches for enabling collaborative ecosystems may lead to
high-impact solutions for today´s most pressing challenges. The “Sustainable
Domain Solutions” tracks will identify domain requirements, research
challenges and systems solutions with respect to the concept of Digital
Ecosystems and Complex Environment Engineering, as outlined in the
background and objectives of IEEE DEST 2013. Within this context, the tracks
will focus on, but not be limited to, the issues like - Scalability and
availability, with respect to large infrastructure platforms; evolvability,
with respect to the introduction and life-cycle of service platforms; and
usability, with respect to human factors and user benefits. 

 

Track C: Digital Humanities

Track D: Cyber-Security Ecosystem

Track E: Hybrid Biological-Digital Systems

Track F: Healthcare and Sustainable Living

Track G: Track I: Platforms for Social and Community Involvement /
Engagement

Track H: Cyber-Physical Energy Systems

Track I: Collaborative Platforms for Sustainable Logistics and
Transportation

Track J: Fuzzy Semantic computing in digital ecosystems

Track K: Big Data Ecosystems

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130405/8fd93d63/attachment.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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Sun Apr  7 09:50:03 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 21:50:03 +0800
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [APRALO-Beijing] Beijing Schedule / Monday 8
 April 2013
References: <CD86F13B.E3E53%gisella.gruber@icann.org>
Message-ID: <1707D702-2B45-4CEC-A2EC-7D90F9D59C31@gmail.com>

Dear All,

Greetings from Beijing! For those who are interested in attending the ICANN meeting remotely or following the At Large Community's schedule, please see tomorrow's schedule below.

Thank you.

Kind Regards,
Sala

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

> From: At-Large Staff <staff at atlarge.icann.org>
> Date: April 7, 2013, 5:26:11 PM GMT+08:00
> To: ALAC Working List <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, APRALO ALSes <apralo-beijing at icann.org>
> Subject: [APRALO-Beijing] Beijing Schedule / Monday 8 April 2013
> 
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Please find hereafter the At-Large schedule for Monday 8 April 2013 with all remote participation details listed on the ICANN Schedule:
> 
> Wiki Agenda page:	https://community.icann.org/x/YoU3Ag
> 
> ICANN Schedule:	http://beijing46.icann.org/full-schedule
> 
> Meeting Room Map:
> http://beijing46.icann.org/files/meetings/beijing2013/BIH-venue-map-mar13.png
> 
> Please refer to the At-Large Wiki agenda pages for ALL the At-Large meetings as this will be the most up to date. 
> 
> 07:00 - 08:30	Joint Fellows/APRALO ALSes Meeting 1
> Function Room 6
> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37031
> 09:00 - 10:30	Welcome Ceremony
> Grand Hall A
> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37035
> 
> 11:00 - 12:00	Roundtable on the ALAC R3 White Paper
> Function Room 6
> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37043
> 
> 12:00 - 13:00	At-Large Capacity Building Working Group
> Function 6
> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37047
> 
> 14:00 - 15:00	ALAC / NCSG Meeting
> Function Room6
> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37171
> 
> 15:00 - 16:00	Academy Working Group
> Function Room 6
> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37059
> 
> 17:00 - 19:00	At-Large/APRALO Multi-Stakeholder Roundtable
> Function Room 6
> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37063
> 
> 19:00 - 21:00	APRALO Showcase
> Function Room 6
> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37063
> 
> 
> General Meetings:
> Please refer to full Schedule:http://beijing46.icann.org/full-schedule
> 
> Thank you.
> Regards,
> 
> Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen
> ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC
> E-mail: staff at atlarge.icann.org
> 
> One World, One Internet
> _______________________________________________
> apralo-beijing mailing list
> apralo-beijing at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apralo-beijing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130407/831c7662/attachment.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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com  Sun Apr  7 16:08:20 2013
From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (riaz.tayob at gmail.com)
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 23:08:20 +0300
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Wikipedia_outraged=3A_French_intelligence_?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?orders_to_remove_=E2=80=98classified=E2=80=99_content_=E2=80=94?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?_RT_News?=
Message-ID: <3A9E5DD7-6EE5-41C0-85C3-C24A63990200@gmail.com>


http://rt.com/news/french-intelligence-wikipedia-page-removal-454/


...,...

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr  7 17:29:59 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 23:29:59 +0200
Subject: [governance] Formal public warning to Suresh
Message-ID: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch>

[This notification is from both coordinators of the IGC, jointly, in
execution of their responsibility as described in the IGC Charter.]

Hello Suresh

Unfortunately the problem persists that you are posting messages which,
in the words of the IGC Charter, “cause an IGC list to become a hostile
environment”.

Among these unacceptable messages are those which contain personal
attacks, of which a recent example is included below. Personal attacks
have not only an unpleasant or even hurtful effect on the target of the
attack, but they also deny everyone else the opportunity of
participating in a discussion environment that is conductive to
constructive discussion and reflection. 

More generally, all kinds of postings are unacceptable which are
designed to render it impossible for some civil society viewpoint (on
any Internet governance topic, as per WGIG's definition) to be
discussed in a non-hostile environment.

In fact you have, despite all admonitions to the contrary, continued to
make a series of consistent attacks against some IGC members, including
directly personal attacks as well as claims that their viewpoints are
somehow totally inappropriate.

As foreseen by the IGC Charter, you are hereby notified that in case you
continue the practice of posting such unacceptable messages, your
posting rights will be suspended for one month.

Regards,
Norbert and Sala

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working
Group on Enhanced Cooperation


As I asked guru, why is it any of your business who a focal point for
another constituency chooses?

And if your entire participation in this process is to be limited to
such divisive politics, I am not quite sure if you deserve to be one of
the cs representatives in this process, and would urge the cs focal
point to strongly reconsider, at the risk of introducing a divisive
agenda into the process, hampering it rather than contributing
positively to it.

--srs (iPad)

On 30-Mar-2013, at 17:11, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>
> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>> Wow, Gotcha...
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder
>> <parminder at itforchange.net> w=
rote:
>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> you are incorrect.  The folk who are involved in Internet2, amongst
>>>> other REN projects are EXACTLY those people that the FP would
>>>> include.
>>>
>>> So you are saying that members of Internet2 fit the definition of
>>> technical (and academic) community that the focal point gave us
>>> which is "community of organizations and individuals who are
>>> involved in the day-to-day operational management of the Internet
>>> and who work within this community" ? You think that Internet2 is
>>> involved in 'day to say operational management of the Internet'?
>>>
>> I think probably yes <http://www.internet2.edu/membership/index.cfm>
>
> What I hear is that Adam, Mctim, and perhaps one another are saying
> that Internet2 project members meet the definition of 'those involved
> in day to day operational management of the Internet' and thus would
> be eligible as representatives of 'tech and academic community' on
> the WG on enhanced cooperation and such bodies, as per what we have
> heard from the concerned focal point.
>
> I will be happy if ISOC as the focal point can confirm this. Let them
> tell us whom all did they distribute the call for nominations to, and
> we will indirectly get out answer. BTW, the initial mandate of the
> focal points was simply to 'assist the CSTD Chair in reaching out to
> the interested parties in their respective regional or stakeholder
> groups and to facilitate consultations '.
>
> Let ISOC give a report on whom all did they reach out to and held
> consultations with. Such a report is a basic requirement to be made
> public. The WG on IGF Improvements clearly instructs documentation
> and publication of such processes by those involved in stakeholder
> rep selection, and there is no reason it should not be done in this
> case. This is a basic requirement of transparency, isnt it.
>
> Meanwhile, I do not see how Internet2 members can be considered as
> being 'involved' in day to day operational management of the
> Internet.... There are various kinds of techies there working on
> technology innovation, there are universities involved, there are
> even two music schools involved there....
>
> But if indeed, those who work on Internet related innovations in the
> field are to be included, why was Michael's nomination rejected - not
> on intrinsic merit, but on non eligibility.... Michael works with
> various field based Internet innovations, including for instance
> projects involving setting specific technical configurations for
> facilitating tele medicine for aboriginal communities.... Community
> informatics is lot about such kind of stuff. And so, Michael should
> have even qualified for the tech part of tech-academic community,
> what to say about the 'academic' part....
>
>
> I think ISOC is clear when they say that they only include those
> working with organisations involved in day to day operation of the
> Internet  - and these are ICANN, ISOC perhaps for IETF/ IAB etc, RIR,
> root servers and perhaps country cctlds....
>
> And if one is working with any of these organisations, it is not even
> necessary to be either a techie or an academic. You just must be
> working with these above organisations, Perhaps you know that
> Constance, who is now on the WG, is neither a techie nor an academic,
> she is policy and law professional. She is there just because she is
> with ISOC. And so ISOC is rather consistent with a narrow
> interpretation of their definition.
>
> The creteria used by concerned Focal Point ISOC is rather clear -
> even if I strongly disagree with it. And Internet2 members would in
> no case make to their list. Evidence of it would be in the fact that
> - although they are on OECD Technical Community Advisory Committee  -
> I am relatively sure that the Focal Point did not reach out to the
> Internet2 group, and such others, when it was asked to do stakeholder
> outreach. If I am wrong on this, I am happy to be corrected and ISOC
> may publish the process documentations telling us whom all did they
> out reach to.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> And that therefore Internet2 members could have been considered as
>>> nominees from the technical and academic community by the focal
>>> point for the WG on EC?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Strange that they qualify for OECD body as technical community
>>>>> but not for
>>>>> the UN system.....
>>>>>
>>>>> Evidently, the definition of even the technical community part of
>>>>> the 'technical and academic community' employed by the Focal
>>>>> point is erronoeus,
>>>>> what to say about the 'academic community' part which seem to
>>>>> have simply been banished.
>>>> but they haven't been, you are simply mistaken.
>>>
>>> How am I mistaken? Who is the academic community member in the
>>> final list? Like someone not closely associated with ISOC and not
>>> running a country tld whereby one qualifies through the above
>>> definition of being engaged in 'day to day operational management
>>> of the Internet'?
>>>
>>> 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 mueller at syr.edu  Sun Apr  7 19:20:26 2013
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 23:20:26 +0000
Subject: [governance] Formal public warning to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>

Norbert:
As an IGC member I disagree with this decision to issue a formal public warning to Suresh. It seems you are singling out one person when a group of people was engaged in an argument, and all of them contributed messages that were similar in tenor to his. A better way to approach this problem would be to intervene in the argument and inform the participants that we don't think it is a productive exchange and we don't think the spirit of the exchanges was conducive to constructive discussion. 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow
> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 5:30 PM
> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
> Cc: IGC
> Subject: [governance] Formal public warning to Suresh
> 
> [This notification is from both coordinators of the IGC, jointly, in
> execution of their responsibility as described in the IGC Charter.]
> 
> Hello Suresh
> 
> Unfortunately the problem persists that you are posting messages which,
> in the words of the IGC Charter, “cause an IGC list to become a hostile
> environment”.
> 
> Among these unacceptable messages are those which contain personal
> attacks, of which a recent example is included below. Personal attacks
> have not only an unpleasant or even hurtful effect on the target of the
> attack, but they also deny everyone else the opportunity of
> participating in a discussion environment that is conductive to
> constructive discussion and reflection.
> 
> More generally, all kinds of postings are unacceptable which are
> designed to render it impossible for some civil society viewpoint (on
> any Internet governance topic, as per WGIG's definition) to be discussed
> in a non-hostile environment.
> 
> In fact you have, despite all admonitions to the contrary, continued to
> make a series of consistent attacks against some IGC members, including
> directly personal attacks as well as claims that their viewpoints are
> somehow totally inappropriate.
> 
> As foreseen by the IGC Charter, you are hereby notified that in case you
> continue the practice of posting such unacceptable messages, your
> posting rights will be suspended for one month.
> 
> Regards,
> Norbert and Sala
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530
> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
> parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working
> Group on Enhanced Cooperation
> 
> 
> As I asked guru, why is it any of your business who a focal point for
> another constituency chooses?
> 
> And if your entire participation in this process is to be limited to
> such divisive politics, I am not quite sure if you deserve to be one of
> the cs representatives in this process, and would urge the cs focal
> point to strongly reconsider, at the risk of introducing a divisive
> agenda into the process, hampering it rather than contributing
> positively to it.
> 
> --srs (iPad)
> 
> On 30-Mar-2013, at 17:11, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> >
> > On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
> >> Wow, Gotcha...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder
> >> <parminder at itforchange.net> w=
> rote:
> >>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote:
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> you are incorrect.  The folk who are involved in Internet2, amongst
> >>>> other REN projects are EXACTLY those people that the FP would
> >>>> include.
> >>>
> >>> So you are saying that members of Internet2 fit the definition of
> >>> technical (and academic) community that the focal point gave us
> >>> which is "community of organizations and individuals who are
> >>> involved in the day-to-day operational management of the Internet
> >>> and who work within this community" ? You think that Internet2 is
> >>> involved in 'day to say operational management of the Internet'?
> >>>
> >> I think probably yes <http://www.internet2.edu/membership/index.cfm>
> >
> > What I hear is that Adam, Mctim, and perhaps one another are saying
> > that Internet2 project members meet the definition of 'those involved
> > in day to day operational management of the Internet' and thus would
> > be eligible as representatives of 'tech and academic community' on the
> > WG on enhanced cooperation and such bodies, as per what we have heard
> > from the concerned focal point.
> >
> > I will be happy if ISOC as the focal point can confirm this. Let them
> > tell us whom all did they distribute the call for nominations to, and
> > we will indirectly get out answer. BTW, the initial mandate of the
> > focal points was simply to 'assist the CSTD Chair in reaching out to
> > the interested parties in their respective regional or stakeholder
> > groups and to facilitate consultations '.
> >
> > Let ISOC give a report on whom all did they reach out to and held
> > consultations with. Such a report is a basic requirement to be made
> > public. The WG on IGF Improvements clearly instructs documentation and
> > publication of such processes by those involved in stakeholder rep
> > selection, and there is no reason it should not be done in this case.
> > This is a basic requirement of transparency, isnt it.
> >
> > Meanwhile, I do not see how Internet2 members can be considered as
> > being 'involved' in day to day operational management of the
> > Internet.... There are various kinds of techies there working on
> > technology innovation, there are universities involved, there are even
> > two music schools involved there....
> >
> > But if indeed, those who work on Internet related innovations in the
> > field are to be included, why was Michael's nomination rejected - not
> > on intrinsic merit, but on non eligibility.... Michael works with
> > various field based Internet innovations, including for instance
> > projects involving setting specific technical configurations for
> > facilitating tele medicine for aboriginal communities.... Community
> > informatics is lot about such kind of stuff. And so, Michael should
> > have even qualified for the tech part of tech-academic community, what
> > to say about the 'academic' part....
> >
> >
> > I think ISOC is clear when they say that they only include those
> > working with organisations involved in day to day operation of the
> > Internet  - and these are ICANN, ISOC perhaps for IETF/ IAB etc, RIR,
> > root servers and perhaps country cctlds....
> >
> > And if one is working with any of these organisations, it is not even
> > necessary to be either a techie or an academic. You just must be
> > working with these above organisations, Perhaps you know that
> > Constance, who is now on the WG, is neither a techie nor an academic,
> > she is policy and law professional. She is there just because she is
> > with ISOC. And so ISOC is rather consistent with a narrow
> > interpretation of their definition.
> >
> > The creteria used by concerned Focal Point ISOC is rather clear - even
> > if I strongly disagree with it. And Internet2 members would in no case
> > make to their list. Evidence of it would be in the fact that
> > - although they are on OECD Technical Community Advisory Committee  -
> > I am relatively sure that the Focal Point did not reach out to the
> > Internet2 group, and such others, when it was asked to do stakeholder
> > outreach. If I am wrong on this, I am happy to be corrected and ISOC
> > may publish the process documentations telling us whom all did they
> > out reach to.
> >
> > parminder
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Adam
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> And that therefore Internet2 members could have been considered as
> >>> nominees from the technical and academic community by the focal
> >>> point for the WG on EC?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Strange that they qualify for OECD body as technical community but
> >>>>> not for the UN system.....
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Evidently, the definition of even the technical community part of
> >>>>> the 'technical and academic community' employed by the Focal point
> >>>>> is erronoeus, what to say about the 'academic community' part
> >>>>> which seem to have simply been banished.
> >>>> but they haven't been, you are simply mistaken.
> >>>
> >>> How am I mistaken? Who is the academic community member in the final
> >>> list? Like someone not closely associated with ISOC and not running
> >>> a country tld whereby one qualifies through the above definition of
> >>> being engaged in 'day to day operational management of the
> >>> Internet'?
> >>>
> >>> 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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Sun Apr  7 19:48:48 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 19:48:48 -0400
Subject: [governance] Formal public warning to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxgNacfSEG5HwT-Eyz=XnPP32XeQEYgB+mjzBh+i2oB+gA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> Norbert:
> As an IGC member I disagree with this decision to issue a formal public warning to Suresh. It seems you are singling out one person when a group of people was engaged in an argument, and all of them contributed messages that were similar in tenor to his.

Agreed, and some were even more argumentative.


 A better way to approach this problem would be to intervene in the
argument and inform the participants that we don't think it is a
productive exchange and we don't think the spirit of the exchanges was
conducive to constructive discussion.

+1


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Sun Apr  7 19:50:39 2013
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (williams.deirdre at gmail.com)
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 23:50:39 +0000
Subject: [governance] Formal public warning to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxgNacfSEG5HwT-Eyz=XnPP32XeQEYgB+mjzBh+i2oB+gA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch>
  <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
  <CACAaNxgNacfSEG5HwT-Eyz=XnPP32XeQEYgB+mjzBh+i2oB+gA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <342671138-1365378703-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1624406846-@b12.c5.bise6.blackberry>

I agree with both Milton and McTim. 
Deirdre
Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel

-----Original Message-----
From: McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>
Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 19:48:48 
To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Milton L Mueller<mueller at syr.edu>
Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>
Cc: Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>; Suresh Ramasubramanian<suresh at hserus.net>
Subject: Re: [governance] Formal public warning to Suresh

On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> Norbert:
> As an IGC member I disagree with this decision to issue a formal public warning to Suresh. It seems you are singling out one person when a group of people was engaged in an argument, and all of them contributed messages that were similar in tenor to his.

Agreed, and some were even more argumentative.


 A better way to approach this problem would be to intervene in the
argument and inform the participants that we don't think it is a
productive exchange and we don't think the spirit of the exchanges was
conducive to constructive discussion.

+1


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Sun Apr  7 20:03:29 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 05:33:29 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: Formal public warning to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <987B0AC5-3257-4701-8CFB-6B1E8F60AFB3@hserus.net>

Thank you. This warning still leaves the question I had askd unanswered, and contributes to prop up a set of actors that have consistently shown themselves as hostile to any constructive engagement to the technical community.   

If that viewpoint retains the support of the caucus coordinators, I would actually prefer to permanently withdraw from the caucus, while repeating my caution that the agenda being followed by it4change here is, longer term, entirely to the detriment of civil society at large.  

--srs (iPad)

On 08-Apr-2013, at 2:59, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> [This notification is from both coordinators of the IGC, jointly, in
> execution of their responsibility as described in the IGC Charter.]
> 
> Hello Suresh
> 
> Unfortunately the problem persists that you are posting messages which,
> in the words of the IGC Charter, “cause an IGC list to become a hostile
> environment”.
> 
> Among these unacceptable messages are those which contain personal
> attacks, of which a recent example is included below. Personal attacks
> have not only an unpleasant or even hurtful effect on the target of the
> attack, but they also deny everyone else the opportunity of
> participating in a discussion environment that is conductive to
> constructive discussion and reflection. 
> 
> More generally, all kinds of postings are unacceptable which are
> designed to render it impossible for some civil society viewpoint (on
> any Internet governance topic, as per WGIG's definition) to be
> discussed in a non-hostile environment.
> 
> In fact you have, despite all admonitions to the contrary, continued to
> make a series of consistent attacks against some IGC members, including
> directly personal attacks as well as claims that their viewpoints are
> somehow totally inappropriate.
> 
> As foreseen by the IGC Charter, you are hereby notified that in case you
> continue the practice of posting such unacceptable messages, your
> posting rights will be suspended for one month.
> 
> Regards,
> Norbert and Sala
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530
> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
> parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working
> Group on Enhanced Cooperation
> 
> 
> As I asked guru, why is it any of your business who a focal point for
> another constituency chooses?
> 
> And if your entire participation in this process is to be limited to
> such divisive politics, I am not quite sure if you deserve to be one of
> the cs representatives in this process, and would urge the cs focal
> point to strongly reconsider, at the risk of introducing a divisive
> agenda into the process, hampering it rather than contributing
> positively to it.
> 
> --srs (iPad)
> 
> On 30-Mar-2013, at 17:11, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>>> Wow, Gotcha...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder
>>> <parminder at itforchange.net> w=
> rote:
>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> you are incorrect.  The folk who are involved in Internet2, amongst
>>>>> other REN projects are EXACTLY those people that the FP would
>>>>> include.
>>>> 
>>>> So you are saying that members of Internet2 fit the definition of
>>>> technical (and academic) community that the focal point gave us
>>>> which is "community of organizations and individuals who are
>>>> involved in the day-to-day operational management of the Internet
>>>> and who work within this community" ? You think that Internet2 is
>>>> involved in 'day to say operational management of the Internet'?
>>> I think probably yes <http://www.internet2.edu/membership/index.cfm>
>> 
>> What I hear is that Adam, Mctim, and perhaps one another are saying
>> that Internet2 project members meet the definition of 'those involved
>> in day to day operational management of the Internet' and thus would
>> be eligible as representatives of 'tech and academic community' on
>> the WG on enhanced cooperation and such bodies, as per what we have
>> heard from the concerned focal point.
>> 
>> I will be happy if ISOC as the focal point can confirm this. Let them
>> tell us whom all did they distribute the call for nominations to, and
>> we will indirectly get out answer. BTW, the initial mandate of the
>> focal points was simply to 'assist the CSTD Chair in reaching out to
>> the interested parties in their respective regional or stakeholder
>> groups and to facilitate consultations '.
>> 
>> Let ISOC give a report on whom all did they reach out to and held
>> consultations with. Such a report is a basic requirement to be made
>> public. The WG on IGF Improvements clearly instructs documentation
>> and publication of such processes by those involved in stakeholder
>> rep selection, and there is no reason it should not be done in this
>> case. This is a basic requirement of transparency, isnt it.
>> 
>> Meanwhile, I do not see how Internet2 members can be considered as
>> being 'involved' in day to day operational management of the
>> Internet.... There are various kinds of techies there working on
>> technology innovation, there are universities involved, there are
>> even two music schools involved there....
>> 
>> But if indeed, those who work on Internet related innovations in the
>> field are to be included, why was Michael's nomination rejected - not
>> on intrinsic merit, but on non eligibility.... Michael works with
>> various field based Internet innovations, including for instance
>> projects involving setting specific technical configurations for
>> facilitating tele medicine for aboriginal communities.... Community
>> informatics is lot about such kind of stuff. And so, Michael should
>> have even qualified for the tech part of tech-academic community,
>> what to say about the 'academic' part....
>> 
>> 
>> I think ISOC is clear when they say that they only include those
>> working with organisations involved in day to day operation of the
>> Internet  - and these are ICANN, ISOC perhaps for IETF/ IAB etc, RIR,
>> root servers and perhaps country cctlds....
>> 
>> And if one is working with any of these organisations, it is not even
>> necessary to be either a techie or an academic. You just must be
>> working with these above organisations, Perhaps you know that
>> Constance, who is now on the WG, is neither a techie nor an academic,
>> she is policy and law professional. She is there just because she is
>> with ISOC. And so ISOC is rather consistent with a narrow
>> interpretation of their definition.
>> 
>> The creteria used by concerned Focal Point ISOC is rather clear -
>> even if I strongly disagree with it. And Internet2 members would in
>> no case make to their list. Evidence of it would be in the fact that
>> - although they are on OECD Technical Community Advisory Committee  -
>> I am relatively sure that the Focal Point did not reach out to the
>> Internet2 group, and such others, when it was asked to do stakeholder
>> outreach. If I am wrong on this, I am happy to be corrected and ISOC
>> may publish the process documentations telling us whom all did they
>> out reach to.
>> 
>> parminder
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Adam
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> And that therefore Internet2 members could have been considered as
>>>> nominees from the technical and academic community by the focal
>>>> point for the WG on EC?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Strange that they qualify for OECD body as technical community
>>>>>> but not for
>>>>>> the UN system.....
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Evidently, the definition of even the technical community part of
>>>>>> the 'technical and academic community' employed by the Focal
>>>>>> point is erronoeus,
>>>>>> what to say about the 'academic community' part which seem to
>>>>>> have simply been banished.
>>>>> but they haven't been, you are simply mistaken.
>>>> 
>>>> How am I mistaken? Who is the academic community member in the
>>>> final list? Like someone not closely associated with ISOC and not
>>>> running a country tld whereby one qualifies through the above
>>>> definition of being engaged in 'day to day operational management
>>>> of the Internet'?
>>>> 
>>>> 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 anriette at apc.org  Mon Apr  8 02:31:06 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 08:31:06 +0200
Subject: [governance] Formal public warning to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <5162642A.2040901@apc.org>

I agree with Milton.

I respect people's right to argue and to disagree with one another. But
the tone in multiple messages on this list, not just from Suresh, has,
certainly for me, made this list a space that I don't feel comfortable
in. It also feels as if the same rules are not being applied to everyone
in the same way.

A space like the IGC is bound to contain many different views. Some
people will be very convinced of their views. Others might be more
inclined to ask questions, to learn, and thereby broaden their analysis,
and hopefully deepen their understanding of issues under discussion.

It feels to me as if the list had become a space where only those that
are supremely confident and convinced of their own rightness express
themselves freely. It also feels to me as if a few individuals, those
with fixed positions and views, are staging a kind of political theatre
intended to capture and convince those around them.

I respect people with convictions - I have my own too :) -  and
recognise their right to have those convictions and, in many cases, the
hard work that has gone into the development of those convictions.  But
when these convictions lead to people questioning others' integrity and
intentions on an e-list of this nature it does produce a hostile
environment.

As far as I am aware the coordinators have also written to people
offlist so possibly the message to Suresh was not the first, or the
only, attempt to try and contain people's tone. But I think Milton's
process suggestion is a better option for handling the situation.

Another option would be for the coordinators to propose that list
discussions that have developed into a repetitive engagement between a
relatively small number of people continue offlist. If there is
agreement they can always share the outcome with the rest of the list -
even if no consensus was reached.

Anriette


On 08/04/2013 01:20, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Norbert:
> As an IGC member I disagree with this decision to issue a formal public warning to Suresh. It seems you are singling out one person when a group of people was engaged in an argument, and all of them contributed messages that were similar in tenor to his. A better way to approach this problem would be to intervene in the argument and inform the participants that we don't think it is a productive exchange and we don't think the spirit of the exchanges was conducive to constructive discussion. 
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
>> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow
>> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 5:30 PM
>> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
>> Cc: IGC
>> Subject: [governance] Formal public warning to Suresh
>>
>> [This notification is from both coordinators of the IGC, jointly, in
>> execution of their responsibility as described in the IGC Charter.]
>>
>> Hello Suresh
>>
>> Unfortunately the problem persists that you are posting messages which,
>> in the words of the IGC Charter, “cause an IGC list to become a hostile
>> environment”.
>>
>> Among these unacceptable messages are those which contain personal
>> attacks, of which a recent example is included below. Personal attacks
>> have not only an unpleasant or even hurtful effect on the target of the
>> attack, but they also deny everyone else the opportunity of
>> participating in a discussion environment that is conductive to
>> constructive discussion and reflection.
>>
>> More generally, all kinds of postings are unacceptable which are
>> designed to render it impossible for some civil society viewpoint (on
>> any Internet governance topic, as per WGIG's definition) to be discussed
>> in a non-hostile environment.
>>
>> In fact you have, despite all admonitions to the contrary, continued to
>> make a series of consistent attacks against some IGC members, including
>> directly personal attacks as well as claims that their viewpoints are
>> somehow totally inappropriate.
>>
>> As foreseen by the IGC Charter, you are hereby notified that in case you
>> continue the practice of posting such unacceptable messages, your
>> posting rights will be suspended for one month.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Norbert and Sala
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
>> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
>> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530
>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
>> parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working
>> Group on Enhanced Cooperation
>>
>>
>> As I asked guru, why is it any of your business who a focal point for
>> another constituency chooses?
>>
>> And if your entire participation in this process is to be limited to
>> such divisive politics, I am not quite sure if you deserve to be one of
>> the cs representatives in this process, and would urge the cs focal
>> point to strongly reconsider, at the risk of introducing a divisive
>> agenda into the process, hampering it rather than contributing
>> positively to it.
>>
>> --srs (iPad)
>>
>> On 30-Mar-2013, at 17:11, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>>>> Wow, Gotcha...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder
>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net> w=
>> rote:
>>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote:
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you are incorrect.  The folk who are involved in Internet2, amongst
>>>>>> other REN projects are EXACTLY those people that the FP would
>>>>>> include.
>>>>> So you are saying that members of Internet2 fit the definition of
>>>>> technical (and academic) community that the focal point gave us
>>>>> which is "community of organizations and individuals who are
>>>>> involved in the day-to-day operational management of the Internet
>>>>> and who work within this community" ? You think that Internet2 is
>>>>> involved in 'day to say operational management of the Internet'?
>>>>>
>>>> I think probably yes <http://www.internet2.edu/membership/index.cfm>
>>> What I hear is that Adam, Mctim, and perhaps one another are saying
>>> that Internet2 project members meet the definition of 'those involved
>>> in day to day operational management of the Internet' and thus would
>>> be eligible as representatives of 'tech and academic community' on the
>>> WG on enhanced cooperation and such bodies, as per what we have heard
>>> from the concerned focal point.
>>>
>>> I will be happy if ISOC as the focal point can confirm this. Let them
>>> tell us whom all did they distribute the call for nominations to, and
>>> we will indirectly get out answer. BTW, the initial mandate of the
>>> focal points was simply to 'assist the CSTD Chair in reaching out to
>>> the interested parties in their respective regional or stakeholder
>>> groups and to facilitate consultations '.
>>>
>>> Let ISOC give a report on whom all did they reach out to and held
>>> consultations with. Such a report is a basic requirement to be made
>>> public. The WG on IGF Improvements clearly instructs documentation and
>>> publication of such processes by those involved in stakeholder rep
>>> selection, and there is no reason it should not be done in this case.
>>> This is a basic requirement of transparency, isnt it.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, I do not see how Internet2 members can be considered as
>>> being 'involved' in day to day operational management of the
>>> Internet.... There are various kinds of techies there working on
>>> technology innovation, there are universities involved, there are even
>>> two music schools involved there....
>>>
>>> But if indeed, those who work on Internet related innovations in the
>>> field are to be included, why was Michael's nomination rejected - not
>>> on intrinsic merit, but on non eligibility.... Michael works with
>>> various field based Internet innovations, including for instance
>>> projects involving setting specific technical configurations for
>>> facilitating tele medicine for aboriginal communities.... Community
>>> informatics is lot about such kind of stuff. And so, Michael should
>>> have even qualified for the tech part of tech-academic community, what
>>> to say about the 'academic' part....
>>>
>>>
>>> I think ISOC is clear when they say that they only include those
>>> working with organisations involved in day to day operation of the
>>> Internet  - and these are ICANN, ISOC perhaps for IETF/ IAB etc, RIR,
>>> root servers and perhaps country cctlds....
>>>
>>> And if one is working with any of these organisations, it is not even
>>> necessary to be either a techie or an academic. You just must be
>>> working with these above organisations, Perhaps you know that
>>> Constance, who is now on the WG, is neither a techie nor an academic,
>>> she is policy and law professional. She is there just because she is
>>> with ISOC. And so ISOC is rather consistent with a narrow
>>> interpretation of their definition.
>>>
>>> The creteria used by concerned Focal Point ISOC is rather clear - even
>>> if I strongly disagree with it. And Internet2 members would in no case
>>> make to their list. Evidence of it would be in the fact that
>>> - although they are on OECD Technical Community Advisory Committee  -
>>> I am relatively sure that the Focal Point did not reach out to the
>>> Internet2 group, and such others, when it was asked to do stakeholder
>>> outreach. If I am wrong on this, I am happy to be corrected and ISOC
>>> may publish the process documentations telling us whom all did they
>>> out reach to.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Adam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And that therefore Internet2 members could have been considered as
>>>>> nominees from the technical and academic community by the focal
>>>>> point for the WG on EC?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Strange that they qualify for OECD body as technical community but
>>>>>>> not for the UN system.....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Evidently, the definition of even the technical community part of
>>>>>>> the 'technical and academic community' employed by the Focal point
>>>>>>> is erronoeus, what to say about the 'academic community' part
>>>>>>> which seem to have simply been banished.
>>>>>> but they haven't been, you are simply mistaken.
>>>>> How am I mistaken? Who is the academic community member in the final
>>>>> list? Like someone not closely associated with ISOC and not running
>>>>> a country tld whereby one qualifies through the above definition of
>>>>> being engaged in 'day to day operational management of the
>>>>> Internet'?
>>>>>
>>>>> parminder

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
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 chaitanyabd at gmail.com  Mon Apr  8 02:36:02 2013
From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 12:06:02 +0530
Subject: [governance] Formal public warning to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <5162642A.2040901@apc.org>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<5162642A.2040901@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAEP5zKSjm0uj_nmxaaghrchXKvTy=S++-Y5m6mR+T91Y86pv2g@mail.gmail.com>

+1 on Anriette's view


On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:

> I agree with Milton.
>
> I respect people's right to argue and to disagree with one another. But
> the tone in multiple messages on this list, not just from Suresh, has,
> certainly for me, made this list a space that I don't feel comfortable
> in. It also feels as if the same rules are not being applied to everyone
> in the same way.
>
> A space like the IGC is bound to contain many different views. Some
> people will be very convinced of their views. Others might be more
> inclined to ask questions, to learn, and thereby broaden their analysis,
> and hopefully deepen their understanding of issues under discussion.
>
> It feels to me as if the list had become a space where only those that
> are supremely confident and convinced of their own rightness express
> themselves freely. It also feels to me as if a few individuals, those
> with fixed positions and views, are staging a kind of political theatre
> intended to capture and convince those around them.
>
> I respect people with convictions - I have my own too :) -  and
> recognise their right to have those convictions and, in many cases, the
> hard work that has gone into the development of those convictions.  But
> when these convictions lead to people questioning others' integrity and
> intentions on an e-list of this nature it does produce a hostile
> environment.
>
> As far as I am aware the coordinators have also written to people
> offlist so possibly the message to Suresh was not the first, or the
> only, attempt to try and contain people's tone. But I think Milton's
> process suggestion is a better option for handling the situation.
>
> Another option would be for the coordinators to propose that list
> discussions that have developed into a repetitive engagement between a
> relatively small number of people continue offlist. If there is
> agreement they can always share the outcome with the rest of the list -
> even if no consensus was reached.
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 08/04/2013 01:20, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> > Norbert:
> > As an IGC member I disagree with this decision to issue a formal public
> warning to Suresh. It seems you are singling out one person when a group of
> people was engaged in an argument, and all of them contributed messages
> that were similar in tenor to his. A better way to approach this problem
> would be to intervene in the argument and inform the participants that we
> don't think it is a productive exchange and we don't think the spirit of
> the exchanges was conducive to constructive discussion.
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
> >> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow
> >> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 5:30 PM
> >> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
> >> Cc: IGC
> >> Subject: [governance] Formal public warning to Suresh
> >>
> >> [This notification is from both coordinators of the IGC, jointly, in
> >> execution of their responsibility as described in the IGC Charter.]
> >>
> >> Hello Suresh
> >>
> >> Unfortunately the problem persists that you are posting messages which,
> >> in the words of the IGC Charter, “cause an IGC list to become a hostile
> >> environment”.
> >>
> >> Among these unacceptable messages are those which contain personal
> >> attacks, of which a recent example is included below. Personal attacks
> >> have not only an unpleasant or even hurtful effect on the target of the
> >> attack, but they also deny everyone else the opportunity of
> >> participating in a discussion environment that is conductive to
> >> constructive discussion and reflection.
> >>
> >> More generally, all kinds of postings are unacceptable which are
> >> designed to render it impossible for some civil society viewpoint (on
> >> any Internet governance topic, as per WGIG's definition) to be discussed
> >> in a non-hostile environment.
> >>
> >> In fact you have, despite all admonitions to the contrary, continued to
> >> make a series of consistent attacks against some IGC members, including
> >> directly personal attacks as well as claims that their viewpoints are
> >> somehow totally inappropriate.
> >>
> >> As foreseen by the IGC Charter, you are hereby notified that in case you
> >> continue the practice of posting such unacceptable messages, your
> >> posting rights will be suspended for one month.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Norbert and Sala
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> ----
> >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
> >> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530
> >> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
> >> parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> >> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working
> >> Group on Enhanced Cooperation
> >>
> >>
> >> As I asked guru, why is it any of your business who a focal point for
> >> another constituency chooses?
> >>
> >> And if your entire participation in this process is to be limited to
> >> such divisive politics, I am not quite sure if you deserve to be one of
> >> the cs representatives in this process, and would urge the cs focal
> >> point to strongly reconsider, at the risk of introducing a divisive
> >> agenda into the process, hampering it rather than contributing
> >> positively to it.
> >>
> >> --srs (iPad)
> >>
> >> On 30-Mar-2013, at 17:11, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
> >>>> Wow, Gotcha...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder
> >>>> <parminder at itforchange.net> w=
> >> rote:
> >>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote:
> >>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> you are incorrect.  The folk who are involved in Internet2, amongst
> >>>>>> other REN projects are EXACTLY those people that the FP would
> >>>>>> include.
> >>>>> So you are saying that members of Internet2 fit the definition of
> >>>>> technical (and academic) community that the focal point gave us
> >>>>> which is "community of organizations and individuals who are
> >>>>> involved in the day-to-day operational management of the Internet
> >>>>> and who work within this community" ? You think that Internet2 is
> >>>>> involved in 'day to say operational management of the Internet'?
> >>>>>
> >>>> I think probably yes <http://www.internet2.edu/membership/index.cfm>
> >>> What I hear is that Adam, Mctim, and perhaps one another are saying
> >>> that Internet2 project members meet the definition of 'those involved
> >>> in day to day operational management of the Internet' and thus would
> >>> be eligible as representatives of 'tech and academic community' on the
> >>> WG on enhanced cooperation and such bodies, as per what we have heard
> >>> from the concerned focal point.
> >>>
> >>> I will be happy if ISOC as the focal point can confirm this. Let them
> >>> tell us whom all did they distribute the call for nominations to, and
> >>> we will indirectly get out answer. BTW, the initial mandate of the
> >>> focal points was simply to 'assist the CSTD Chair in reaching out to
> >>> the interested parties in their respective regional or stakeholder
> >>> groups and to facilitate consultations '.
> >>>
> >>> Let ISOC give a report on whom all did they reach out to and held
> >>> consultations with. Such a report is a basic requirement to be made
> >>> public. The WG on IGF Improvements clearly instructs documentation and
> >>> publication of such processes by those involved in stakeholder rep
> >>> selection, and there is no reason it should not be done in this case.
> >>> This is a basic requirement of transparency, isnt it.
> >>>
> >>> Meanwhile, I do not see how Internet2 members can be considered as
> >>> being 'involved' in day to day operational management of the
> >>> Internet.... There are various kinds of techies there working on
> >>> technology innovation, there are universities involved, there are even
> >>> two music schools involved there....
> >>>
> >>> But if indeed, those who work on Internet related innovations in the
> >>> field are to be included, why was Michael's nomination rejected - not
> >>> on intrinsic merit, but on non eligibility.... Michael works with
> >>> various field based Internet innovations, including for instance
> >>> projects involving setting specific technical configurations for
> >>> facilitating tele medicine for aboriginal communities.... Community
> >>> informatics is lot about such kind of stuff. And so, Michael should
> >>> have even qualified for the tech part of tech-academic community, what
> >>> to say about the 'academic' part....
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I think ISOC is clear when they say that they only include those
> >>> working with organisations involved in day to day operation of the
> >>> Internet  - and these are ICANN, ISOC perhaps for IETF/ IAB etc, RIR,
> >>> root servers and perhaps country cctlds....
> >>>
> >>> And if one is working with any of these organisations, it is not even
> >>> necessary to be either a techie or an academic. You just must be
> >>> working with these above organisations, Perhaps you know that
> >>> Constance, who is now on the WG, is neither a techie nor an academic,
> >>> she is policy and law professional. She is there just because she is
> >>> with ISOC. And so ISOC is rather consistent with a narrow
> >>> interpretation of their definition.
> >>>
> >>> The creteria used by concerned Focal Point ISOC is rather clear - even
> >>> if I strongly disagree with it. And Internet2 members would in no case
> >>> make to their list. Evidence of it would be in the fact that
> >>> - although they are on OECD Technical Community Advisory Committee  -
> >>> I am relatively sure that the Focal Point did not reach out to the
> >>> Internet2 group, and such others, when it was asked to do stakeholder
> >>> outreach. If I am wrong on this, I am happy to be corrected and ISOC
> >>> may publish the process documentations telling us whom all did they
> >>> out reach to.
> >>>
> >>> parminder
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Adam
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> And that therefore Internet2 members could have been considered as
> >>>>> nominees from the technical and academic community by the focal
> >>>>> point for the WG on EC?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Strange that they qualify for OECD body as technical community but
> >>>>>>> not for the UN system.....
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Evidently, the definition of even the technical community part of
> >>>>>>> the 'technical and academic community' employed by the Focal point
> >>>>>>> is erronoeus, what to say about the 'academic community' part
> >>>>>>> which seem to have simply been banished.
> >>>>>> but they haven't been, you are simply mistaken.
> >>>>> How am I mistaken? Who is the academic community member in the final
> >>>>> list? Like someone not closely associated with ISOC and not running
> >>>>> a country tld whereby one qualifies through the above definition of
> >>>>> being engaged in 'day to day operational management of the
> >>>>> Internet'?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> parminder
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130408/2188ae72/attachment.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 isolatedn at gmail.com  Mon Apr  8 02:37:21 2013
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 12:07:21 +0530
Subject: [governance] Formal public warning to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <CAHyAo0Hshk0OwaqX5RyAQm2-22zset4Dv3xpusotajk4R-AB4Q@mail.gmail.com>

Agree with Milton

Sivasubramanian M
On Apr 8, 2013 7:21 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> Norbert:
> As an IGC member I disagree with this decision to issue a formal public
> warning to Suresh. It seems you are singling out one person when a group of
> people was engaged in an argument, and all of them contributed messages
> that were similar in tenor to his. A better way to approach this problem
> would be to intervene in the argument and inform the participants that we
> don't think it is a productive exchange and we don't think the spirit of
> the exchanges was conducive to constructive discussion.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
> > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow
> > Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 5:30 PM
> > To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
> > Cc: IGC
> > Subject: [governance] Formal public warning to Suresh
> >
> > [This notification is from both coordinators of the IGC, jointly, in
> > execution of their responsibility as described in the IGC Charter.]
> >
> > Hello Suresh
> >
> > Unfortunately the problem persists that you are posting messages which,
> > in the words of the IGC Charter, “cause an IGC list to become a hostile
> > environment”.
> >
> > Among these unacceptable messages are those which contain personal
> > attacks, of which a recent example is included below. Personal attacks
> > have not only an unpleasant or even hurtful effect on the target of the
> > attack, but they also deny everyone else the opportunity of
> > participating in a discussion environment that is conductive to
> > constructive discussion and reflection.
> >
> > More generally, all kinds of postings are unacceptable which are
> > designed to render it impossible for some civil society viewpoint (on
> > any Internet governance topic, as per WGIG's definition) to be discussed
> > in a non-hostile environment.
> >
> > In fact you have, despite all admonitions to the contrary, continued to
> > make a series of consistent attacks against some IGC members, including
> > directly personal attacks as well as claims that their viewpoints are
> > somehow totally inappropriate.
> >
> > As foreseen by the IGC Charter, you are hereby notified that in case you
> > continue the practice of posting such unacceptable messages, your
> > posting rights will be suspended for one month.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Norbert and Sala
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----
> > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
> > Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530
> > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
> > parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working
> > Group on Enhanced Cooperation
> >
> >
> > As I asked guru, why is it any of your business who a focal point for
> > another constituency chooses?
> >
> > And if your entire participation in this process is to be limited to
> > such divisive politics, I am not quite sure if you deserve to be one of
> > the cs representatives in this process, and would urge the cs focal
> > point to strongly reconsider, at the risk of introducing a divisive
> > agenda into the process, hampering it rather than contributing
> > positively to it.
> >
> > --srs (iPad)
> >
> > On 30-Mar-2013, at 17:11, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
> > >> Wow, Gotcha...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder
> > >> <parminder at itforchange.net> w=
> > rote:
> > >>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote:
> > >>>> <snip>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> you are incorrect.  The folk who are involved in Internet2, amongst
> > >>>> other REN projects are EXACTLY those people that the FP would
> > >>>> include.
> > >>>
> > >>> So you are saying that members of Internet2 fit the definition of
> > >>> technical (and academic) community that the focal point gave us
> > >>> which is "community of organizations and individuals who are
> > >>> involved in the day-to-day operational management of the Internet
> > >>> and who work within this community" ? You think that Internet2 is
> > >>> involved in 'day to say operational management of the Internet'?
> > >>>
> > >> I think probably yes <http://www.internet2.edu/membership/index.cfm>
> > >
> > > What I hear is that Adam, Mctim, and perhaps one another are saying
> > > that Internet2 project members meet the definition of 'those involved
> > > in day to day operational management of the Internet' and thus would
> > > be eligible as representatives of 'tech and academic community' on the
> > > WG on enhanced cooperation and such bodies, as per what we have heard
> > > from the concerned focal point.
> > >
> > > I will be happy if ISOC as the focal point can confirm this. Let them
> > > tell us whom all did they distribute the call for nominations to, and
> > > we will indirectly get out answer. BTW, the initial mandate of the
> > > focal points was simply to 'assist the CSTD Chair in reaching out to
> > > the interested parties in their respective regional or stakeholder
> > > groups and to facilitate consultations '.
> > >
> > > Let ISOC give a report on whom all did they reach out to and held
> > > consultations with. Such a report is a basic requirement to be made
> > > public. The WG on IGF Improvements clearly instructs documentation and
> > > publication of such processes by those involved in stakeholder rep
> > > selection, and there is no reason it should not be done in this case.
> > > This is a basic requirement of transparency, isnt it.
> > >
> > > Meanwhile, I do not see how Internet2 members can be considered as
> > > being 'involved' in day to day operational management of the
> > > Internet.... There are various kinds of techies there working on
> > > technology innovation, there are universities involved, there are even
> > > two music schools involved there....
> > >
> > > But if indeed, those who work on Internet related innovations in the
> > > field are to be included, why was Michael's nomination rejected - not
> > > on intrinsic merit, but on non eligibility.... Michael works with
> > > various field based Internet innovations, including for instance
> > > projects involving setting specific technical configurations for
> > > facilitating tele medicine for aboriginal communities.... Community
> > > informatics is lot about such kind of stuff. And so, Michael should
> > > have even qualified for the tech part of tech-academic community, what
> > > to say about the 'academic' part....
> > >
> > >
> > > I think ISOC is clear when they say that they only include those
> > > working with organisations involved in day to day operation of the
> > > Internet  - and these are ICANN, ISOC perhaps for IETF/ IAB etc, RIR,
> > > root servers and perhaps country cctlds....
> > >
> > > And if one is working with any of these organisations, it is not even
> > > necessary to be either a techie or an academic. You just must be
> > > working with these above organisations, Perhaps you know that
> > > Constance, who is now on the WG, is neither a techie nor an academic,
> > > she is policy and law professional. She is there just because she is
> > > with ISOC. And so ISOC is rather consistent with a narrow
> > > interpretation of their definition.
> > >
> > > The creteria used by concerned Focal Point ISOC is rather clear - even
> > > if I strongly disagree with it. And Internet2 members would in no case
> > > make to their list. Evidence of it would be in the fact that
> > > - although they are on OECD Technical Community Advisory Committee  -
> > > I am relatively sure that the Focal Point did not reach out to the
> > > Internet2 group, and such others, when it was asked to do stakeholder
> > > outreach. If I am wrong on this, I am happy to be corrected and ISOC
> > > may publish the process documentations telling us whom all did they
> > > out reach to.
> > >
> > > parminder
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Adam
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> And that therefore Internet2 members could have been considered as
> > >>> nominees from the technical and academic community by the focal
> > >>> point for the WG on EC?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Strange that they qualify for OECD body as technical community but
> > >>>>> not for the UN system.....
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Evidently, the definition of even the technical community part of
> > >>>>> the 'technical and academic community' employed by the Focal point
> > >>>>> is erronoeus, what to say about the 'academic community' part
> > >>>>> which seem to have simply been banished.
> > >>>> but they haven't been, you are simply mistaken.
> > >>>
> > >>> How am I mistaken? Who is the academic community member in the final
> > >>> list? Like someone not closely associated with ISOC and not running
> > >>> a country tld whereby one qualifies through the above definition of
> > >>> being engaged in 'day to day operational management of the
> > >>> Internet'?
> > >>>
> > >>> parminder
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130408/0e15b8b8/attachment.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 aizu at anr.org  Mon Apr  8 02:38:01 2013
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 15:38:01 +0900
Subject: [governance] Re: Formal public warning to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <987B0AC5-3257-4701-8CFB-6B1E8F60AFB3@hserus.net>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <987B0AC5-3257-4701-8CFB-6B1E8F60AFB3@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKgSogg0WxRB+PS2p_bFr10jALUN325xDUR_EFrC7k+xLA@mail.gmail.com>

Frankly speaking, being a non-Native English speaker, I do not sense
much nuances whether this message is a real personal attack or just
some harsh comment but can be accepted, as constructively critical
comments. I also understand sometimes people get passionated and
hence become using strong words.

However, it is discouraging many of us who don't want to be caught
between two fires and have some silencing effect.

In the context that the former decision of the coordinator(s) (when
I was in transition) was appealed to the Appeal Team and found
reversed, I understand how difficult this time the two coordinators
felt, but went ahead. I appreciate your efforts.

Having said that, as Milton and others point out, bringing one side
of the argument on the table and leave other side intact may not
be the best option.

izumi









2013/4/8 Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>

> Thank you. This warning still leaves the question I had askd unanswered,
> and contributes to prop up a set of actors that have consistently shown
> themselves as hostile to any constructive engagement to the technical
> community.
>
> If that viewpoint retains the support of the caucus coordinators, I would
> actually prefer to permanently withdraw from the caucus, while repeating my
> caution that the agenda being followed by it4change here is, longer term,
> entirely to the detriment of civil society at large.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 08-Apr-2013, at 2:59, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
> > [This notification is from both coordinators of the IGC, jointly, in
> > execution of their responsibility as described in the IGC Charter.]
> >
> > Hello Suresh
> >
> > Unfortunately the problem persists that you are posting messages which,
> > in the words of the IGC Charter, “cause an IGC list to become a hostile
> > environment”.
> >
> > Among these unacceptable messages are those which contain personal
> > attacks, of which a recent example is included below. Personal attacks
> > have not only an unpleasant or even hurtful effect on the target of the
> > attack, but they also deny everyone else the opportunity of
> > participating in a discussion environment that is conductive to
> > constructive discussion and reflection.
> >
> > More generally, all kinds of postings are unacceptable which are
> > designed to render it impossible for some civil society viewpoint (on
> > any Internet governance topic, as per WGIG's definition) to be
> > discussed in a non-hostile environment.
> >
> > In fact you have, despite all admonitions to the contrary, continued to
> > make a series of consistent attacks against some IGC members, including
> > directly personal attacks as well as claims that their viewpoints are
> > somehow totally inappropriate.
> >
> > As foreseen by the IGC Charter, you are hereby notified that in case you
> > continue the practice of posting such unacceptable messages, your
> > posting rights will be suspended for one month.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Norbert and Sala
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
> > Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530
> > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
> > parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working
> > Group on Enhanced Cooperation
> >
> >
> > As I asked guru, why is it any of your business who a focal point for
> > another constituency chooses?
> >
> > And if your entire participation in this process is to be limited to
> > such divisive politics, I am not quite sure if you deserve to be one of
> > the cs representatives in this process, and would urge the cs focal
> > point to strongly reconsider, at the risk of introducing a divisive
> > agenda into the process, hampering it rather than contributing
> > positively to it.
> >
> > --srs (iPad)
> >
> > On 30-Mar-2013, at 17:11, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
> >>> Wow, Gotcha...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder
> >>> <parminder at itforchange.net> w=
> > rote:
> >>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote:
> >>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> you are incorrect.  The folk who are involved in Internet2, amongst
> >>>>> other REN projects are EXACTLY those people that the FP would
> >>>>> include.
> >>>>
> >>>> So you are saying that members of Internet2 fit the definition of
> >>>> technical (and academic) community that the focal point gave us
> >>>> which is "community of organizations and individuals who are
> >>>> involved in the day-to-day operational management of the Internet
> >>>> and who work within this community" ? You think that Internet2 is
> >>>> involved in 'day to say operational management of the Internet'?
> >>> I think probably yes <http://www.internet2.edu/membership/index.cfm>
> >>
> >> What I hear is that Adam, Mctim, and perhaps one another are saying
> >> that Internet2 project members meet the definition of 'those involved
> >> in day to day operational management of the Internet' and thus would
> >> be eligible as representatives of 'tech and academic community' on
> >> the WG on enhanced cooperation and such bodies, as per what we have
> >> heard from the concerned focal point.
> >>
> >> I will be happy if ISOC as the focal point can confirm this. Let them
> >> tell us whom all did they distribute the call for nominations to, and
> >> we will indirectly get out answer. BTW, the initial mandate of the
> >> focal points was simply to 'assist the CSTD Chair in reaching out to
> >> the interested parties in their respective regional or stakeholder
> >> groups and to facilitate consultations '.
> >>
> >> Let ISOC give a report on whom all did they reach out to and held
> >> consultations with. Such a report is a basic requirement to be made
> >> public. The WG on IGF Improvements clearly instructs documentation
> >> and publication of such processes by those involved in stakeholder
> >> rep selection, and there is no reason it should not be done in this
> >> case. This is a basic requirement of transparency, isnt it.
> >>
> >> Meanwhile, I do not see how Internet2 members can be considered as
> >> being 'involved' in day to day operational management of the
> >> Internet.... There are various kinds of techies there working on
> >> technology innovation, there are universities involved, there are
> >> even two music schools involved there....
> >>
> >> But if indeed, those who work on Internet related innovations in the
> >> field are to be included, why was Michael's nomination rejected - not
> >> on intrinsic merit, but on non eligibility.... Michael works with
> >> various field based Internet innovations, including for instance
> >> projects involving setting specific technical configurations for
> >> facilitating tele medicine for aboriginal communities.... Community
> >> informatics is lot about such kind of stuff. And so, Michael should
> >> have even qualified for the tech part of tech-academic community,
> >> what to say about the 'academic' part....
> >>
> >>
> >> I think ISOC is clear when they say that they only include those
> >> working with organisations involved in day to day operation of the
> >> Internet  - and these are ICANN, ISOC perhaps for IETF/ IAB etc, RIR,
> >> root servers and perhaps country cctlds....
> >>
> >> And if one is working with any of these organisations, it is not even
> >> necessary to be either a techie or an academic. You just must be
> >> working with these above organisations, Perhaps you know that
> >> Constance, who is now on the WG, is neither a techie nor an academic,
> >> she is policy and law professional. She is there just because she is
> >> with ISOC. And so ISOC is rather consistent with a narrow
> >> interpretation of their definition.
> >>
> >> The creteria used by concerned Focal Point ISOC is rather clear -
> >> even if I strongly disagree with it. And Internet2 members would in
> >> no case make to their list. Evidence of it would be in the fact that
> >> - although they are on OECD Technical Community Advisory Committee  -
> >> I am relatively sure that the Focal Point did not reach out to the
> >> Internet2 group, and such others, when it was asked to do stakeholder
> >> outreach. If I am wrong on this, I am happy to be corrected and ISOC
> >> may publish the process documentations telling us whom all did they
> >> out reach to.
> >>
> >> parminder
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Adam
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> And that therefore Internet2 members could have been considered as
> >>>> nominees from the technical and academic community by the focal
> >>>> point for the WG on EC?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Strange that they qualify for OECD body as technical community
> >>>>>> but not for
> >>>>>> the UN system.....
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Evidently, the definition of even the technical community part of
> >>>>>> the 'technical and academic community' employed by the Focal
> >>>>>> point is erronoeus,
> >>>>>> what to say about the 'academic community' part which seem to
> >>>>>> have simply been banished.
> >>>>> but they haven't been, you are simply mistaken.
> >>>>
> >>>> How am I mistaken? Who is the academic community member in the
> >>>> final list? Like someone not closely associated with ISOC and not
> >>>> running a country tld whereby one qualifies through the above
> >>>> definition of being engaged in 'day to day operational management
> >>>> of the Internet'?
> >>>>
> >>>> 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
>
>


-- 
                        >> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130408/375e53eb/attachment.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 omomeji at gmail.com  Mon Apr  8 02:47:53 2013
From: omomeji at gmail.com (Abdul Jaleel Shittu)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:47:53 +0800
Subject: [governance] Re: Formal public warning to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <CA+YNoKgSogg0WxRB+PS2p_bFr10jALUN325xDUR_EFrC7k+xLA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch>
	<987B0AC5-3257-4701-8CFB-6B1E8F60AFB3@hserus.net>
	<CA+YNoKgSogg0WxRB+PS2p_bFr10jALUN325xDUR_EFrC7k+xLA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABbbmU5JOODQtTHqJaLU6ERkhyt81YOhp0SZxXVU8zt6atcnoA@mail.gmail.com>

I hope those directly involved in this imbroglio will take their course
offline and settle it amicably among themselves, instead of dragging camps
that supposed to be a united front. Misunderstanding, misinterpretation,
etc will not ceased to exit in any community, but a mutual understanding
and respect would always be a path to peaceful co-existence.
Thanks

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> wrote:

> Frankly speaking, being a non-Native English speaker, I do not sense
> much nuances whether this message is a real personal attack or just
> some harsh comment but can be accepted, as constructively critical
> comments. I also understand sometimes people get passionated and
> hence become using strong words.
>
> However, it is discouraging many of us who don't want to be caught
> between two fires and have some silencing effect.
>
> In the context that the former decision of the coordinator(s) (when
> I was in transition) was appealed to the Appeal Team and found
> reversed, I understand how difficult this time the two coordinators
> felt, but went ahead. I appreciate your efforts.
>
> Having said that, as Milton and others point out, bringing one side
> of the argument on the table and leave other side intact may not
> be the best option.
>
> izumi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2013/4/8 Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
>
>> Thank you. This warning still leaves the question I had askd unanswered,
>> and contributes to prop up a set of actors that have consistently shown
>> themselves as hostile to any constructive engagement to the technical
>> community.
>>
>> If that viewpoint retains the support of the caucus coordinators, I would
>> actually prefer to permanently withdraw from the caucus, while repeating my
>> caution that the agenda being followed by it4change here is, longer term,
>> entirely to the detriment of civil society at large.
>>
>> --srs (iPad)
>>
>> On 08-Apr-2013, at 2:59, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>
>> > [This notification is from both coordinators of the IGC, jointly, in
>> > execution of their responsibility as described in the IGC Charter.]
>> >
>> > Hello Suresh
>> >
>> > Unfortunately the problem persists that you are posting messages which,
>> > in the words of the IGC Charter, “cause an IGC list to become a hostile
>> > environment”.
>> >
>> > Among these unacceptable messages are those which contain personal
>> > attacks, of which a recent example is included below. Personal attacks
>> > have not only an unpleasant or even hurtful effect on the target of the
>> > attack, but they also deny everyone else the opportunity of
>> > participating in a discussion environment that is conductive to
>> > constructive discussion and reflection.
>> >
>> > More generally, all kinds of postings are unacceptable which are
>> > designed to render it impossible for some civil society viewpoint (on
>> > any Internet governance topic, as per WGIG's definition) to be
>> > discussed in a non-hostile environment.
>> >
>> > In fact you have, despite all admonitions to the contrary, continued to
>> > make a series of consistent attacks against some IGC members, including
>> > directly personal attacks as well as claims that their viewpoints are
>> > somehow totally inappropriate.
>> >
>> > As foreseen by the IGC Charter, you are hereby notified that in case you
>> > continue the practice of posting such unacceptable messages, your
>> > posting rights will be suspended for one month.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Norbert and Sala
>> >
>> >
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
>> > Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530
>> > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
>> > parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>> > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working
>> > Group on Enhanced Cooperation
>> >
>> >
>> > As I asked guru, why is it any of your business who a focal point for
>> > another constituency chooses?
>> >
>> > And if your entire participation in this process is to be limited to
>> > such divisive politics, I am not quite sure if you deserve to be one of
>> > the cs representatives in this process, and would urge the cs focal
>> > point to strongly reconsider, at the risk of introducing a divisive
>> > agenda into the process, hampering it rather than contributing
>> > positively to it.
>> >
>> > --srs (iPad)
>> >
>> > On 30-Mar-2013, at 17:11, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>> >>> Wow, Gotcha...
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder
>> >>> <parminder at itforchange.net> w=
>> > rote:
>> >>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote:
>> >>>>> <snip>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> you are incorrect.  The folk who are involved in Internet2, amongst
>> >>>>> other REN projects are EXACTLY those people that the FP would
>> >>>>> include.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> So you are saying that members of Internet2 fit the definition of
>> >>>> technical (and academic) community that the focal point gave us
>> >>>> which is "community of organizations and individuals who are
>> >>>> involved in the day-to-day operational management of the Internet
>> >>>> and who work within this community" ? You think that Internet2 is
>> >>>> involved in 'day to say operational management of the Internet'?
>> >>> I think probably yes <http://www.internet2.edu/membership/index.cfm>
>> >>
>> >> What I hear is that Adam, Mctim, and perhaps one another are saying
>> >> that Internet2 project members meet the definition of 'those involved
>> >> in day to day operational management of the Internet' and thus would
>> >> be eligible as representatives of 'tech and academic community' on
>> >> the WG on enhanced cooperation and such bodies, as per what we have
>> >> heard from the concerned focal point.
>> >>
>> >> I will be happy if ISOC as the focal point can confirm this. Let them
>> >> tell us whom all did they distribute the call for nominations to, and
>> >> we will indirectly get out answer. BTW, the initial mandate of the
>> >> focal points was simply to 'assist the CSTD Chair in reaching out to
>> >> the interested parties in their respective regional or stakeholder
>> >> groups and to facilitate consultations '.
>> >>
>> >> Let ISOC give a report on whom all did they reach out to and held
>> >> consultations with. Such a report is a basic requirement to be made
>> >> public. The WG on IGF Improvements clearly instructs documentation
>> >> and publication of such processes by those involved in stakeholder
>> >> rep selection, and there is no reason it should not be done in this
>> >> case. This is a basic requirement of transparency, isnt it.
>> >>
>> >> Meanwhile, I do not see how Internet2 members can be considered as
>> >> being 'involved' in day to day operational management of the
>> >> Internet.... There are various kinds of techies there working on
>> >> technology innovation, there are universities involved, there are
>> >> even two music schools involved there....
>> >>
>> >> But if indeed, those who work on Internet related innovations in the
>> >> field are to be included, why was Michael's nomination rejected - not
>> >> on intrinsic merit, but on non eligibility.... Michael works with
>> >> various field based Internet innovations, including for instance
>> >> projects involving setting specific technical configurations for
>> >> facilitating tele medicine for aboriginal communities.... Community
>> >> informatics is lot about such kind of stuff. And so, Michael should
>> >> have even qualified for the tech part of tech-academic community,
>> >> what to say about the 'academic' part....
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I think ISOC is clear when they say that they only include those
>> >> working with organisations involved in day to day operation of the
>> >> Internet  - and these are ICANN, ISOC perhaps for IETF/ IAB etc, RIR,
>> >> root servers and perhaps country cctlds....
>> >>
>> >> And if one is working with any of these organisations, it is not even
>> >> necessary to be either a techie or an academic. You just must be
>> >> working with these above organisations, Perhaps you know that
>> >> Constance, who is now on the WG, is neither a techie nor an academic,
>> >> she is policy and law professional. She is there just because she is
>> >> with ISOC. And so ISOC is rather consistent with a narrow
>> >> interpretation of their definition.
>> >>
>> >> The creteria used by concerned Focal Point ISOC is rather clear -
>> >> even if I strongly disagree with it. And Internet2 members would in
>> >> no case make to their list. Evidence of it would be in the fact that
>> >> - although they are on OECD Technical Community Advisory Committee  -
>> >> I am relatively sure that the Focal Point did not reach out to the
>> >> Internet2 group, and such others, when it was asked to do stakeholder
>> >> outreach. If I am wrong on this, I am happy to be corrected and ISOC
>> >> may publish the process documentations telling us whom all did they
>> >> out reach to.
>> >>
>> >> parminder
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Adam
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> And that therefore Internet2 members could have been considered as
>> >>>> nominees from the technical and academic community by the focal
>> >>>> point for the WG on EC?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Strange that they qualify for OECD body as technical community
>> >>>>>> but not for
>> >>>>>> the UN system.....
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Evidently, the definition of even the technical community part of
>> >>>>>> the 'technical and academic community' employed by the Focal
>> >>>>>> point is erronoeus,
>> >>>>>> what to say about the 'academic community' part which seem to
>> >>>>>> have simply been banished.
>> >>>>> but they haven't been, you are simply mistaken.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> How am I mistaken? Who is the academic community member in the
>> >>>> final list? Like someone not closely associated with ISOC and not
>> >>>> running a country tld whereby one qualifies through the above
>> >>>> definition of being engaged in 'day to day operational management
>> >>>> of the Internet'?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>                         >> 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
>
>


-- 
..................................................
Abdul Jaleel Kehinde Shittu (PhD)


 http://about.me/abduljaleelshittu.
 "It is one attitude, not one aptitude, that determines one altitude in
life".

"In the presence of greatness, pettiness disappears. In the absence of a
great dream, pettiness prevails."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130408/01c4c5a1/attachment.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 avri at acm.org  Mon Apr  8 02:52:45 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 14:52:45 +0800
Subject: [governance] Formal public warning to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <5162642A.2040901@apc.org>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5162642A.2040901@apc.org>
Message-ID: <8e1a8bdb-3c14-428e-897b-05c017d3327e@email.android.com>

+1

Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

>I agree with Milton.
>
>I respect people's right to argue and to disagree with one another. But
>the tone in multiple messages on this list, not just from Suresh, has,
>certainly for me, made this list a space that I don't feel comfortable
>in. It also feels as if the same rules are not being applied to
>everyone
>in the same way.
>
>A space like the IGC is bound to contain many different views. Some
>people will be very convinced of their views. Others might be more
>inclined to ask questions, to learn, and thereby broaden their
>analysis,
>and hopefully deepen their understanding of issues under discussion.
>
>It feels to me as if the list had become a space where only those that
>are supremely confident and convinced of their own rightness express
>themselves freely. It also feels to me as if a few individuals, those
>with fixed positions and views, are staging a kind of political theatre
>intended to capture and convince those around them.
>
>I respect people with convictions - I have my own too :) -  and
>recognise their right to have those convictions and, in many cases, the
>hard work that has gone into the development of those convictions.  But
>when these convictions lead to people questioning others' integrity and
>intentions on an e-list of this nature it does produce a hostile
>environment.
>
>As far as I am aware the coordinators have also written to people
>offlist so possibly the message to Suresh was not the first, or the
>only, attempt to try and contain people's tone. But I think Milton's
>process suggestion is a better option for handling the situation.
>
>Another option would be for the coordinators to propose that list
>discussions that have developed into a repetitive engagement between a
>relatively small number of people continue offlist. If there is
>agreement they can always share the outcome with the rest of the list -
>even if no consensus was reached.
>
>Anriette
>
>
>On 08/04/2013 01:20, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> Norbert:
>> As an IGC member I disagree with this decision to issue a formal
>public warning to Suresh. It seems you are singling out one person when
>a group of people was engaged in an argument, and all of them
>contributed messages that were similar in tenor to his. A better way to
>approach this problem would be to intervene in the argument and inform
>the participants that we don't think it is a productive exchange and we
>don't think the spirit of the exchanges was conducive to constructive
>discussion. 
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
>>> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow
>>> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 5:30 PM
>>> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
>>> Cc: IGC
>>> Subject: [governance] Formal public warning to Suresh
>>>
>>> [This notification is from both coordinators of the IGC, jointly, in
>>> execution of their responsibility as described in the IGC Charter.]
>>>
>>> Hello Suresh
>>>
>>> Unfortunately the problem persists that you are posting messages
>which,
>>> in the words of the IGC Charter, “cause an IGC list to become a
>hostile
>>> environment”.
>>>
>>> Among these unacceptable messages are those which contain personal
>>> attacks, of which a recent example is included below. Personal
>attacks
>>> have not only an unpleasant or even hurtful effect on the target of
>the
>>> attack, but they also deny everyone else the opportunity of
>>> participating in a discussion environment that is conductive to
>>> constructive discussion and reflection.
>>>
>>> More generally, all kinds of postings are unacceptable which are
>>> designed to render it impossible for some civil society viewpoint
>(on
>>> any Internet governance topic, as per WGIG's definition) to be
>discussed
>>> in a non-hostile environment.
>>>
>>> In fact you have, despite all admonitions to the contrary, continued
>to
>>> make a series of consistent attacks against some IGC members,
>including
>>> directly personal attacks as well as claims that their viewpoints
>are
>>> somehow totally inappropriate.
>>>
>>> As foreseen by the IGC Charter, you are hereby notified that in case
>you
>>> continue the practice of posting such unacceptable messages, your
>>> posting rights will be suspended for one month.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Norbert and Sala
>>>
>>>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ----
>>> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
>>> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530
>>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
>>> parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working
>>> Group on Enhanced Cooperation
>>>
>>>
>>> As I asked guru, why is it any of your business who a focal point
>for
>>> another constituency chooses?
>>>
>>> And if your entire participation in this process is to be limited to
>>> such divisive politics, I am not quite sure if you deserve to be one
>of
>>> the cs representatives in this process, and would urge the cs focal
>>> point to strongly reconsider, at the risk of introducing a divisive
>>> agenda into the process, hampering it rather than contributing
>>> positively to it.
>>>
>>> --srs (iPad)
>>>
>>> On 30-Mar-2013, at 17:11, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>>>>> Wow, Gotcha...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder
>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net> w=
>>> rote:
>>>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote:
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you are incorrect.  The folk who are involved in Internet2,
>amongst
>>>>>>> other REN projects are EXACTLY those people that the FP would
>>>>>>> include.
>>>>>> So you are saying that members of Internet2 fit the definition of
>>>>>> technical (and academic) community that the focal point gave us
>>>>>> which is "community of organizations and individuals who are
>>>>>> involved in the day-to-day operational management of the Internet
>>>>>> and who work within this community" ? You think that Internet2 is
>>>>>> involved in 'day to say operational management of the Internet'?
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think probably yes
><http://www.internet2.edu/membership/index.cfm>
>>>> What I hear is that Adam, Mctim, and perhaps one another are saying
>>>> that Internet2 project members meet the definition of 'those
>involved
>>>> in day to day operational management of the Internet' and thus
>would
>>>> be eligible as representatives of 'tech and academic community' on
>the
>>>> WG on enhanced cooperation and such bodies, as per what we have
>heard
>>>> from the concerned focal point.
>>>>
>>>> I will be happy if ISOC as the focal point can confirm this. Let
>them
>>>> tell us whom all did they distribute the call for nominations to,
>and
>>>> we will indirectly get out answer. BTW, the initial mandate of the
>>>> focal points was simply to 'assist the CSTD Chair in reaching out
>to
>>>> the interested parties in their respective regional or stakeholder
>>>> groups and to facilitate consultations '.
>>>>
>>>> Let ISOC give a report on whom all did they reach out to and held
>>>> consultations with. Such a report is a basic requirement to be made
>>>> public. The WG on IGF Improvements clearly instructs documentation
>and
>>>> publication of such processes by those involved in stakeholder rep
>>>> selection, and there is no reason it should not be done in this
>case.
>>>> This is a basic requirement of transparency, isnt it.
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, I do not see how Internet2 members can be considered as
>>>> being 'involved' in day to day operational management of the
>>>> Internet.... There are various kinds of techies there working on
>>>> technology innovation, there are universities involved, there are
>even
>>>> two music schools involved there....
>>>>
>>>> But if indeed, those who work on Internet related innovations in
>the
>>>> field are to be included, why was Michael's nomination rejected -
>not
>>>> on intrinsic merit, but on non eligibility.... Michael works with
>>>> various field based Internet innovations, including for instance
>>>> projects involving setting specific technical configurations for
>>>> facilitating tele medicine for aboriginal communities.... Community
>>>> informatics is lot about such kind of stuff. And so, Michael should
>>>> have even qualified for the tech part of tech-academic community,
>what
>>>> to say about the 'academic' part....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think ISOC is clear when they say that they only include those
>>>> working with organisations involved in day to day operation of the
>>>> Internet  - and these are ICANN, ISOC perhaps for IETF/ IAB etc,
>RIR,
>>>> root servers and perhaps country cctlds....
>>>>
>>>> And if one is working with any of these organisations, it is not
>even
>>>> necessary to be either a techie or an academic. You just must be
>>>> working with these above organisations, Perhaps you know that
>>>> Constance, who is now on the WG, is neither a techie nor an
>academic,
>>>> she is policy and law professional. She is there just because she
>is
>>>> with ISOC. And so ISOC is rather consistent with a narrow
>>>> interpretation of their definition.
>>>>
>>>> The creteria used by concerned Focal Point ISOC is rather clear -
>even
>>>> if I strongly disagree with it. And Internet2 members would in no
>case
>>>> make to their list. Evidence of it would be in the fact that
>>>> - although they are on OECD Technical Community Advisory Committee 
>-
>>>> I am relatively sure that the Focal Point did not reach out to the
>>>> Internet2 group, and such others, when it was asked to do
>stakeholder
>>>> outreach. If I am wrong on this, I am happy to be corrected and
>ISOC
>>>> may publish the process documentations telling us whom all did they
>>>> out reach to.
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Adam
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And that therefore Internet2 members could have been considered
>as
>>>>>> nominees from the technical and academic community by the focal
>>>>>> point for the WG on EC?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Strange that they qualify for OECD body as technical community
>but
>>>>>>>> not for the UN system.....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Evidently, the definition of even the technical community part
>of
>>>>>>>> the 'technical and academic community' employed by the Focal
>point
>>>>>>>> is erronoeus, what to say about the 'academic community' part
>>>>>>>> which seem to have simply been banished.
>>>>>>> but they haven't been, you are simply mistaken.
>>>>>> How am I mistaken? Who is the academic community member in the
>final
>>>>>> list? Like someone not closely associated with ISOC and not
>running
>>>>>> a country tld whereby one qualifies through the above definition
>of
>>>>>> being engaged in 'day to day operational management of the
>>>>>> Internet'?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> parminder
>
>-- 
>------------------------------------------------------
>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

Avri Doria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130408/d7466ee3/attachment.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 tapani.tarvainen at effi.org  Mon Apr  8 03:14:58 2013
From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 15:14:58 +0800
Subject: [governance] Formal public warning to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <5162642A.2040901@apc.org>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch>
 <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
 <5162642A.2040901@apc.org>
Message-ID: <20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info>

+1

Tapani

On Apr 08 08:31, Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) wrote:

> I agree with Milton.
> 
> I respect people's right to argue and to disagree with one another. But
> the tone in multiple messages on this list, not just from Suresh, has,
> certainly for me, made this list a space that I don't feel comfortable
> in. It also feels as if the same rules are not being applied to everyone
> in the same way.
> 
> A space like the IGC is bound to contain many different views. Some
> people will be very convinced of their views. Others might be more
> inclined to ask questions, to learn, and thereby broaden their analysis,
> and hopefully deepen their understanding of issues under discussion.
> 
> It feels to me as if the list had become a space where only those that
> are supremely confident and convinced of their own rightness express
> themselves freely. It also feels to me as if a few individuals, those
> with fixed positions and views, are staging a kind of political theatre
> intended to capture and convince those around them.
> 
> I respect people with convictions - I have my own too :) -  and
> recognise their right to have those convictions and, in many cases, the
> hard work that has gone into the development of those convictions.  But
> when these convictions lead to people questioning others' integrity and
> intentions on an e-list of this nature it does produce a hostile
> environment.
> 
> As far as I am aware the coordinators have also written to people
> offlist so possibly the message to Suresh was not the first, or the
> only, attempt to try and contain people's tone. But I think Milton's
> process suggestion is a better option for handling the situation.
> 
> Another option would be for the coordinators to propose that list
> discussions that have developed into a repetitive engagement between a
> relatively small number of people continue offlist. If there is
> agreement they can always share the outcome with the rest of the list -
> even if no consensus was reached.
> 
> Anriette
> 
> 
> On 08/04/2013 01:20, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> > Norbert:
> > As an IGC member I disagree with this decision to issue a formal public warning to Suresh. It seems you are singling out one person when a group of people was engaged in an argument, and all of them contributed messages that were similar in tenor to his. A better way to approach this problem would be to intervene in the argument and inform the participants that we don't think it is a productive exchange and we don't think the spirit of the exchanges was conducive to constructive discussion. 
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
> >> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow
> >> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 5:30 PM
> >> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
> >> Cc: IGC
> >> Subject: [governance] Formal public warning to Suresh
> >>
> >> [This notification is from both coordinators of the IGC, jointly, in
> >> execution of their responsibility as described in the IGC Charter.]
> >>
> >> Hello Suresh
> >>
> >> Unfortunately the problem persists that you are posting messages which,
> >> in the words of the IGC Charter, “cause an IGC list to become a hostile
> >> environment”.
> >>
> >> Among these unacceptable messages are those which contain personal
> >> attacks, of which a recent example is included below. Personal attacks
> >> have not only an unpleasant or even hurtful effect on the target of the
> >> attack, but they also deny everyone else the opportunity of
> >> participating in a discussion environment that is conductive to
> >> constructive discussion and reflection.
> >>
> >> More generally, all kinds of postings are unacceptable which are
> >> designed to render it impossible for some civil society viewpoint (on
> >> any Internet governance topic, as per WGIG's definition) to be discussed
> >> in a non-hostile environment.
> >>
> >> In fact you have, despite all admonitions to the contrary, continued to
> >> make a series of consistent attacks against some IGC members, including
> >> directly personal attacks as well as claims that their viewpoints are
> >> somehow totally inappropriate.
> >>
> >> As foreseen by the IGC Charter, you are hereby notified that in case you
> >> continue the practice of posting such unacceptable messages, your
> >> posting rights will be suspended for one month.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Norbert and Sala
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> ----
> >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
> >> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530
> >> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
> >> parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> >> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working
> >> Group on Enhanced Cooperation
> >>
> >>
> >> As I asked guru, why is it any of your business who a focal point for
> >> another constituency chooses?
> >>
> >> And if your entire participation in this process is to be limited to
> >> such divisive politics, I am not quite sure if you deserve to be one of
> >> the cs representatives in this process, and would urge the cs focal
> >> point to strongly reconsider, at the risk of introducing a divisive
> >> agenda into the process, hampering it rather than contributing
> >> positively to it.
> >>
> >> --srs (iPad)
> >>
> >> On 30-Mar-2013, at 17:11, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
> >>>> Wow, Gotcha...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder
> >>>> <parminder at itforchange.net> w=
> >> rote:
> >>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote:
> >>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> you are incorrect.  The folk who are involved in Internet2, amongst
> >>>>>> other REN projects are EXACTLY those people that the FP would
> >>>>>> include.
> >>>>> So you are saying that members of Internet2 fit the definition of
> >>>>> technical (and academic) community that the focal point gave us
> >>>>> which is "community of organizations and individuals who are
> >>>>> involved in the day-to-day operational management of the Internet
> >>>>> and who work within this community" ? You think that Internet2 is
> >>>>> involved in 'day to say operational management of the Internet'?
> >>>>>
> >>>> I think probably yes <http://www.internet2.edu/membership/index.cfm>
> >>> What I hear is that Adam, Mctim, and perhaps one another are saying
> >>> that Internet2 project members meet the definition of 'those involved
> >>> in day to day operational management of the Internet' and thus would
> >>> be eligible as representatives of 'tech and academic community' on the
> >>> WG on enhanced cooperation and such bodies, as per what we have heard
> >>> from the concerned focal point.
> >>>
> >>> I will be happy if ISOC as the focal point can confirm this. Let them
> >>> tell us whom all did they distribute the call for nominations to, and
> >>> we will indirectly get out answer. BTW, the initial mandate of the
> >>> focal points was simply to 'assist the CSTD Chair in reaching out to
> >>> the interested parties in their respective regional or stakeholder
> >>> groups and to facilitate consultations '.
> >>>
> >>> Let ISOC give a report on whom all did they reach out to and held
> >>> consultations with. Such a report is a basic requirement to be made
> >>> public. The WG on IGF Improvements clearly instructs documentation and
> >>> publication of such processes by those involved in stakeholder rep
> >>> selection, and there is no reason it should not be done in this case.
> >>> This is a basic requirement of transparency, isnt it.
> >>>
> >>> Meanwhile, I do not see how Internet2 members can be considered as
> >>> being 'involved' in day to day operational management of the
> >>> Internet.... There are various kinds of techies there working on
> >>> technology innovation, there are universities involved, there are even
> >>> two music schools involved there....
> >>>
> >>> But if indeed, those who work on Internet related innovations in the
> >>> field are to be included, why was Michael's nomination rejected - not
> >>> on intrinsic merit, but on non eligibility.... Michael works with
> >>> various field based Internet innovations, including for instance
> >>> projects involving setting specific technical configurations for
> >>> facilitating tele medicine for aboriginal communities.... Community
> >>> informatics is lot about such kind of stuff. And so, Michael should
> >>> have even qualified for the tech part of tech-academic community, what
> >>> to say about the 'academic' part....
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I think ISOC is clear when they say that they only include those
> >>> working with organisations involved in day to day operation of the
> >>> Internet  - and these are ICANN, ISOC perhaps for IETF/ IAB etc, RIR,
> >>> root servers and perhaps country cctlds....
> >>>
> >>> And if one is working with any of these organisations, it is not even
> >>> necessary to be either a techie or an academic. You just must be
> >>> working with these above organisations, Perhaps you know that
> >>> Constance, who is now on the WG, is neither a techie nor an academic,
> >>> she is policy and law professional. She is there just because she is
> >>> with ISOC. And so ISOC is rather consistent with a narrow
> >>> interpretation of their definition.
> >>>
> >>> The creteria used by concerned Focal Point ISOC is rather clear - even
> >>> if I strongly disagree with it. And Internet2 members would in no case
> >>> make to their list. Evidence of it would be in the fact that
> >>> - although they are on OECD Technical Community Advisory Committee  -
> >>> I am relatively sure that the Focal Point did not reach out to the
> >>> Internet2 group, and such others, when it was asked to do stakeholder
> >>> outreach. If I am wrong on this, I am happy to be corrected and ISOC
> >>> may publish the process documentations telling us whom all did they
> >>> out reach to.
> >>>
> >>> parminder
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Adam
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> And that therefore Internet2 members could have been considered as
> >>>>> nominees from the technical and academic community by the focal
> >>>>> point for the WG on EC?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Strange that they qualify for OECD body as technical community but
> >>>>>>> not for the UN system.....
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Evidently, the definition of even the technical community part of
> >>>>>>> the 'technical and academic community' employed by the Focal point
> >>>>>>> is erronoeus, what to say about the 'academic community' part
> >>>>>>> which seem to have simply been banished.
> >>>>>> but they haven't been, you are simply mistaken.
> >>>>> How am I mistaken? Who is the academic community member in the final
> >>>>> list? Like someone not closely associated with ISOC and not running
> >>>>> a country tld whereby one qualifies through the above definition of
> >>>>> being engaged in 'day to day operational management of the
> >>>>> Internet'?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> parminder
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From william.drake at uzh.ch  Mon Apr  8 03:29:02 2013
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 15:29:02 +0800
Subject: [governance] Formal public warning to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5162642A.2040901@apc.org> <20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <A5071010-C122-494C-94D0-3500F4AE49AF@uzh.ch>

+another

Bill

On Apr 8, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <tapani.tarvainen at effi.org> wrote:

> +1
> 
> Tapani
> 
> On Apr 08 08:31, Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) wrote:
> 
>> I agree with Milton.
>> 
>> I respect people's right to argue and to disagree with one another. But
>> the tone in multiple messages on this list, not just from Suresh, has,
>> certainly for me, made this list a space that I don't feel comfortable
>> in. It also feels as if the same rules are not being applied to everyone
>> in the same way.
>> 
>> A space like the IGC is bound to contain many different views. Some
>> people will be very convinced of their views. Others might be more
>> inclined to ask questions, to learn, and thereby broaden their analysis,
>> and hopefully deepen their understanding of issues under discussion.
>> 
>> It feels to me as if the list had become a space where only those that
>> are supremely confident and convinced of their own rightness express
>> themselves freely. It also feels to me as if a few individuals, those
>> with fixed positions and views, are staging a kind of political theatre
>> intended to capture and convince those around them.
>> 
>> I respect people with convictions - I have my own too :) -  and
>> recognise their right to have those convictions and, in many cases, the
>> hard work that has gone into the development of those convictions.  But
>> when these convictions lead to people questioning others' integrity and
>> intentions on an e-list of this nature it does produce a hostile
>> environment.
>> 
>> As far as I am aware the coordinators have also written to people
>> offlist so possibly the message to Suresh was not the first, or the
>> only, attempt to try and contain people's tone. But I think Milton's
>> process suggestion is a better option for handling the situation.
>> 
>> Another option would be for the coordinators to propose that list
>> discussions that have developed into a repetitive engagement between a
>> relatively small number of people continue offlist. If there is
>> agreement they can always share the outcome with the rest of the list -
>> even if no consensus was reached.
>> 
>> Anriette
>> 
>> 
>> On 08/04/2013 01:20, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>> Norbert:
>>> As an IGC member I disagree with this decision to issue a formal public warning to Suresh. It seems you are singling out one person when a group of people was engaged in an argument, and all of them contributed messages that were similar in tenor to his. A better way to approach this problem would be to intervene in the argument and inform the participants that we don't think it is a productive exchange and we don't think the spirit of the exchanges was conducive to constructive discussion. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
>>>> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow
>>>> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 5:30 PM
>>>> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
>>>> Cc: IGC
>>>> Subject: [governance] Formal public warning to Suresh
>>>> 
>>>> [This notification is from both coordinators of the IGC, jointly, in
>>>> execution of their responsibility as described in the IGC Charter.]
>>>> 
>>>> Hello Suresh
>>>> 
>>>> Unfortunately the problem persists that you are posting messages which,
>>>> in the words of the IGC Charter, “cause an IGC list to become a hostile
>>>> environment”.
>>>> 
>>>> Among these unacceptable messages are those which contain personal
>>>> attacks, of which a recent example is included below. Personal attacks
>>>> have not only an unpleasant or even hurtful effect on the target of the
>>>> attack, but they also deny everyone else the opportunity of
>>>> participating in a discussion environment that is conductive to
>>>> constructive discussion and reflection.
>>>> 
>>>> More generally, all kinds of postings are unacceptable which are
>>>> designed to render it impossible for some civil society viewpoint (on
>>>> any Internet governance topic, as per WGIG's definition) to be discussed
>>>> in a non-hostile environment.
>>>> 
>>>> In fact you have, despite all admonitions to the contrary, continued to
>>>> make a series of consistent attacks against some IGC members, including
>>>> directly personal attacks as well as claims that their viewpoints are
>>>> somehow totally inappropriate.
>>>> 
>>>> As foreseen by the IGC Charter, you are hereby notified that in case you
>>>> continue the practice of posting such unacceptable messages, your
>>>> posting rights will be suspended for one month.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Norbert and Sala
>>>> 
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> ----
>>>> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
>>>> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530
>>>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
>>>> parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working
>>>> Group on Enhanced Cooperation
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> As I asked guru, why is it any of your business who a focal point for
>>>> another constituency chooses?
>>>> 
>>>> And if your entire participation in this process is to be limited to
>>>> such divisive politics, I am not quite sure if you deserve to be one of
>>>> the cs representatives in this process, and would urge the cs focal
>>>> point to strongly reconsider, at the risk of introducing a divisive
>>>> agenda into the process, hampering it rather than contributing
>>>> positively to it.
>>>> 
>>>> --srs (iPad)
>>>> 
>>>> On 30-Mar-2013, at 17:11, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>>>>>> Wow, Gotcha...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder
>>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net> w=
>>>> rote:
>>>>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote:
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> you are incorrect.  The folk who are involved in Internet2, amongst
>>>>>>>> other REN projects are EXACTLY those people that the FP would
>>>>>>>> include.
>>>>>>> So you are saying that members of Internet2 fit the definition of
>>>>>>> technical (and academic) community that the focal point gave us
>>>>>>> which is "community of organizations and individuals who are
>>>>>>> involved in the day-to-day operational management of the Internet
>>>>>>> and who work within this community" ? You think that Internet2 is
>>>>>>> involved in 'day to say operational management of the Internet'?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think probably yes <http://www.internet2.edu/membership/index.cfm>
>>>>> What I hear is that Adam, Mctim, and perhaps one another are saying
>>>>> that Internet2 project members meet the definition of 'those involved
>>>>> in day to day operational management of the Internet' and thus would
>>>>> be eligible as representatives of 'tech and academic community' on the
>>>>> WG on enhanced cooperation and such bodies, as per what we have heard
>>>>> from the concerned focal point.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I will be happy if ISOC as the focal point can confirm this. Let them
>>>>> tell us whom all did they distribute the call for nominations to, and
>>>>> we will indirectly get out answer. BTW, the initial mandate of the
>>>>> focal points was simply to 'assist the CSTD Chair in reaching out to
>>>>> the interested parties in their respective regional or stakeholder
>>>>> groups and to facilitate consultations '.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Let ISOC give a report on whom all did they reach out to and held
>>>>> consultations with. Such a report is a basic requirement to be made
>>>>> public. The WG on IGF Improvements clearly instructs documentation and
>>>>> publication of such processes by those involved in stakeholder rep
>>>>> selection, and there is no reason it should not be done in this case.
>>>>> This is a basic requirement of transparency, isnt it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Meanwhile, I do not see how Internet2 members can be considered as
>>>>> being 'involved' in day to day operational management of the
>>>>> Internet.... There are various kinds of techies there working on
>>>>> technology innovation, there are universities involved, there are even
>>>>> two music schools involved there....
>>>>> 
>>>>> But if indeed, those who work on Internet related innovations in the
>>>>> field are to be included, why was Michael's nomination rejected - not
>>>>> on intrinsic merit, but on non eligibility.... Michael works with
>>>>> various field based Internet innovations, including for instance
>>>>> projects involving setting specific technical configurations for
>>>>> facilitating tele medicine for aboriginal communities.... Community
>>>>> informatics is lot about such kind of stuff. And so, Michael should
>>>>> have even qualified for the tech part of tech-academic community, what
>>>>> to say about the 'academic' part....
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think ISOC is clear when they say that they only include those
>>>>> working with organisations involved in day to day operation of the
>>>>> Internet  - and these are ICANN, ISOC perhaps for IETF/ IAB etc, RIR,
>>>>> root servers and perhaps country cctlds....
>>>>> 
>>>>> And if one is working with any of these organisations, it is not even
>>>>> necessary to be either a techie or an academic. You just must be
>>>>> working with these above organisations, Perhaps you know that
>>>>> Constance, who is now on the WG, is neither a techie nor an academic,
>>>>> she is policy and law professional. She is there just because she is
>>>>> with ISOC. And so ISOC is rather consistent with a narrow
>>>>> interpretation of their definition.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The creteria used by concerned Focal Point ISOC is rather clear - even
>>>>> if I strongly disagree with it. And Internet2 members would in no case
>>>>> make to their list. Evidence of it would be in the fact that
>>>>> - although they are on OECD Technical Community Advisory Committee  -
>>>>> I am relatively sure that the Focal Point did not reach out to the
>>>>> Internet2 group, and such others, when it was asked to do stakeholder
>>>>> outreach. If I am wrong on this, I am happy to be corrected and ISOC
>>>>> may publish the process documentations telling us whom all did they
>>>>> out reach to.
>>>>> 
>>>>> parminder
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Adam
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And that therefore Internet2 members could have been considered as
>>>>>>> nominees from the technical and academic community by the focal
>>>>>>> point for the WG on EC?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Strange that they qualify for OECD body as technical community but
>>>>>>>>> not for the UN system.....
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Evidently, the definition of even the technical community part of
>>>>>>>>> the 'technical and academic community' employed by the Focal point
>>>>>>>>> is erronoeus, what to say about the 'academic community' part
>>>>>>>>> which seem to have simply been banished.
>>>>>>>> but they haven't been, you are simply mistaken.
>>>>>>> How am I mistaken? Who is the academic community member in the final
>>>>>>> list? Like someone not closely associated with ISOC and not running
>>>>>>> a country tld whereby one qualifies through the above definition of
>>>>>>> being engaged in 'day to day operational management of the
>>>>>>> Internet'?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> parminder
>> 
>> -- 
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>> www.apc.org
>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>> south africa
>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From admin at alkasir.com  Mon Apr  8 03:34:05 2013
From: admin at alkasir.com (Walid AL-SAQAF)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 15:34:05 +0800
Subject: [governance] Formal public warning to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <A5071010-C122-494C-94D0-3500F4AE49AF@uzh.ch>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<5162642A.2040901@apc.org>
	<20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info>
	<A5071010-C122-494C-94D0-3500F4AE49AF@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <CAKJSUixyyjJrMRzqh_72nqxUw4-PjTndmmr=oiZ_pQH5D94GHg@mail.gmail.com>

Also +1 supporting Milton's view on how to approach this problem.

Sincerely,

Walid

-----------------

Walid Al-Saqaf
Founder & Administrator
alkasir for mapping and circumventing cyber censorship
https://alkasir.com <walid.al-saqaf at oru.se>

PGP: https://alkasir.com/doc/admin_alkasir_pub_key.txt


On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:29 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> +another
>
> Bill
>
> On Apr 8, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <tapani.tarvainen at effi.org>
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Tapani
> >
> > On Apr 08 08:31, Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) wrote:
> >
> >> I agree with Milton.
> >>
> >> I respect people's right to argue and to disagree with one another. But
> >> the tone in multiple messages on this list, not just from Suresh, has,
> >> certainly for me, made this list a space that I don't feel comfortable
> >> in. It also feels as if the same rules are not being applied to everyone
> >> in the same way.
> >>
> >> A space like the IGC is bound to contain many different views. Some
> >> people will be very convinced of their views. Others might be more
> >> inclined to ask questions, to learn, and thereby broaden their analysis,
> >> and hopefully deepen their understanding of issues under discussion.
> >>
> >> It feels to me as if the list had become a space where only those that
> >> are supremely confident and convinced of their own rightness express
> >> themselves freely. It also feels to me as if a few individuals, those
> >> with fixed positions and views, are staging a kind of political theatre
> >> intended to capture and convince those around them.
> >>
> >> I respect people with convictions - I have my own too :) -  and
> >> recognise their right to have those convictions and, in many cases, the
> >> hard work that has gone into the development of those convictions.  But
> >> when these convictions lead to people questioning others' integrity and
> >> intentions on an e-list of this nature it does produce a hostile
> >> environment.
> >>
> >> As far as I am aware the coordinators have also written to people
> >> offlist so possibly the message to Suresh was not the first, or the
> >> only, attempt to try and contain people's tone. But I think Milton's
> >> process suggestion is a better option for handling the situation.
> >>
> >> Another option would be for the coordinators to propose that list
> >> discussions that have developed into a repetitive engagement between a
> >> relatively small number of people continue offlist. If there is
> >> agreement they can always share the outcome with the rest of the list -
> >> even if no consensus was reached.
> >>
> >> Anriette
> >>
> >>
> >> On 08/04/2013 01:20, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >>> Norbert:
> >>> As an IGC member I disagree with this decision to issue a formal
> public warning to Suresh. It seems you are singling out one person when a
> group of people was engaged in an argument, and all of them contributed
> messages that were similar in tenor to his. A better way to approach this
> problem would be to intervene in the argument and inform the participants
> that we don't think it is a productive exchange and we don't think the
> spirit of the exchanges was conducive to constructive discussion.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
> >>>> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow
> >>>> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 5:30 PM
> >>>> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
> >>>> Cc: IGC
> >>>> Subject: [governance] Formal public warning to Suresh
> >>>>
> >>>> [This notification is from both coordinators of the IGC, jointly, in
> >>>> execution of their responsibility as described in the IGC Charter.]
> >>>>
> >>>> Hello Suresh
> >>>>
> >>>> Unfortunately the problem persists that you are posting messages
> which,
> >>>> in the words of the IGC Charter, “cause an IGC list to become a
> hostile
> >>>> environment”.
> >>>>
> >>>> Among these unacceptable messages are those which contain personal
> >>>> attacks, of which a recent example is included below. Personal attacks
> >>>> have not only an unpleasant or even hurtful effect on the target of
> the
> >>>> attack, but they also deny everyone else the opportunity of
> >>>> participating in a discussion environment that is conductive to
> >>>> constructive discussion and reflection.
> >>>>
> >>>> More generally, all kinds of postings are unacceptable which are
> >>>> designed to render it impossible for some civil society viewpoint (on
> >>>> any Internet governance topic, as per WGIG's definition) to be
> discussed
> >>>> in a non-hostile environment.
> >>>>
> >>>> In fact you have, despite all admonitions to the contrary, continued
> to
> >>>> make a series of consistent attacks against some IGC members,
> including
> >>>> directly personal attacks as well as claims that their viewpoints are
> >>>> somehow totally inappropriate.
> >>>>
> >>>> As foreseen by the IGC Charter, you are hereby notified that in case
> you
> >>>> continue the practice of posting such unacceptable messages, your
> >>>> posting rights will be suspended for one month.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Norbert and Sala
> >>>>
> >>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> ----
> >>>> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
> >>>> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530
> >>>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
> >>>> parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working
> >>>> Group on Enhanced Cooperation
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> As I asked guru, why is it any of your business who a focal point for
> >>>> another constituency chooses?
> >>>>
> >>>> And if your entire participation in this process is to be limited to
> >>>> such divisive politics, I am not quite sure if you deserve to be one
> of
> >>>> the cs representatives in this process, and would urge the cs focal
> >>>> point to strongly reconsider, at the risk of introducing a divisive
> >>>> agenda into the process, hampering it rather than contributing
> >>>> positively to it.
> >>>>
> >>>> --srs (iPad)
> >>>>
> >>>> On 30-Mar-2013, at 17:11, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
> >>>>>> Wow, Gotcha...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder
> >>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net> w=
> >>>> rote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote:
> >>>>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> you are incorrect.  The folk who are involved in Internet2,
> amongst
> >>>>>>>> other REN projects are EXACTLY those people that the FP would
> >>>>>>>> include.
> >>>>>>> So you are saying that members of Internet2 fit the definition of
> >>>>>>> technical (and academic) community that the focal point gave us
> >>>>>>> which is "community of organizations and individuals who are
> >>>>>>> involved in the day-to-day operational management of the Internet
> >>>>>>> and who work within this community" ? You think that Internet2 is
> >>>>>>> involved in 'day to say operational management of the Internet'?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think probably yes <http://www.internet2.edu/membership/index.cfm
> >
> >>>>> What I hear is that Adam, Mctim, and perhaps one another are saying
> >>>>> that Internet2 project members meet the definition of 'those involved
> >>>>> in day to day operational management of the Internet' and thus would
> >>>>> be eligible as representatives of 'tech and academic community' on
> the
> >>>>> WG on enhanced cooperation and such bodies, as per what we have heard
> >>>>> from the concerned focal point.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I will be happy if ISOC as the focal point can confirm this. Let them
> >>>>> tell us whom all did they distribute the call for nominations to, and
> >>>>> we will indirectly get out answer. BTW, the initial mandate of the
> >>>>> focal points was simply to 'assist the CSTD Chair in reaching out to
> >>>>> the interested parties in their respective regional or stakeholder
> >>>>> groups and to facilitate consultations '.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Let ISOC give a report on whom all did they reach out to and held
> >>>>> consultations with. Such a report is a basic requirement to be made
> >>>>> public. The WG on IGF Improvements clearly instructs documentation
> and
> >>>>> publication of such processes by those involved in stakeholder rep
> >>>>> selection, and there is no reason it should not be done in this case.
> >>>>> This is a basic requirement of transparency, isnt it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Meanwhile, I do not see how Internet2 members can be considered as
> >>>>> being 'involved' in day to day operational management of the
> >>>>> Internet.... There are various kinds of techies there working on
> >>>>> technology innovation, there are universities involved, there are
> even
> >>>>> two music schools involved there....
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But if indeed, those who work on Internet related innovations in the
> >>>>> field are to be included, why was Michael's nomination rejected - not
> >>>>> on intrinsic merit, but on non eligibility.... Michael works with
> >>>>> various field based Internet innovations, including for instance
> >>>>> projects involving setting specific technical configurations for
> >>>>> facilitating tele medicine for aboriginal communities.... Community
> >>>>> informatics is lot about such kind of stuff. And so, Michael should
> >>>>> have even qualified for the tech part of tech-academic community,
> what
> >>>>> to say about the 'academic' part....
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think ISOC is clear when they say that they only include those
> >>>>> working with organisations involved in day to day operation of the
> >>>>> Internet  - and these are ICANN, ISOC perhaps for IETF/ IAB etc, RIR,
> >>>>> root servers and perhaps country cctlds....
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And if one is working with any of these organisations, it is not even
> >>>>> necessary to be either a techie or an academic. You just must be
> >>>>> working with these above organisations, Perhaps you know that
> >>>>> Constance, who is now on the WG, is neither a techie nor an academic,
> >>>>> she is policy and law professional. She is there just because she is
> >>>>> with ISOC. And so ISOC is rather consistent with a narrow
> >>>>> interpretation of their definition.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The creteria used by concerned Focal Point ISOC is rather clear -
> even
> >>>>> if I strongly disagree with it. And Internet2 members would in no
> case
> >>>>> make to their list. Evidence of it would be in the fact that
> >>>>> - although they are on OECD Technical Community Advisory Committee  -
> >>>>> I am relatively sure that the Focal Point did not reach out to the
> >>>>> Internet2 group, and such others, when it was asked to do stakeholder
> >>>>> outreach. If I am wrong on this, I am happy to be corrected and ISOC
> >>>>> may publish the process documentations telling us whom all did they
> >>>>> out reach to.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> parminder
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Adam
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And that therefore Internet2 members could have been considered as
> >>>>>>> nominees from the technical and academic community by the focal
> >>>>>>> point for the WG on EC?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Strange that they qualify for OECD body as technical community
> but
> >>>>>>>>> not for the UN system.....
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Evidently, the definition of even the technical community part of
> >>>>>>>>> the 'technical and academic community' employed by the Focal
> point
> >>>>>>>>> is erronoeus, what to say about the 'academic community' part
> >>>>>>>>> which seem to have simply been banished.
> >>>>>>>> but they haven't been, you are simply mistaken.
> >>>>>>> How am I mistaken? Who is the academic community member in the
> final
> >>>>>>> list? Like someone not closely associated with ISOC and not running
> >>>>>>> a country tld whereby one qualifies through the above definition of
> >>>>>>> being engaged in 'day to day operational management of the
> >>>>>>> Internet'?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> parminder
> >>
> >> --
> >> ------------------------------------------------------
> >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> >> executive director, association for progressive communications
> >> www.apc.org
> >> po box 29755, melville 2109
> >> south africa
> >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130408/bfc0651b/attachment.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 ggithaiga at hotmail.com  Mon Apr  8 03:59:02 2013
From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 07:59:02 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: Formal public warning to Suresh
In-Reply-To:  <CABbbmU5JOODQtTHqJaLU6ERkhyt81YOhp0SZxXVU8zt6atcnoA@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch>,<987B0AC5-3257-4701-8CFB-6B1E8F60AFB3@hserus.net>,<CA+YNoKgSogg0WxRB+PS2p_bFr10jALUN325xDUR_EFrC7k+xLA@mail.gmail.com>,<CABbbmU5JOODQtTHqJaLU6ERkhyt81YOhp0SZxXVU8zt6atcnoA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY151-W50FAAE8A00D8FB4D2C9675B4C50@phx.gbl>

+ 1

Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:47:53 +0800
From: omomeji at gmail.com
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; aizu at anr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Formal public warning to Suresh

I hope those directly involved in this imbroglio will take their course offline and settle it amicably among themselves, instead of dragging camps that supposed to be a united front. Misunderstanding, misinterpretation, etc will not ceased to exit in any community, but a mutual understanding and respect would always be a path to peaceful co-existence. 
Thanks

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> wrote:

Frankly speaking, being a non-Native English speaker, I do not sensemuch nuances whether this message is a real personal attack or justsome harsh comment but can be accepted, as constructively critical


comments. I also understand sometimes people get passionated andhence become using strong words.
However, it is discouraging many of us who don't want to be caught 

between two fires and have some silencing effect.
In the context that the former decision of the coordinator(s) (whenI was in transition) was appealed to the Appeal Team and found


reversed, I understand how difficult this time the two coordinatorsfelt, but went ahead. I appreciate your efforts.
Having said that, as Milton and others point out, bringing one side


of the argument on the table and leave other side intact may notbe the best option. 
izumi










2013/4/8 Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>



Thank you. This warning still leaves the question I had askd unanswered, and contributes to prop up a set of actors that have consistently shown themselves as hostile to any constructive engagement to the technical community.






If that viewpoint retains the support of the caucus coordinators, I would actually prefer to permanently withdraw from the caucus, while repeating my caution that the agenda being followed by it4change here is, longer term, entirely to the detriment of civil society at large.






--srs (iPad)



On 08-Apr-2013, at 2:59, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:



> [This notification is from both coordinators of the IGC, jointly, in

> execution of their responsibility as described in the IGC Charter.]

>

> Hello Suresh

>

> Unfortunately the problem persists that you are posting messages which,

> in the words of the IGC Charter, “cause an IGC list to become a hostile

> environment”.

>

> Among these unacceptable messages are those which contain personal

> attacks, of which a recent example is included below. Personal attacks

> have not only an unpleasant or even hurtful effect on the target of the

> attack, but they also deny everyone else the opportunity of

> participating in a discussion environment that is conductive to

> constructive discussion and reflection.

>

> More generally, all kinds of postings are unacceptable which are

> designed to render it impossible for some civil society viewpoint (on

> any Internet governance topic, as per WGIG's definition) to be

> discussed in a non-hostile environment.

>

> In fact you have, despite all admonitions to the contrary, continued to

> make a series of consistent attacks against some IGC members, including

> directly personal attacks as well as claims that their viewpoints are

> somehow totally inappropriate.

>

> As foreseen by the IGC Charter, you are hereby notified that in case you

> continue the practice of posting such unacceptable messages, your

> posting rights will be suspended for one month.

>

> Regards,

> Norbert and Sala

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>

> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530

> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,


> parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>

> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working

> Group on Enhanced Cooperation

>

>

> As I asked guru, why is it any of your business who a focal point for

> another constituency chooses?

>

> And if your entire participation in this process is to be limited to

> such divisive politics, I am not quite sure if you deserve to be one of

> the cs representatives in this process, and would urge the cs focal

> point to strongly reconsider, at the risk of introducing a divisive

> agenda into the process, hampering it rather than contributing

> positively to it.

>

> --srs (iPad)

>

> On 30-Mar-2013, at 17:11, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>

>>

>> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote:

>>> Wow, Gotcha...

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder

>>> <parminder at itforchange.net> w=

> rote:

>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote:

>>>>> <snip>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> you are incorrect.  The folk who are involved in Internet2, amongst

>>>>> other REN projects are EXACTLY those people that the FP would

>>>>> include.

>>>>

>>>> So you are saying that members of Internet2 fit the definition of

>>>> technical (and academic) community that the focal point gave us

>>>> which is "community of organizations and individuals who are

>>>> involved in the day-to-day operational management of the Internet

>>>> and who work within this community" ? You think that Internet2 is

>>>> involved in 'day to say operational management of the Internet'?

>>> I think probably yes <http://www.internet2.edu/membership/index.cfm>

>>

>> What I hear is that Adam, Mctim, and perhaps one another are saying

>> that Internet2 project members meet the definition of 'those involved

>> in day to day operational management of the Internet' and thus would

>> be eligible as representatives of 'tech and academic community' on

>> the WG on enhanced cooperation and such bodies, as per what we have

>> heard from the concerned focal point.

>>

>> I will be happy if ISOC as the focal point can confirm this. Let them

>> tell us whom all did they distribute the call for nominations to, and

>> we will indirectly get out answer. BTW, the initial mandate of the

>> focal points was simply to 'assist the CSTD Chair in reaching out to

>> the interested parties in their respective regional or stakeholder

>> groups and to facilitate consultations '.

>>

>> Let ISOC give a report on whom all did they reach out to and held

>> consultations with. Such a report is a basic requirement to be made

>> public. The WG on IGF Improvements clearly instructs documentation

>> and publication of such processes by those involved in stakeholder

>> rep selection, and there is no reason it should not be done in this

>> case. This is a basic requirement of transparency, isnt it.

>>

>> Meanwhile, I do not see how Internet2 members can be considered as

>> being 'involved' in day to day operational management of the

>> Internet.... There are various kinds of techies there working on

>> technology innovation, there are universities involved, there are

>> even two music schools involved there....

>>

>> But if indeed, those who work on Internet related innovations in the

>> field are to be included, why was Michael's nomination rejected - not

>> on intrinsic merit, but on non eligibility.... Michael works with

>> various field based Internet innovations, including for instance

>> projects involving setting specific technical configurations for

>> facilitating tele medicine for aboriginal communities.... Community

>> informatics is lot about such kind of stuff. And so, Michael should

>> have even qualified for the tech part of tech-academic community,

>> what to say about the 'academic' part....

>>

>>

>> I think ISOC is clear when they say that they only include those

>> working with organisations involved in day to day operation of the

>> Internet  - and these are ICANN, ISOC perhaps for IETF/ IAB etc, RIR,

>> root servers and perhaps country cctlds....

>>

>> And if one is working with any of these organisations, it is not even

>> necessary to be either a techie or an academic. You just must be

>> working with these above organisations, Perhaps you know that

>> Constance, who is now on the WG, is neither a techie nor an academic,

>> she is policy and law professional. She is there just because she is

>> with ISOC. And so ISOC is rather consistent with a narrow

>> interpretation of their definition.

>>

>> The creteria used by concerned Focal Point ISOC is rather clear -

>> even if I strongly disagree with it. And Internet2 members would in

>> no case make to their list. Evidence of it would be in the fact that

>> - although they are on OECD Technical Community Advisory Committee  -

>> I am relatively sure that the Focal Point did not reach out to the

>> Internet2 group, and such others, when it was asked to do stakeholder

>> outreach. If I am wrong on this, I am happy to be corrected and ISOC

>> may publish the process documentations telling us whom all did they

>> out reach to.

>>

>> parminder

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>>

>>> Adam

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>> And that therefore Internet2 members could have been considered as

>>>> nominees from the technical and academic community by the focal

>>>> point for the WG on EC?

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>> Strange that they qualify for OECD body as technical community

>>>>>> but not for

>>>>>> the UN system.....

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Evidently, the definition of even the technical community part of

>>>>>> the 'technical and academic community' employed by the Focal

>>>>>> point is erronoeus,

>>>>>> what to say about the 'academic community' part which seem to

>>>>>> have simply been banished.

>>>>> but they haven't been, you are simply mistaken.

>>>>

>>>> How am I mistaken? Who is the academic community member in the

>>>> final list? Like someone not closely associated with ISOC and not

>>>> running a country tld whereby one qualifies through the above

>>>> definition of being engaged in 'day to day operational management

>>>> of the Internet'?

>>>>

>>>> 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




-- 
                        >> 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




-- 
..................................................
Abdul Jaleel Kehinde Shittu (PhD)


 
 http://about.me/abduljaleelshittu.

"It is one attitude, not one aptitude, that determines one altitude in life".
 "In the presence of greatness, pettiness disappears. In the absence of a great dream, pettiness prevails."
 
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130408/1f8a1826/attachment.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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Mon Apr  8 03:59:29 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 15:59:29 +0800
Subject: [governance] Message to IGC/ was formal notice to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5162642A.2040901@apc.org> <20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <ABFF7E5D-23E1-4119-B41B-0BEC03068880@gmail.com>

Dear Colleagues,

Warm greetings from Beijing. I trust that you are all in excellent health and spirits. As you can imagine, moderating discussions on the IGC is challenging at best. There are many considerations and challenges for those that participate.

One of the challenges of being part of an online community is communication. One of the roles of a moderator is to constantly monitor discussions and to allow for free and open discussions and in allowing for diverse views to be heard. This is critical, to this end, at all times, there is a need to  foster inclusion.

One of the challenges that we have had on the list is to ensure that this occurs. To this end, there is a joint responsibility for list members or subscribers to think about the manner and style of posting. Does it encourage dialogue? Is the post addressing the issues raised? 

By all means, we encourage debate and robust discussion but that can certainly happen without attacking a person. 

In this instance, there has been prior dialogue (private) and there has been since last year, a series of attempts to communicate this but a clear pattern continues to emerge.

I regret that people feel that the reprimand was in bad taste and it was not intended to cause people to feel bad that they do not want to post and freely discuss but to simply send a strong message to the list that discussions need to be civil without attacking persons.

Milton and others raised important points as well and I would like to acknowledge your concerns. To this end, I would like to suggest that we create a committee to determine whether content is offensive or not. This may mean amendment of the Charter to reflect this. Clearly, there are mixed reactions on competency of moderators to judge the nature of content.

Let's turn this into an opportunity for positive change.

Warm Regards,
Sala

P.S in my individual capacity

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 8, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <tapani.tarvainen at effi.org> wrote:

> +1
> 
> Tapani
> 
> On Apr 08 08:31, Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) wrote:
> 
>> I agree with Milton.
>> 
>> I respect people's right to argue and to disagree with one another. But
>> the tone in multiple messages on this list, not just from Suresh, has,
>> certainly for me, made this list a space that I don't feel comfortable
>> in. It also feels as if the same rules are not being applied to everyone
>> in the same way.
>> 
>> A space like the IGC is bound to contain many different views. Some
>> people will be very convinced of their views. Others might be more
>> inclined to ask questions, to learn, and thereby broaden their analysis,
>> and hopefully deepen their understanding of issues under discussion.
>> 
>> It feels to me as if the list had become a space where only those that
>> are supremely confident and convinced of their own rightness express
>> themselves freely. It also feels to me as if a few individuals, those
>> with fixed positions and views, are staging a kind of political theatre
>> intended to capture and convince those around them.
>> 
>> I respect people with convictions - I have my own too :) -  and
>> recognise their right to have those convictions and, in many cases, the
>> hard work that has gone into the development of those convictions.  But
>> when these convictions lead to people questioning others' integrity and
>> intentions on an e-list of this nature it does produce a hostile
>> environment.
>> 
>> As far as I am aware the coordinators have also written to people
>> offlist so possibly the message to Suresh was not the first, or the
>> only, attempt to try and contain people's tone. But I think Milton's
>> process suggestion is a better option for handling the situation.
>> 
>> Another option would be for the coordinators to propose that list
>> discussions that have developed into a repetitive engagement between a
>> relatively small number of people continue offlist. If there is
>> agreement they can always share the outcome with the rest of the list -
>> even if no consensus was reached.
>> 
>> Anriette
>> 
>> 
>> On 08/04/2013 01:20, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>> Norbert:
>>> As an IGC member I disagree with this decision to issue a formal public warning to Suresh. It seems you are singling out one person when a group of people was engaged in an argument, and all of them contributed messages that were similar in tenor to his. A better way to approach this problem would be to intervene in the argument and inform the participants that we don't think it is a productive exchange and we don't think the spirit of the exchanges was conducive to constructive discussion. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
>>>> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow
>>>> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 5:30 PM
>>>> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
>>>> Cc: IGC
>>>> Subject: [governance] Formal public warning to Suresh
>>>> 
>>>> [This notification is from both coordinators of the IGC, jointly, in
>>>> execution of their responsibility as described in the IGC Charter.]
>>>> 
>>>> Hello Suresh
>>>> 
>>>> Unfortunately the problem persists that you are posting messages which,
>>>> in the words of the IGC Charter, “cause an IGC list to become a hostile
>>>> environment”.
>>>> 
>>>> Among these unacceptable messages are those which contain personal
>>>> attacks, of which a recent example is included below. Personal attacks
>>>> have not only an unpleasant or even hurtful effect on the target of the
>>>> attack, but they also deny everyone else the opportunity of
>>>> participating in a discussion environment that is conductive to
>>>> constructive discussion and reflection.
>>>> 
>>>> More generally, all kinds of postings are unacceptable which are
>>>> designed to render it impossible for some civil society viewpoint (on
>>>> any Internet governance topic, as per WGIG's definition) to be discussed
>>>> in a non-hostile environment.
>>>> 
>>>> In fact you have, despite all admonitions to the contrary, continued to
>>>> make a series of consistent attacks against some IGC members, including
>>>> directly personal attacks as well as claims that their viewpoints are
>>>> somehow totally inappropriate.
>>>> 
>>>> As foreseen by the IGC Charter, you are hereby notified that in case you
>>>> continue the practice of posting such unacceptable messages, your
>>>> posting rights will be suspended for one month.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Norbert and Sala
>>>> 
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> ----
>>>> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
>>>> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530
>>>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
>>>> parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working
>>>> Group on Enhanced Cooperation
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> As I asked guru, why is it any of your business who a focal point for
>>>> another constituency chooses?
>>>> 
>>>> And if your entire participation in this process is to be limited to
>>>> such divisive politics, I am not quite sure if you deserve to be one of
>>>> the cs representatives in this process, and would urge the cs focal
>>>> point to strongly reconsider, at the risk of introducing a divisive
>>>> agenda into the process, hampering it rather than contributing
>>>> positively to it.
>>>> 
>>>> --srs (iPad)
>>>> 
>>>> On 30-Mar-2013, at 17:11, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>>>>>> Wow, Gotcha...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder
>>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net> w=
>>>> rote:
>>>>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote:
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> you are incorrect.  The folk who are involved in Internet2, amongst
>>>>>>>> other REN projects are EXACTLY those people that the FP would
>>>>>>>> include.
>>>>>>> So you are saying that members of Internet2 fit the definition of
>>>>>>> technical (and academic) community that the focal point gave us
>>>>>>> which is "community of organizations and individuals who are
>>>>>>> involved in the day-to-day operational management of the Internet
>>>>>>> and who work within this community" ? You think that Internet2 is
>>>>>>> involved in 'day to say operational management of the Internet'?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think probably yes <http://www.internet2.edu/membership/index.cfm>
>>>>> What I hear is that Adam, Mctim, and perhaps one another are saying
>>>>> that Internet2 project members meet the definition of 'those involved
>>>>> in day to day operational management of the Internet' and thus would
>>>>> be eligible as representatives of 'tech and academic community' on the
>>>>> WG on enhanced cooperation and such bodies, as per what we have heard
>>>>> from the concerned focal point.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I will be happy if ISOC as the focal point can confirm this. Let them
>>>>> tell us whom all did they distribute the call for nominations to, and
>>>>> we will indirectly get out answer. BTW, the initial mandate of the
>>>>> focal points was simply to 'assist the CSTD Chair in reaching out to
>>>>> the interested parties in their respective regional or stakeholder
>>>>> groups and to facilitate consultations '.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Let ISOC give a report on whom all did they reach out to and held
>>>>> consultations with. Such a report is a basic requirement to be made
>>>>> public. The WG on IGF Improvements clearly instructs documentation and
>>>>> publication of such processes by those involved in stakeholder rep
>>>>> selection, and there is no reason it should not be done in this case.
>>>>> This is a basic requirement of transparency, isnt it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Meanwhile, I do not see how Internet2 members can be considered as
>>>>> being 'involved' in day to day operational management of the
>>>>> Internet.... There are various kinds of techies there working on
>>>>> technology innovation, there are universities involved, there are even
>>>>> two music schools involved there....
>>>>> 
>>>>> But if indeed, those who work on Internet related innovations in the
>>>>> field are to be included, why was Michael's nomination rejected - not
>>>>> on intrinsic merit, but on non eligibility.... Michael works with
>>>>> various field based Internet innovations, including for instance
>>>>> projects involving setting specific technical configurations for
>>>>> facilitating tele medicine for aboriginal communities.... Community
>>>>> informatics is lot about such kind of stuff. And so, Michael should
>>>>> have even qualified for the tech part of tech-academic community, what
>>>>> to say about the 'academic' part....
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think ISOC is clear when they say that they only include those
>>>>> working with organisations involved in day to day operation of the
>>>>> Internet  - and these are ICANN, ISOC perhaps for IETF/ IAB etc, RIR,
>>>>> root servers and perhaps country cctlds....
>>>>> 
>>>>> And if one is working with any of these organisations, it is not even
>>>>> necessary to be either a techie or an academic. You just must be
>>>>> working with these above organisations, Perhaps you know that
>>>>> Constance, who is now on the WG, is neither a techie nor an academic,
>>>>> she is policy and law professional. She is there just because she is
>>>>> with ISOC. And so ISOC is rather consistent with a narrow
>>>>> interpretation of their definition.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The creteria used by concerned Focal Point ISOC is rather clear - even
>>>>> if I strongly disagree with it. And Internet2 members would in no case
>>>>> make to their list. Evidence of it would be in the fact that
>>>>> - although they are on OECD Technical Community Advisory Committee  -
>>>>> I am relatively sure that the Focal Point did not reach out to the
>>>>> Internet2 group, and such others, when it was asked to do stakeholder
>>>>> outreach. If I am wrong on this, I am happy to be corrected and ISOC
>>>>> may publish the process documentations telling us whom all did they
>>>>> out reach to.
>>>>> 
>>>>> parminder
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Adam
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And that therefore Internet2 members could have been considered as
>>>>>>> nominees from the technical and academic community by the focal
>>>>>>> point for the WG on EC?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Strange that they qualify for OECD body as technical community but
>>>>>>>>> not for the UN system.....
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Evidently, the definition of even the technical community part of
>>>>>>>>> the 'technical and academic community' employed by the Focal point
>>>>>>>>> is erronoeus, what to say about the 'academic community' part
>>>>>>>>> which seem to have simply been banished.
>>>>>>>> but they haven't been, you are simply mistaken.
>>>>>>> How am I mistaken? Who is the academic community member in the final
>>>>>>> list? Like someone not closely associated with ISOC and not running
>>>>>>> a country tld whereby one qualifies through the above definition of
>>>>>>> being engaged in 'day to day operational management of the
>>>>>>> Internet'?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> parminder
>> 
>> -- 
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>> www.apc.org
>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>> south africa
>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Apr  8 04:28:13 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 13:58:13 +0530
Subject: [governance] Message to IGC/ was formal notice to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <ABFF7E5D-23E1-4119-B41B-0BEC03068880@gmail.com>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5162642A.2040901@apc.org> <20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info> <ABFF7E5D-23E1-4119-B41B-0BEC03068880@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net>

This is not a question of content at all, Sala.  It is a question of neutrality - which, right now, I am not questioning, though I do ask that the coordinators introspect before taking any future action in such a matter.

Please allow me to summarize the situation.

1. The credentials of a person nominated to represent another stakeholder group were questioned, without - as it turns out - doing any due diligence at all (as simple as a google search that would show him eminently qualified to represent that community)

2. The question was raised as to whether

	a. The people objecting had bothered to do such due diligence

	b. Whether they had any locus standi to raise such an objection at all - 

3. The coordinators did not, as I see it, respond by objecting to this questioning of credentials.  Instead, they responded by objecting to the manner in which this questioning of credentials was opposed.  Which leads to the question of whether they actually support a note from the caucus to the technical and academic community, rejecting this candidate - as is apparently being proposed

If you solely focus on specific words and expressions used in the discussion, and yet passively acquiesce in something as pernicious as the caucus interfering in the affairs of an entirely different stakeholder community,  there is something very wrong with this picture.

To reverse this situation, how would we feel if another stakeholder group - say a government or intergovernmental entity - objected to a particular individual being selected as a representative of civil society for any multistakeholder process?  Or perhaps if they emailed the caucus asking that this selection be overturned?

--srs (iPad)

On 08-Apr-2013, at 13:29, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> Warm greetings from Beijing. I trust that you are all in excellent health and spirits. As you can imagine, moderating discussions on the IGC is challenging at best. There are many considerations and challenges for those that participate.
> 
> One of the challenges of being part of an online community is communication. One of the roles of a moderator is to constantly monitor discussions and to allow for free and open discussions and in allowing for diverse views to be heard. This is critical, to this end, at all times, there is a need to  foster inclusion.
> 
> One of the challenges that we have had on the list is to ensure that this occurs. To this end, there is a joint responsibility for list members or subscribers to think about the manner and style of posting. Does it encourage dialogue? Is the post addressing the issues raised? 
> 
> By all means, we encourage debate and robust discussion but that can certainly happen without attacking a person. 
> 
> In this instance, there has been prior dialogue (private) and there has been since last year, a series of attempts to communicate this but a clear pattern continues to emerge.
> 
> I regret that people feel that the reprimand was in bad taste and it was not intended to cause people to feel bad that they do not want to post and freely discuss but to simply send a strong message to the list that discussions need to be civil without attacking persons.
> 
> Milton and others raised important points as well and I would like to acknowledge your concerns. To this end, I would like to suggest that we create a committee to determine whether content is offensive or not. This may mean amendment of the Charter to reflect this. Clearly, there are mixed reactions on competency of moderators to judge the nature of content.
> 
> Let's turn this into an opportunity for positive change.
> 
> Warm Regards,
> Sala
> 
> P.S in my individual capacity
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Apr 8, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <tapani.tarvainen at effi.org> wrote:
> 
>> +1
>> 
>> Tapani
>> 
>> On Apr 08 08:31, Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) wrote:
>> 
>>> I agree with Milton.
>>> 
>>> I respect people's right to argue and to disagree with one another. But
>>> the tone in multiple messages on this list, not just from Suresh, has,
>>> certainly for me, made this list a space that I don't feel comfortable
>>> in. It also feels as if the same rules are not being applied to everyone
>>> in the same way.
>>> 
>>> A space like the IGC is bound to contain many different views. Some
>>> people will be very convinced of their views. Others might be more
>>> inclined to ask questions, to learn, and thereby broaden their analysis,
>>> and hopefully deepen their understanding of issues under discussion.
>>> 
>>> It feels to me as if the list had become a space where only those that
>>> are supremely confident and convinced of their own rightness express
>>> themselves freely. It also feels to me as if a few individuals, those
>>> with fixed positions and views, are staging a kind of political theatre
>>> intended to capture and convince those around them.
>>> 
>>> I respect people with convictions - I have my own too :) -  and
>>> recognise their right to have those convictions and, in many cases, the
>>> hard work that has gone into the development of those convictions.  But
>>> when these convictions lead to people questioning others' integrity and
>>> intentions on an e-list of this nature it does produce a hostile
>>> environment.
>>> 
>>> As far as I am aware the coordinators have also written to people
>>> offlist so possibly the message to Suresh was not the first, or the
>>> only, attempt to try and contain people's tone. But I think Milton's
>>> process suggestion is a better option for handling the situation.
>>> 
>>> Another option would be for the coordinators to propose that list
>>> discussions that have developed into a repetitive engagement between a
>>> relatively small number of people continue offlist. If there is
>>> agreement they can always share the outcome with the rest of the list -
>>> even if no consensus was reached.
>>> 
>>> Anriette
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 08/04/2013 01:20, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>>> Norbert:
>>>> As an IGC member I disagree with this decision to issue a formal public warning to Suresh. It seems you are singling out one person when a group of people was engaged in an argument, and all of them contributed messages that were similar in tenor to his. A better way to approach this problem would be to intervene in the argument and inform the participants that we don't think it is a productive exchange and we don't think the spirit of the exchanges was conducive to constructive discussion. 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
>>>>> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 5:30 PM
>>>>> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
>>>>> Cc: IGC
>>>>> Subject: [governance] Formal public warning to Suresh
>>>>> 
>>>>> [This notification is from both coordinators of the IGC, jointly, in
>>>>> execution of their responsibility as described in the IGC Charter.]
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hello Suresh
>>>>> 
>>>>> Unfortunately the problem persists that you are posting messages which,
>>>>> in the words of the IGC Charter, “cause an IGC list to become a hostile
>>>>> environment”.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Among these unacceptable messages are those which contain personal
>>>>> attacks, of which a recent example is included below. Personal attacks
>>>>> have not only an unpleasant or even hurtful effect on the target of the
>>>>> attack, but they also deny everyone else the opportunity of
>>>>> participating in a discussion environment that is conductive to
>>>>> constructive discussion and reflection.
>>>>> 
>>>>> More generally, all kinds of postings are unacceptable which are
>>>>> designed to render it impossible for some civil society viewpoint (on
>>>>> any Internet governance topic, as per WGIG's definition) to be discussed
>>>>> in a non-hostile environment.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In fact you have, despite all admonitions to the contrary, continued to
>>>>> make a series of consistent attacks against some IGC members, including
>>>>> directly personal attacks as well as claims that their viewpoints are
>>>>> somehow totally inappropriate.
>>>>> 
>>>>> As foreseen by the IGC Charter, you are hereby notified that in case you
>>>>> continue the practice of posting such unacceptable messages, your
>>>>> posting rights will be suspended for one month.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Norbert and Sala
>>>>> 
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> ----
>>>>> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
>>>>> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530
>>>>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
>>>>> parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working
>>>>> Group on Enhanced Cooperation
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> As I asked guru, why is it any of your business who a focal point for
>>>>> another constituency chooses?
>>>>> 
>>>>> And if your entire participation in this process is to be limited to
>>>>> such divisive politics, I am not quite sure if you deserve to be one of
>>>>> the cs representatives in this process, and would urge the cs focal
>>>>> point to strongly reconsider, at the risk of introducing a divisive
>>>>> agenda into the process, hampering it rather than contributing
>>>>> positively to it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> --srs (iPad)
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 30-Mar-2013, at 17:11, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>>>>>>> Wow, Gotcha...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder
>>>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net> w=
>>>>> rote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> you are incorrect.  The folk who are involved in Internet2, amongst
>>>>>>>>> other REN projects are EXACTLY those people that the FP would
>>>>>>>>> include.
>>>>>>>> So you are saying that members of Internet2 fit the definition of
>>>>>>>> technical (and academic) community that the focal point gave us
>>>>>>>> which is "community of organizations and individuals who are
>>>>>>>> involved in the day-to-day operational management of the Internet
>>>>>>>> and who work within this community" ? You think that Internet2 is
>>>>>>>> involved in 'day to say operational management of the Internet'?
>>>>>>> I think probably yes <http://www.internet2.edu/membership/index.cfm>
>>>>>> What I hear is that Adam, Mctim, and perhaps one another are saying
>>>>>> that Internet2 project members meet the definition of 'those involved
>>>>>> in day to day operational management of the Internet' and thus would
>>>>>> be eligible as representatives of 'tech and academic community' on the
>>>>>> WG on enhanced cooperation and such bodies, as per what we have heard
>>>>>> from the concerned focal point.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I will be happy if ISOC as the focal point can confirm this. Let them
>>>>>> tell us whom all did they distribute the call for nominations to, and
>>>>>> we will indirectly get out answer. BTW, the initial mandate of the
>>>>>> focal points was simply to 'assist the CSTD Chair in reaching out to
>>>>>> the interested parties in their respective regional or stakeholder
>>>>>> groups and to facilitate consultations '.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Let ISOC give a report on whom all did they reach out to and held
>>>>>> consultations with. Such a report is a basic requirement to be made
>>>>>> public. The WG on IGF Improvements clearly instructs documentation and
>>>>>> publication of such processes by those involved in stakeholder rep
>>>>>> selection, and there is no reason it should not be done in this case.
>>>>>> This is a basic requirement of transparency, isnt it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Meanwhile, I do not see how Internet2 members can be considered as
>>>>>> being 'involved' in day to day operational management of the
>>>>>> Internet.... There are various kinds of techies there working on
>>>>>> technology innovation, there are universities involved, there are even
>>>>>> two music schools involved there....
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> But if indeed, those who work on Internet related innovations in the
>>>>>> field are to be included, why was Michael's nomination rejected - not
>>>>>> on intrinsic merit, but on non eligibility.... Michael works with
>>>>>> various field based Internet innovations, including for instance
>>>>>> projects involving setting specific technical configurations for
>>>>>> facilitating tele medicine for aboriginal communities.... Community
>>>>>> informatics is lot about such kind of stuff. And so, Michael should
>>>>>> have even qualified for the tech part of tech-academic community, what
>>>>>> to say about the 'academic' part....
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think ISOC is clear when they say that they only include those
>>>>>> working with organisations involved in day to day operation of the
>>>>>> Internet  - and these are ICANN, ISOC perhaps for IETF/ IAB etc, RIR,
>>>>>> root servers and perhaps country cctlds....
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And if one is working with any of these organisations, it is not even
>>>>>> necessary to be either a techie or an academic. You just must be
>>>>>> working with these above organisations, Perhaps you know that
>>>>>> Constance, who is now on the WG, is neither a techie nor an academic,
>>>>>> she is policy and law professional. She is there just because she is
>>>>>> with ISOC. And so ISOC is rather consistent with a narrow
>>>>>> interpretation of their definition.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The creteria used by concerned Focal Point ISOC is rather clear - even
>>>>>> if I strongly disagree with it. And Internet2 members would in no case
>>>>>> make to their list. Evidence of it would be in the fact that
>>>>>> - although they are on OECD Technical Community Advisory Committee  -
>>>>>> I am relatively sure that the Focal Point did not reach out to the
>>>>>> Internet2 group, and such others, when it was asked to do stakeholder
>>>>>> outreach. If I am wrong on this, I am happy to be corrected and ISOC
>>>>>> may publish the process documentations telling us whom all did they
>>>>>> out reach to.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Adam
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> And that therefore Internet2 members could have been considered as
>>>>>>>> nominees from the technical and academic community by the focal
>>>>>>>> point for the WG on EC?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Strange that they qualify for OECD body as technical community but
>>>>>>>>>> not for the UN system.....
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Evidently, the definition of even the technical community part of
>>>>>>>>>> the 'technical and academic community' employed by the Focal point
>>>>>>>>>> is erronoeus, what to say about the 'academic community' part
>>>>>>>>>> which seem to have simply been banished.
>>>>>>>>> but they haven't been, you are simply mistaken.
>>>>>>>> How am I mistaken? Who is the academic community member in the final
>>>>>>>> list? Like someone not closely associated with ISOC and not running
>>>>>>>> a country tld whereby one qualifies through the above definition of
>>>>>>>> being engaged in 'day to day operational management of the
>>>>>>>> Internet'?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> parminder
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>>> www.apc.org
>>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>>> south africa
>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Mon Apr  8 05:05:58 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 17:05:58 +0800
Subject: [governance] Re: [APRALO-Beijing] Beijing Schedule / Monday 8 April
 2013
In-Reply-To: <F55E0895-9083-4E05-BD15-73C21092A98F@gmail.com>
References: <CD86F13B.E3E53%gisella.gruber@icann.org> <0B7261D2-4063-41A3-AE16-A2D6216C8A49@gmail.com> <5AEE852B-1839-4847-9296-087205EF085A@gmail.com> <AF857E16-633F-4992-AD42-B24BB53919C5@gmail.com> <F55E0895-9083-4E05-BD15-73C21092A98F@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E6FA0614-C02C-4443-8BF6-6EF5ECE41CB2@gmail.com>

The next session is on discussion on Policy discussions and includes experts from the region. Jeremy Malcolm, Zaid Jamil are amongst the discuss ants.

Thank you.

Kind Regards,
Sala

Sent from my iPad

>>>>> 
>>>>> 17:00 - 19:00	At-Large/APRALO Multi-Stakeholder Roundtable
>>>>> Function Room 6
>>>>> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37063
>>>>> 
>>>>> 19:00 - 21:00	APRALO Showcase
>>>>> Function Room 6
>>>>> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37063
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> General Meetings:
>>>>> Please refer to full Schedule:http://beijing46.icann.org/full-schedule
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen
>>>>> ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC
>>>>> E-mail: staff at atlarge.icann.org
>>>>> 
>>>>> One World, One Internet
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> apralo-beijing mailing list
>>>>> apralo-beijing at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apralo-beijing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130408/ed69eaae/attachment.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 nb at bollow.ch  Mon Apr  8 06:04:33 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 12:04:33 +0200
Subject: [governance] Formal public warning to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20130408120433.50e14422@quill.bollow.ch>

[with IGC coordinator hat on]

Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> Norbert:
> As an IGC member I disagree with this decision to issue a formal
> public warning to Suresh.

Those who disagree of course have the option of making a formal
appeal to have the decision reviewed.

There is also the option of proposing a charter amendment that would
lower the standards to which the IGC Charter [1] currently *requires*
the coordinators to hold the participants in IGC list discussions.
(Specifically, it is stated under "Duties of Coordinators" that "The
first and most important duty of the coordinator(s) is to facilitate
the discussions..." and later under "Posting Rules for the IGC" it is
specified what these discussions are supposed to be like.)
[1] http://igcaucus.org/charter

> It seems you are singling out one person
> when a group of people was engaged in an argument, and all of them
> contributed messages that were similar in tenor to his.

That is not what it seems to me at all. I have for a long time been
hoping that this kind of step would not be necessary. However, motivated
by recent events in which some attempts at discussion were rather rudely
foiled, I have recently, using the archives, reviewed quite a few of the
exchanges that have taken place in February and March. There's a clear
pattern there, and it's not a pretty one. I have also carefully
reviewed what the IGC Charter says on this matter. I've come away from
this exercise firmly convinced that
1) the situation is very very asymmetric, with a consistent pattern
of one side in the conflict seeking discussion of legitimate concerns
and the other side attacking such attempts of discussion, and
2) we (the IGC coordinators) should in fact have taken clear and
effective action already long ago.

It is true that when situations heat up, matters tend to get personal
and to some extent emotional on all sides. That is a general fact of
being human.

The standard of conduct that the IGC Charter demands is to avoid the
kind of postings that create any kind of hostile environment. And the
Charter outlines how to proceed when someone does not want to refrain
from posting such messages.

This action of the coordinators is not about supporting one side in any
of the various conflicts over another.

It is about upholding the principles of conduct which the IGC Charter
requires all participants to adhere to.

For a long time, these principles have not been effectively enforced.

We (the IGC coordinators) have been reluctant to go beyond the stage of
private warnings and public general admonitions. However these measures
alone clearly have not been effective at solving the problem.

I assure you that we intend to endeavor, to the utmost of our ability,
to hold *all* participants to the standard of professional conduct that
the IGC Charter describes.

Even if these steps are not popular among many of the currently vocal
participants on this list (probably many of those among whom these steps
would have been popular have already long ago left us, having given up
any hope that the IGC would live up to what it purports to be), I am
firmly convinced that upholding these principles of conduct, which
are written in the IGC charter, is necessary for the IGC to be able to
fulfill its mission.

I would propose that it would be more appropriate for those who
disagree with this view to propose to change the Charter than to
criticize the coordinators for acting according to what the IGC Charter
says.

Greetings,
Norbert

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nb at bollow.ch  Mon Apr  8 06:37:26 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 12:37:26 +0200
Subject: [governance] Message to IGC/ was formal notice to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<5162642A.2040901@apc.org>
	<20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info>
	<ABFF7E5D-23E1-4119-B41B-0BEC03068880@gmail.com>
	<456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch>

[with IGC coordinator hat on]

Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

> This is not a question of content at all, Sala.  It is a question of
> neutrality - which, right now, I am not questioning, though I do ask
> that the coordinators introspect before taking any future action in
> such a matter.
> 
> Please allow me to summarize the situation.
> 
> 1. The credentials of a person nominated to represent another
> stakeholder group were questioned, without - as it turns out - doing
> any due diligence at all (as simple as a google search that would
> show him eminently qualified to represent that community)

That is a misrepresentation of the situation.

Parminder's posting, to which that particular example of an offensive
personal attack was a response, was not about questioning the
credentials of any particular nominee.

Rather, the topic of Parminder's email was whether the intended meaning
(from the perspective of the "technical and academic" focal point) of
the phrase "community of organizations and individuals who are involved
in the day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work
within this" is broad enough to include "Internet2" participants simply
on the basis of being "Internet2" participants (independently of what
other qualifications they may have), or not. Parminder was asking for
clarification of this question. At least in my reading of the posting,
Parminder was not in any way questioning any nominee's qualifications.

In any case, that particular example of an offensive personal attack
against Parminder was only an example. Many other examples could have
been given.

We're not going to discuss this in detail here on the list. If you
disagree with the warning, you can use the appeal process.

Greetings,
Norbert

> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
> >>>>> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow
> >>>>> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 5:30 PM
> >>>>> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
> >>>>> Cc: IGC
> >>>>> Subject: [governance] Formal public warning to Suresh
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> [This notification is from both coordinators of the IGC,
> >>>>> jointly, in execution of their responsibility as described in
> >>>>> the IGC Charter.]
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Hello Suresh
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Unfortunately the problem persists that you are posting
> >>>>> messages which, in the words of the IGC Charter, “cause an IGC
> >>>>> list to become a hostile environment”.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Among these unacceptable messages are those which contain
> >>>>> personal attacks, of which a recent example is included below.
> >>>>> Personal attacks have not only an unpleasant or even hurtful
> >>>>> effect on the target of the attack, but they also deny everyone
> >>>>> else the opportunity of participating in a discussion
> >>>>> environment that is conductive to constructive discussion and
> >>>>> reflection.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> More generally, all kinds of postings are unacceptable which are
> >>>>> designed to render it impossible for some civil society
> >>>>> viewpoint (on any Internet governance topic, as per WGIG's
> >>>>> definition) to be discussed in a non-hostile environment.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> In fact you have, despite all admonitions to the contrary,
> >>>>> continued to make a series of consistent attacks against some
> >>>>> IGC members, including directly personal attacks as well as
> >>>>> claims that their viewpoints are somehow totally inappropriate.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> As foreseen by the IGC Charter, you are hereby notified that in
> >>>>> case you continue the practice of posting such unacceptable
> >>>>> messages, your posting rights will be suspended for one month.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Norbert and Sala
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> ----
> >>>>> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
> >>>>> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530
> >>>>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org"
> >>>>> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, parminder
> >>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd:
> >>>>> Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced
> >>>>> Cooperation
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> As I asked guru, why is it any of your business who a focal
> >>>>> point for another constituency chooses?
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> And if your entire participation in this process is to be
> >>>>> limited to such divisive politics, I am not quite sure if you
> >>>>> deserve to be one of the cs representatives in this process,
> >>>>> and would urge the cs focal point to strongly reconsider, at
> >>>>> the risk of introducing a divisive agenda into the process,
> >>>>> hampering it rather than contributing positively to it.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> --srs (iPad)
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On 30-Mar-2013, at 17:11, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
> >>>>>>> Wow, Gotcha...
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder
> >>>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net> w=
> >>>>> rote:
> >>>>>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> you are incorrect.  The folk who are involved in Internet2,
> >>>>>>>>> amongst other REN projects are EXACTLY those people that
> >>>>>>>>> the FP would include.
> >>>>>>>> So you are saying that members of Internet2 fit the
> >>>>>>>> definition of technical (and academic) community that the
> >>>>>>>> focal point gave us which is "community of organizations and
> >>>>>>>> individuals who are involved in the day-to-day operational
> >>>>>>>> management of the Internet and who work within this
> >>>>>>>> community" ? You think that Internet2 is involved in 'day to
> >>>>>>>> say operational management of the Internet'?
> >>>>>>> I think probably yes
> >>>>>>> <http://www.internet2.edu/membership/index.cfm>
> >>>>>> What I hear is that Adam, Mctim, and perhaps one another are
> >>>>>> saying that Internet2 project members meet the definition of
> >>>>>> 'those involved in day to day operational management of the
> >>>>>> Internet' and thus would be eligible as representatives of
> >>>>>> 'tech and academic community' on the WG on enhanced
> >>>>>> cooperation and such bodies, as per what we have heard from
> >>>>>> the concerned focal point.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> I will be happy if ISOC as the focal point can confirm this.
> >>>>>> Let them tell us whom all did they distribute the call for
> >>>>>> nominations to, and we will indirectly get out answer. BTW,
> >>>>>> the initial mandate of the focal points was simply to 'assist
> >>>>>> the CSTD Chair in reaching out to the interested parties in
> >>>>>> their respective regional or stakeholder groups and to
> >>>>>> facilitate consultations '.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Let ISOC give a report on whom all did they reach out to and
> >>>>>> held consultations with. Such a report is a basic requirement
> >>>>>> to be made public. The WG on IGF Improvements clearly
> >>>>>> instructs documentation and publication of such processes by
> >>>>>> those involved in stakeholder rep selection, and there is no
> >>>>>> reason it should not be done in this case. This is a basic
> >>>>>> requirement of transparency, isnt it.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Meanwhile, I do not see how Internet2 members can be
> >>>>>> considered as being 'involved' in day to day operational
> >>>>>> management of the Internet.... There are various kinds of
> >>>>>> techies there working on technology innovation, there are
> >>>>>> universities involved, there are even two music schools
> >>>>>> involved there....
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> But if indeed, those who work on Internet related innovations
> >>>>>> in the field are to be included, why was Michael's nomination
> >>>>>> rejected - not on intrinsic merit, but on non eligibility....
> >>>>>> Michael works with various field based Internet innovations,
> >>>>>> including for instance projects involving setting specific
> >>>>>> technical configurations for facilitating tele medicine for
> >>>>>> aboriginal communities.... Community informatics is lot about
> >>>>>> such kind of stuff. And so, Michael should have even qualified
> >>>>>> for the tech part of tech-academic community, what to say
> >>>>>> about the 'academic' part....
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> I think ISOC is clear when they say that they only include
> >>>>>> those working with organisations involved in day to day
> >>>>>> operation of the Internet  - and these are ICANN, ISOC perhaps
> >>>>>> for IETF/ IAB etc, RIR, root servers and perhaps country
> >>>>>> cctlds....
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> And if one is working with any of these organisations, it is
> >>>>>> not even necessary to be either a techie or an academic. You
> >>>>>> just must be working with these above organisations, Perhaps
> >>>>>> you know that Constance, who is now on the WG, is neither a
> >>>>>> techie nor an academic, she is policy and law professional.
> >>>>>> She is there just because she is with ISOC. And so ISOC is
> >>>>>> rather consistent with a narrow interpretation of their
> >>>>>> definition.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> The creteria used by concerned Focal Point ISOC is rather
> >>>>>> clear - even if I strongly disagree with it. And Internet2
> >>>>>> members would in no case make to their list. Evidence of it
> >>>>>> would be in the fact that
> >>>>>> - although they are on OECD Technical Community Advisory
> >>>>>> Committee  - I am relatively sure that the Focal Point did not
> >>>>>> reach out to the Internet2 group, and such others, when it was
> >>>>>> asked to do stakeholder outreach. If I am wrong on this, I am
> >>>>>> happy to be corrected and ISOC may publish the process
> >>>>>> documentations telling us whom all did they out reach to.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> parminder
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Adam
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> And that therefore Internet2 members could have been
> >>>>>>>> considered as nominees from the technical and academic
> >>>>>>>> community by the focal point for the WG on EC?
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Strange that they qualify for OECD body as technical
> >>>>>>>>>> community but not for the UN system.....
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Evidently, the definition of even the technical community
> >>>>>>>>>> part of the 'technical and academic community' employed by
> >>>>>>>>>> the Focal point is erronoeus, what to say about the
> >>>>>>>>>> 'academic community' part which seem to have simply been
> >>>>>>>>>> banished.
> >>>>>>>>> but they haven't been, you are simply mistaken.
> >>>>>>>> How am I mistaken? Who is the academic community member in
> >>>>>>>> the final list? Like someone not closely associated with
> >>>>>>>> ISOC and not running a country tld whereby one qualifies
> >>>>>>>> through the above definition of being engaged in 'day to day
> >>>>>>>> operational management of the Internet'?
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> parminder
> >>> 
> >>> -- 
> >>> ------------------------------------------------------
> >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> >>> executive director, association for progressive communications
> >>> www.apc.org
> >>> po box 29755, melville 2109
> >>> south africa
> >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
> >> 
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >> 
> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >> 
> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> > 
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> > 
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> > 
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Apr  8 07:30:58 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 04:30:58 -0700
Subject: [governance] Message to IGC/ was formal notice to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch>
 <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
 <5162642A.2040901@apc.org>
 <20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info>
 <ABFF7E5D-23E1-4119-B41B-0BEC03068880@gmail.com>
 <456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net>
 <20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <20130408113058.GA31767@hserus.net>

Please do read back further in the thread. The question turned on whether
administrative staff (such as an IT director) at a university were academic
community or not. And what internet2 is and what this individual does are
both easily found within the first few hits of a google search, if they
were not already generally known as they appear to be. As it is, others
chipped in to explain Internet2, and one colleague from Senegal further
added that the person in question also manages the .sn ccTLD

I fail to see how it is a misrepresentation that the fitness of this
individual to represent the academic community was questioned by
questioning whether Internet2 was part of the academic community or not. 

In each of the cases where I have responded adversely, it is because the
coordinators have, for whatever reason, failed to do so, in a long string of
similar incidents. You will generally find that I am not the only person to
have strongly disagreed with the posts in question,  calling them, at
various times, (and I'm quoting from memory) "love to play with words",
"adversarial style of debate" etc.  This seriously compromises the
neutrality of the caucus and the viewpoint its representatives present in a
multistakeholder process.

If you think that misrepresents the situation, I am afraid we must agree to
disagree.

In these situations, I would have stepped in long before, on another civil
society mailing list (till very recently hosted on cpsr.org but now moving
to a new home as cpsr is defunct) that I have been joint admin of for over
a decade now, and more importantly, so would the other moderators on that
list - but more to maintain neutrality and avoid conflicts with other
stakeholder groups, than to object to the tone of the discussion as long as
it avoided profanity.

I will refrain from discussing this any further on this list, and you are
welcome not to discuss it either - but I would ask that you leave this
discourse open for others on the caucus to weigh in if they choose to.

thank you
suresh

Norbert Bollow [08/04/13 12:37 +0200]:
>[with IGC coordinator hat on]
>
>Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>
>> This is not a question of content at all, Sala.  It is a question of
>> neutrality - which, right now, I am not questioning, though I do ask
>> that the coordinators introspect before taking any future action in
>> such a matter.
>>
>> Please allow me to summarize the situation.
>>
>> 1. The credentials of a person nominated to represent another
>> stakeholder group were questioned, without - as it turns out - doing
>> any due diligence at all (as simple as a google search that would
>> show him eminently qualified to represent that community)
>
>That is a misrepresentation of the situation.
>
>Parminder's posting, to which that particular example of an offensive
>personal attack was a response, was not about questioning the
>credentials of any particular nominee.
>
>Rather, the topic of Parminder's email was whether the intended meaning
>(from the perspective of the "technical and academic" focal point) of
>the phrase "community of organizations and individuals who are involved
>in the day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work
>within this" is broad enough to include "Internet2" participants simply
>on the basis of being "Internet2" participants (independently of what
>other qualifications they may have), or not. Parminder was asking for
>clarification of this question. At least in my reading of the posting,
>Parminder was not in any way questioning any nominee's qualifications.
>
>In any case, that particular example of an offensive personal attack
>against Parminder was only an example. Many other examples could have
>been given.
>
>We're not going to discuss this in detail here on the list. If you
>disagree with the warning, you can use the appeal process.
>
>Greetings,
>Norbert
>
>> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
>> >>>>> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow
>> >>>>> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 5:30 PM
>> >>>>> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
>> >>>>> Cc: IGC
>> >>>>> Subject: [governance] Formal public warning to Suresh
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> [This notification is from both coordinators of the IGC,
>> >>>>> jointly, in execution of their responsibility as described in
>> >>>>> the IGC Charter.]
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Hello Suresh
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Unfortunately the problem persists that you are posting
>> >>>>> messages which, in the words of the IGC Charter, “cause an IGC
>> >>>>> list to become a hostile environment”.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Among these unacceptable messages are those which contain
>> >>>>> personal attacks, of which a recent example is included below.
>> >>>>> Personal attacks have not only an unpleasant or even hurtful
>> >>>>> effect on the target of the attack, but they also deny everyone
>> >>>>> else the opportunity of participating in a discussion
>> >>>>> environment that is conductive to constructive discussion and
>> >>>>> reflection.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> More generally, all kinds of postings are unacceptable which are
>> >>>>> designed to render it impossible for some civil society
>> >>>>> viewpoint (on any Internet governance topic, as per WGIG's
>> >>>>> definition) to be discussed in a non-hostile environment.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> In fact you have, despite all admonitions to the contrary,
>> >>>>> continued to make a series of consistent attacks against some
>> >>>>> IGC members, including directly personal attacks as well as
>> >>>>> claims that their viewpoints are somehow totally inappropriate.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> As foreseen by the IGC Charter, you are hereby notified that in
>> >>>>> case you continue the practice of posting such unacceptable
>> >>>>> messages, your posting rights will be suspended for one month.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Regards,
>> >>>>> Norbert and Sala
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>>>> ----
>> >>>>> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
>> >>>>> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530
>> >>>>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org"
>> >>>>> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, parminder
>> >>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd:
>> >>>>> Final composition of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced
>> >>>>> Cooperation
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> As I asked guru, why is it any of your business who a focal
>> >>>>> point for another constituency chooses?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> And if your entire participation in this process is to be
>> >>>>> limited to such divisive politics, I am not quite sure if you
>> >>>>> deserve to be one of the cs representatives in this process,
>> >>>>> and would urge the cs focal point to strongly reconsider, at
>> >>>>> the risk of introducing a divisive agenda into the process,
>> >>>>> hampering it rather than contributing positively to it.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> --srs (iPad)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On 30-Mar-2013, at 17:11, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>> >>>>>>> Wow, Gotcha...
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder
>> >>>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net> w=
>> >>>>> rote:
>> >>>>>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> <snip>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> you are incorrect.  The folk who are involved in Internet2,
>> >>>>>>>>> amongst other REN projects are EXACTLY those people that
>> >>>>>>>>> the FP would include.
>> >>>>>>>> So you are saying that members of Internet2 fit the
>> >>>>>>>> definition of technical (and academic) community that the
>> >>>>>>>> focal point gave us which is "community of organizations and
>> >>>>>>>> individuals who are involved in the day-to-day operational
>> >>>>>>>> management of the Internet and who work within this
>> >>>>>>>> community" ? You think that Internet2 is involved in 'day to
>> >>>>>>>> say operational management of the Internet'?
>> >>>>>>> I think probably yes
>> >>>>>>> <http://www.internet2.edu/membership/index.cfm>
>> >>>>>> What I hear is that Adam, Mctim, and perhaps one another are
>> >>>>>> saying that Internet2 project members meet the definition of
>> >>>>>> 'those involved in day to day operational management of the
>> >>>>>> Internet' and thus would be eligible as representatives of
>> >>>>>> 'tech and academic community' on the WG on enhanced
>> >>>>>> cooperation and such bodies, as per what we have heard from
>> >>>>>> the concerned focal point.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I will be happy if ISOC as the focal point can confirm this.
>> >>>>>> Let them tell us whom all did they distribute the call for
>> >>>>>> nominations to, and we will indirectly get out answer. BTW,
>> >>>>>> the initial mandate of the focal points was simply to 'assist
>> >>>>>> the CSTD Chair in reaching out to the interested parties in
>> >>>>>> their respective regional or stakeholder groups and to
>> >>>>>> facilitate consultations '.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Let ISOC give a report on whom all did they reach out to and
>> >>>>>> held consultations with. Such a report is a basic requirement
>> >>>>>> to be made public. The WG on IGF Improvements clearly
>> >>>>>> instructs documentation and publication of such processes by
>> >>>>>> those involved in stakeholder rep selection, and there is no
>> >>>>>> reason it should not be done in this case. This is a basic
>> >>>>>> requirement of transparency, isnt it.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Meanwhile, I do not see how Internet2 members can be
>> >>>>>> considered as being 'involved' in day to day operational
>> >>>>>> management of the Internet.... There are various kinds of
>> >>>>>> techies there working on technology innovation, there are
>> >>>>>> universities involved, there are even two music schools
>> >>>>>> involved there....
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> But if indeed, those who work on Internet related innovations
>> >>>>>> in the field are to be included, why was Michael's nomination
>> >>>>>> rejected - not on intrinsic merit, but on non eligibility....
>> >>>>>> Michael works with various field based Internet innovations,
>> >>>>>> including for instance projects involving setting specific
>> >>>>>> technical configurations for facilitating tele medicine for
>> >>>>>> aboriginal communities.... Community informatics is lot about
>> >>>>>> such kind of stuff. And so, Michael should have even qualified
>> >>>>>> for the tech part of tech-academic community, what to say
>> >>>>>> about the 'academic' part....
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I think ISOC is clear when they say that they only include
>> >>>>>> those working with organisations involved in day to day
>> >>>>>> operation of the Internet  - and these are ICANN, ISOC perhaps
>> >>>>>> for IETF/ IAB etc, RIR, root servers and perhaps country
>> >>>>>> cctlds....
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> And if one is working with any of these organisations, it is
>> >>>>>> not even necessary to be either a techie or an academic. You
>> >>>>>> just must be working with these above organisations, Perhaps
>> >>>>>> you know that Constance, who is now on the WG, is neither a
>> >>>>>> techie nor an academic, she is policy and law professional.
>> >>>>>> She is there just because she is with ISOC. And so ISOC is
>> >>>>>> rather consistent with a narrow interpretation of their
>> >>>>>> definition.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> The creteria used by concerned Focal Point ISOC is rather
>> >>>>>> clear - even if I strongly disagree with it. And Internet2
>> >>>>>> members would in no case make to their list. Evidence of it
>> >>>>>> would be in the fact that
>> >>>>>> - although they are on OECD Technical Community Advisory
>> >>>>>> Committee  - I am relatively sure that the Focal Point did not
>> >>>>>> reach out to the Internet2 group, and such others, when it was
>> >>>>>> asked to do stakeholder outreach. If I am wrong on this, I am
>> >>>>>> happy to be corrected and ISOC may publish the process
>> >>>>>> documentations telling us whom all did they out reach to.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> parminder
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Adam
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> And that therefore Internet2 members could have been
>> >>>>>>>> considered as nominees from the technical and academic
>> >>>>>>>> community by the focal point for the WG on EC?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Strange that they qualify for OECD body as technical
>> >>>>>>>>>> community but not for the UN system.....
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Evidently, the definition of even the technical community
>> >>>>>>>>>> part of the 'technical and academic community' employed by
>> >>>>>>>>>> the Focal point is erronoeus, what to say about the
>> >>>>>>>>>> 'academic community' part which seem to have simply been
>> >>>>>>>>>> banished.
>> >>>>>>>>> but they haven't been, you are simply mistaken.
>> >>>>>>>> How am I mistaken? Who is the academic community member in
>> >>>>>>>> the final list? Like someone not closely associated with
>> >>>>>>>> ISOC and not running a country tld whereby one qualifies
>> >>>>>>>> through the above definition of being engaged in 'day to day
>> >>>>>>>> operational management of the Internet'?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> parminder
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>> >>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>> >>> www.apc.org
>> >>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>> >>> south africa
>> >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>> >>
>> >> ____________________________________________________________
>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >>
>> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >>
>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >
>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >
>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nb at bollow.ch  Mon Apr  8 08:08:05 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:08:05 +0200
Subject: [governance] Message to IGC/ was formal notice to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <20130408113058.GA31767@hserus.net>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<5162642A.2040901@apc.org>
	<20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info>
	<ABFF7E5D-23E1-4119-B41B-0BEC03068880@gmail.com>
	<456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net>
	<20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130408113058.GA31767@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <20130408140805.5f69559a@quill.bollow.ch>

[with IGC coordinator hat on]

Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

> In these situations, I would have stepped in long before, on another
> civil society mailing list (till very recently hosted on cpsr.org but
> now moving to a new home as cpsr is defunct) that I have been joint
> admin of for over a decade now, and more importantly, so would the
> other moderators on that list - but more to maintain neutrality and
> avoid conflicts with other stakeholder groups, than to object to the
> tone of the discussion as long as it avoided profanity.

Maybe one solution would be for the people who agree with you on what
kind of policy is desirable, to join that list?

If you wish to do so, you're welcome to post an invitation for joining
the list that you co-moderate.

In any case, the possibility of charter amendments notwithstanding,
the IGC will continue to be what its Charter [1] determines it to be, 
even if you don't like those rules.
[1] http://igcaucus.org/charter

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  Mon Apr  8 08:16:40 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 17:46:40 +0530
Subject: [governance] Message to IGC/ was formal notice to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <20130408140805.5f69559a@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5162642A.2040901@apc.org> <20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info> <ABFF7E5D-23E1-4119-B41B-0BEC03068880@gmail.com> <456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net> <20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch> <20130408113058.GA31767@hserus.net> <20130408140805.5f69559a@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <BAC6497F-0035-4EB6-9868-F6EFB8E52EB9@hserus.net>

Did I call for a charter change?  I haven't called for any such thing and nor do we need one.

I called upon the coordinators to maintain neutrality and help stop these attacks on nominees of other stakeholder communities [part of a rather consistent campaign by some individuals and targeted at the technical community, I notice ..].

Several people on this list from the indian subcontinent are already on the india-gii mailing list. Any others are welcome to participate there, but the discussion is limited to the Internet and India. So I would certainly not invite people there to discuss this issue.

--srs (iPad)

On 08-Apr-2013, at 17:38, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> [with IGC coordinator hat on]
> 
> Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> 
>> In these situations, I would have stepped in long before, on another
>> civil society mailing list (till very recently hosted on cpsr.org but
>> now moving to a new home as cpsr is defunct) that I have been joint
>> admin of for over a decade now, and more importantly, so would the
>> other moderators on that list - but more to maintain neutrality and
>> avoid conflicts with other stakeholder groups, than to object to the
>> tone of the discussion as long as it avoided profanity.
> 
> Maybe one solution would be for the people who agree with you on what
> kind of policy is desirable, to join that list?
> 
> If you wish to do so, you're welcome to post an invitation for joining
> the list that you co-moderate.
> 
> In any case, the possibility of charter amendments notwithstanding,
> the IGC will continue to be what its Charter [1] determines it to be, 
> even if you don't like those rules.
> [1] http://igcaucus.org/charter
> 
> 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 Apr  8 08:25:59 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 08:25:59 -0400
Subject: [governance] Message to IGC/ was formal notice to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
 <5162642A.2040901@apc.org> <20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info>
 <ABFF7E5D-23E1-4119-B41B-0BEC03068880@gmail.com> <456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net>
 <20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxhp2dwuzUKT_R8ZoRUFW3atFwVr0hPdhsZ1POALBiRCSg@mail.gmail.com>

Norbert,

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> [with IGC coordinator hat on]
>
> Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>
>> This is not a question of content at all, Sala.  It is a question of
>> neutrality - which, right now, I am not questioning, though I do ask
>> that the coordinators introspect before taking any future action in
>> such a matter.
>>
>> Please allow me to summarize the situation.
>>
>> 1. The credentials of a person nominated to represent another
>> stakeholder group were questioned, without - as it turns out - doing
>> any due diligence at all (as simple as a google search that would
>> show him eminently qualified to represent that community)
>
> That is a misrepresentation of the situation.

it is not.

Guru called it "absurd".


>
> Parminder's posting, to which that particular example of an offensive
> personal attack was a response, was not about questioning the
> credentials of any particular nominee.
>
> Rather, the topic of Parminder's email was whether the intended meaning
> (from the perspective of the "technical and academic" focal point) of
> the phrase "community of organizations and individuals who are involved
> in the day-to-day operational management of the Internet and who work
> within this" is broad enough to include "Internet2" participants simply
> on the basis of being "Internet2" participants (independently of what
> other qualifications they may have), or not. Parminder was asking for
> clarification of this question. At least in my reading of the posting,
> Parminder was not in any way questioning any nominee's qualifications.
>
> In any case, that particular example of an offensive personal attack
> against Parminder was only an example. Many other examples could have
> been given.


and the personal attacks BY Parminder:

"One keeps hoping that you and your ilk will one day learn to conduct
an open host discussion in the democratic tradition. I am sick of this
kind of petulant contemptuous responses"


>
> We're not going to discuss this in detail here on the list. If you
> disagree with the warning, you can use the appeal process.

Perhaps you should take on board the feedback from the dozen folk who
have already agreed with Milton?


-- 
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 jeremy at ciroap.org  Mon Apr  8 08:27:44 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 20:27:44 +0800
Subject: [governance] Message to IGC/ was formal notice to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <BAC6497F-0035-4EB6-9868-F6EFB8E52EB9@hserus.net>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5162642A.2040901@apc.org> <20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info> <ABFF7E5D-23E1-4119-B41B-0BEC03068880@gmail.com> <456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net> <20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch> <20130408113058.GA31767@hserus.net> <20130408140805.5f69559a@quill.bollow.ch> <BAC6497F-0035-4EB6-9868-F6EFB8E52EB9@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <6204EF90-1C83-473B-9F33-3EBCC9FEC68B@ciroap.org>

On 08/04/2013, at 8:16 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

> Did I call for a charter change?  I haven't called for any such thing and nor do we need one.
> 
> I called upon the coordinators to maintain neutrality and help stop these attacks on nominees of other stakeholder communities [part of a rather consistent campaign by some individuals and targeted at the technical community, I notice ..].

Such comments are really not helping to defend against the coordinators' charges about hostility...

-- 
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

WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013

@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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130408/b9f02a60/attachment.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 pimienta at funredes.org  Mon Apr  8 08:44:50 2013
From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 08:44:50 -0400
Subject: [governance] Message to IGC/ was formal notice to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <20130408140805.5f69559a@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch>
 <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
 <5162642A.2040901@apc.org>
 <20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info>
 <ABFF7E5D-23E1-4119-B41B-0BEC03068880@gmail.com>
 <456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net>
 <20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch>
 <20130408113058.GA31767@hserus.net>
 <20130408140805.5f69559a@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <E1UPBMM-0002I3-9E@igcaucus.org>

Although I have abstained to participate, I have followed this heaten 
discussion. Not because of the heat but because I do think what is at 
stake behind Mike Gurstein's questionning of the definition of 
technical and academic category is deeply meaningful at this 
historical stage of the Internet.

I have many years arguing that the historical leadership of 
"computers/telecom skilled people" on the Internet (which has been 
key in the success and absolutely deserve recognition) should be 
released and the relay be passed to "information skilled people". Why 
so? Nothing personal :-) (I am myself originally a "computers/telecom 
skilled person") ! The rationale is that at this stage of the 
evolution the main challenges are no more in the technical layers but 
rather in the upper layers (applications and information). This is 
why consider that librarians and other information skilled groups 
shall take more leadership in the Internet. Most of Mike's argument 
fit in that vision.

Interpreting the past discussion and the official silence of ISOC in 
that discussion from this perspective may offer lights which go much 
beyond personal differences. Are we watching an homeostatic situation 
were a group is resisting changes which appear obvious? Is it a 
matter of establishment and new players to come in facing resistence to change?
===============

That said, the main reason of that note is to offer support to the 
current moderation team. Moderating virtual communities have been my 
main duty from 1988 to 2007 and i know in my flesh the challenges and 
difficulties when it comes to managing flaming situations. Most 
people have good will and wish to see the flame extinguishes at no 
human cost and that explain the avalanche of support to the 
Milton/Anriette statements. Yet the facts are clear if you take the 
moderator glasses and this is the role of Norbert and Sala.

During the heat the main players where Mike, ISOC (which keeps 
silent), Suresh and IT4Change people.
Mike exposed stubbornly his position without personal attacks.
The only personal attacks came from one side and justify the moderator action.
It is indeed interesting that even when support was brought to him, 
Suresh kept the same attitude
(I cite : " while repeating my caution that the agenda being followed 
by it4change here is, longer term, entirely to the detriment of civil 
society at large.").

I have no personal hang-out against Suresh and I trust few twists of 
expressions would be enough for him to adapt to the current rules,
but my neutral spectactor vision is that the moderator are doing 
their job on that matter and the will of many to avoid turmoils is not
enough a reason to obliterate that fact and let them appear as the 
weak part of the situation which would be an injustice.

In solidarity with moderators :-).
Daniel
   


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr  8 09:07:36 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 21:07:36 +0800
Subject: [governance] Message to IGC/ was formal notice to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <E1UPBMF-0002Gd-Oe@igcaucus.org>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5162642A.2040901@apc.org> <20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info> <ABFF7E5D-23E1-4119-B41B-0BEC03068880@gmail.com> <456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net> <20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch> <20130408113058.GA31767@hserus.net> <20130408140805.5f69559a@quill.bollow.ch> <E1UPBMF-0002Gd-Oe@igcaucus.org>
Message-ID: <4C8B1CCD-369A-49F9-85C3-703F5F732364@ciroap.org>

+1

On 8 Apr, 2013, at 8:44 PM, Daniel Pimienta <pimienta at funredes.org> wrote:

> Although I have abstained to participate, I have followed this heaten discussion. Not because of the heat but because I do think what is at stake behind Mike Gurstein's questionning of the definition of technical and academic category is deeply meaningful at this historical stage of the Internet.
> 
> I have many years arguing that the historical leadership of "computers/telecom skilled people" on the Internet (which has been key in the success and absolutely deserve recognition) should be released and the relay be passed to "information skilled people". Why so? Nothing personal :-) (I am myself originally a "computers/telecom skilled person") ! The rationale is that at this stage of the evolution the main challenges are no more in the technical layers but rather in the upper layers (applications and information). This is why consider that librarians and other information skilled groups shall take more leadership in the Internet. Most of Mike's argument fit in that vision.
> 
> Interpreting the past discussion and the official silence of ISOC in that discussion from this perspective may offer lights which go much beyond personal differences. Are we watching an homeostatic situation were a group is resisting changes which appear obvious? Is it a matter of establishment and new players to come in facing resistence to change?
> ===============
> 
> That said, the main reason of that note is to offer support to the current moderation team. Moderating virtual communities have been my main duty from 1988 to 2007 and i know in my flesh the challenges and difficulties when it comes to managing flaming situations. Most people have good will and wish to see the flame extinguishes at no human cost and that explain the avalanche of support to the Milton/Anriette statements. Yet the facts are clear if you take the moderator glasses and this is the role of Norbert and Sala.
> 
> During the heat the main players where Mike, ISOC (which keeps silent), Suresh and IT4Change people.
> Mike exposed stubbornly his position without personal attacks.
> The only personal attacks came from one side and justify the moderator action.
> It is indeed interesting that even when support was brought to him, Suresh kept the same attitude
> (I cite : " while repeating my caution that the agenda being followed by it4change here is, longer term, entirely to the detriment of civil society at large.").
> 
> I have no personal hang-out against Suresh and I trust few twists of expressions would be enough for him to adapt to the current rules,
> but my neutral spectactor vision is that the moderator are doing their job on that matter and the will of many to avoid turmoils is not
> enough a reason to obliterate that fact and let them appear as the weak part of the situation which would be an injustice.
> 
> In solidarity with moderators :-).
> Daniel
>  
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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  Mon Apr  8 09:19:46 2013
From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 06:19:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Message to IGC/ was formal notice to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <E1UPBM7-0002D6-FL@igcaucus.org>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5162642A.2040901@apc.org> <20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info> <ABFF7E5D-23E1-4119-B41B-0BEC03068880@gmail.com> <456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net> <20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch> <20130408113058.GA31767@hserus.net> <20130408140805.5f69559a@quill.bollow.ch> <E1UPBM7-0002D6-FL@igcaucus.org>
Message-ID: <1365427186.49914.YahooMailNeo@web120101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>



 Dear all,

Having been leading/moderating groups myself, and having been nicknamed "Iron Lady, Femino-faschist" and the like, I would like to remind us about some realities:


	1. The goal of this list is to facilitate discussion, with the aim of contributing to global Internet Governance
	2. There are 100s on this list.. I dont have the latest figure and they all DO NOT have English as their first language. 

	3. It may not occur to some of us (or maybe our personal circumstances have led us to forget), Internet connection is STILL being paid by minutes in some places.
	4. If you have to respond to a string of mails.. and after 6 - 10 posts, you are still not understood, maybe you should do a summar of your position and leave it at that.
I think the notice came in time.. 



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



________________________________
 From: Daniel Pimienta <pimienta at funredes.org>
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: [governance] Message to IGC/ was formal notice to Suresh
 
Although I have abstained to participate, I have followed this heaten discussion. Not because of the heat but because I do think what is at stake behind Mike Gurstein's questionning of the definition of technical and academic category is deeply meaningful at this historical stage of the Internet.

I have many years arguing that the historical leadership of "computers/telecom skilled people" on the Internet (which has been key in the success and absolutely deserve recognition) should be released and the relay be passed to "information skilled people". Why so? Nothing personal :-) (I am myself originally a "computers/telecom skilled person") ! The rationale is that at this stage of the evolution the main challenges are no more in the technical layers but rather in the upper layers (applications and information). This is why consider that librarians and other information skilled groups shall take more leadership in the Internet. Most of Mike's argument fit in that vision.

Interpreting the past discussion and the official silence of ISOC in that discussion from this perspective may offer lights which go much beyond personal differences. Are we watching an homeostatic situation were a group is resisting changes which appear obvious? Is it a matter of establishment and new players to come in facing resistence to change?
===============

That said, the main reason of that note is to offer support to the current moderation team. Moderating virtual communities have been my main duty from 1988 to 2007 and i know in my flesh the challenges and difficulties when it comes to managing flaming situations. Most people have good will and wish to see the flame extinguishes at no human cost and that explain the avalanche of support to the Milton/Anriette statements. Yet the facts are clear if you take the moderator glasses and this is the role of Norbert and Sala.

During the heat the main players where Mike, ISOC (which keeps silent), Suresh and IT4Change people.
Mike exposed stubbornly his position without personal attacks.
The only personal attacks came from one side and justify the moderator action.
It is indeed interesting that even when support was brought to him, Suresh kept the same attitude
(I cite : " while repeating my caution that the agenda being followed by it4change here is, longer term, entirely to the detriment of civil society at large.").

I have no personal hang-out against Suresh and I trust few twists of expressions would be enough for him to adapt to the current rules,
but my neutral spectactor vision is that the moderator are doing their job on that matter and the will of many to avoid turmoils is not
enough a reason to obliterate that fact and let them appear as the weak part of the situation which would be an injustice.

In solidarity with moderators :-).
Daniel
  

-- This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130408/248d6cbb/attachment.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 cveraq at gmail.com  Mon Apr  8 10:17:20 2013
From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 09:17:20 -0500
Subject: [governance] Formal public warning to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxgNacfSEG5HwT-Eyz=XnPP32XeQEYgB+mjzBh+i2oB+gA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <CACAaNxgNacfSEG5HwT-Eyz=XnPP32XeQEYgB+mjzBh+i2oB+gA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <06795A09-BDF9-4E91-A90D-027CAF7FB1A9@gmail.com>

As we say in Spanish: Being polite does not mean, not being brave. In principle, I am not in favor of restricting freedom of expression even in extreme cases, but of intelligent moderation in the list.

Carlos Vera

El 07/04/2013, a las 18:48, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> escribió:

> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>> Norbert:
>> As an IGC member I disagree with this decision to issue a formal public warning to Suresh. It seems you are singling out one person when a group of people was engaged in an argument, and all of them contributed messages that were similar in tenor to his.
> 
> Agreed, and some were even more argumentative.
> 
> 
> A better way to approach this problem would be to intervene in the
> argument and inform the participants that we don't think it is a
> productive exchange and we don't think the spirit of the exchanges was
> conducive to constructive discussion.
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 nb at bollow.ch  Mon Apr  8 10:24:04 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 16:24:04 +0200
Subject: [governance] Message to IGC/ was formal notice to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <BAC6497F-0035-4EB6-9868-F6EFB8E52EB9@hserus.net>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<5162642A.2040901@apc.org>
	<20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info>
	<ABFF7E5D-23E1-4119-B41B-0BEC03068880@gmail.com>
	<456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net>
	<20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130408113058.GA31767@hserus.net>
	<20130408140805.5f69559a@quill.bollow.ch>
	<BAC6497F-0035-4EB6-9868-F6EFB8E52EB9@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <20130408162404.0573c829@quill.bollow.ch>

[with IGC coordinator hat on]

Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

> I called upon the coordinators to maintain neutrality and help stop
> these attacks on nominees of other stakeholder communities

To my best knowledge, no such attacks were happening.

It is not "attacks on nominees of other stakeholder communities" when
questions are raised about what boundary lines are used to differentiate
between different stakeholder categories, and/or about whether a certain
UN General Assembly resolution has been interpreted in accordance with
what it actually says.

Those are legitimate topics of discussion.

According to the IGC Charter, it is not acceptable when someone works
to derail such discussion by means of personal attacks and/or other
related tactics.

Since you obviously have no intention to change your stance, and you
have in fact continued to (re)post accusations even after the public
warning, the 30 days suspension of posting rights as foreseen by the
Charter is now coming into effect. 

For the sake of fairness, I think that there needs to be an exception in
case you wish to make an appeal, since (except for the case of removal
from the IGC list, in which case there's an automatic appeal) an appeal
requires four co-signers. So if you wish to make an appeal, you're
welcome to put together a message which solicits co-signers for the
appeal, and send that to me, and I'd post it for you.

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 kerry at kdbsystems.com  Mon Apr  8 10:37:36 2013
From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:37:36 +0000
Subject: [governance] Message to IGC/ was formal notice to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <20130408162404.0573c829@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<5162642A.2040901@apc.org>	<20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info>
	<ABFF7E5D-23E1-4119-B41B-0BEC03068880@gmail.com>
	<456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net>
	<20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130408113058.GA31767@hserus.net>
	<20130408140805.5f69559a@quill.bollow.ch>
	<BAC6497F-0035-4EB6-9868-F6EFB8E52EB9@hserus.net>
 <20130408162404.0573c829@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <A0615421071EDD4A9F851117D67D538A823209D6@EXCH01.KDBSystems.local>

While I do not wish to co-sign an appeal at this time I do think that others contributed to this problem and also deserve public notice. Moderating a list such as this is a hard job. Thank you to the moderators for taking this job on. You are doing a good job in trying circumstances. I agree that Suresh deserved a public notice and because of continued arguments about the notice may deserve a 30 day suspension. I would suggest that the whole conversation be reviewed and possibly others that contributed be given public notice as well. The general tone of conversation on this list has deteriorated from discussion/debate to arguing entrenched positions. This as much as personal comment has made me not follow some of the conversations as closely as I'd like. There is a difference between polite debate and spouting dogma which more people than Suresh don't seem to recognise.

Kerry Brown

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow
> Sent: April-08-13 7:24 AM
> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Message to IGC/ was formal notice to Suresh
> 
> [with IGC coordinator hat on]
> 
> Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> 
> > I called upon the coordinators to maintain neutrality and help stop
> > these attacks on nominees of other stakeholder communities
> 
> To my best knowledge, no such attacks were happening.
> 
> It is not "attacks on nominees of other stakeholder communities" when
> questions are raised about what boundary lines are used to differentiate
> between different stakeholder categories, and/or about whether a certain
> UN General Assembly resolution has been interpreted in accordance with
> what it actually says.
> 
> Those are legitimate topics of discussion.
> 
> According to the IGC Charter, it is not acceptable when someone works to
> derail such discussion by means of personal attacks and/or other related
> tactics.
> 
> Since you obviously have no intention to change your stance, and you have in
> fact continued to (re)post accusations even after the public warning, the 30
> days suspension of posting rights as foreseen by the Charter is now coming
> into effect.
> 
> For the sake of fairness, I think that there needs to be an exception in case
> you wish to make an appeal, since (except for the case of removal from the
> IGC list, in which case there's an automatic appeal) an appeal requires four
> co-signers. So if you wish to make an appeal, you're welcome to put together
> a message which solicits co-signers for the appeal, and send that to me, and
> I'd post it for you.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nb at bollow.ch  Mon Apr  8 11:45:59 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 17:45:59 +0200
Subject: [governance] Message to IGC/ was formal notice to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <A0615421071EDD4A9F851117D67D538A823209D6@EXCH01.KDBSystems.local>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<5162642A.2040901@apc.org>
	<20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info>
	<ABFF7E5D-23E1-4119-B41B-0BEC03068880@gmail.com>
	<456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net>
	<20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130408113058.GA31767@hserus.net>
	<20130408140805.5f69559a@quill.bollow.ch>
	<BAC6497F-0035-4EB6-9868-F6EFB8E52EB9@hserus.net>
	<20130408162404.0573c829@quill.bollow.ch>
	<A0615421071EDD4A9F851117D67D538A823209D6@EXCH01.KDBSystems.local>
Message-ID: <20130408174559.128a82e1@quill.bollow.ch>

[with IGC coordinator hat on]

Kerry Brown <kerry at kdbsystems.com> wrote:

> While I do not wish to co-sign an appeal at this time I do think that
> others contributed to this problem and also deserve public notice.

The process defined in the IGC Charter foresees that no matter how
serious or not a transgression may be, the first warning notice is to be
sent privately.

Also, not everything that contributes to a problem is actionable under
the rules of the charter. For example, if someone posts something that
is very provocative, it is wise to either not react at all or at least
calm down before composing a response. Failure to calm down before
composing a response would contribute to the problem of having a
needlessly heated exchange, but I would in most cases consider it
inappropriate for a moderator to respond to that kind of very human
reaction with a formal notice, even a private one.

Let's try to all do our part in keeping discussions as constructive as
possible; part of this is about avoiding anything that would cause the
discussion to become needlessly heated, i.e. heated beyond the amount
of heat that is unavoidable when people passionately disagree. Then the
use of measures like formal notices and suspensions can be minimized.  

There are some real-world problems related to the use of the Internet
that civil society should engage on. Let's try to have discussions that
actually contribute to the solution of those problems. 

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 David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu  Mon Apr  8 11:53:27 2013
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:53:27 -0400
Subject: [governance] Formal public warning to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <5162642A.2040901@apc.org>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5162642A.2040901@apc.org>
Message-ID: <ECD1EF34-33DC-4AC2-A999-6B66664C0A3F@post.harvard.edu>

Highlighting some salient elements, as well as ordering them:


On Apr 8, 2013, at 2:31 AM:
> ... made this list a space that I don't feel comfortable in.

This, it seems, is the root issue - a list where productive exchange  
is withered.


> It also feels as if the same rules are not being applied to everyone  
> in the same way. ...
also:
On Apr 8, 2013, at 10:37 AM:
> ... others contributed to this problem ...



1)  Which points first of all, as far as I can see, to the first  
question:

What is the problem - why is exchange squelched?

[ returning to - On Apr 8, 2013, at 2:31 AM: ]
> ... people questioning others' integrity and intentions ...

Often of course there is a complicated mix of causal factors.

Top of the list, however:  Ad hominem attacks chill other, reasonable  
exchange.  That is, argumentation discussing the opposing person  
pejoratively.  Rather than, discussing just ideas and evidence, and  
strictly only that.


2)  Now, turning to a second part:

Is this - paramount - cause unfairly assigned to one person, as the  
quotes above query?

A moderator has made clear.  There has now been an evidentiary review  
of list archives.

On Apr 8, 2013, at 6:04 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> the situation is very very asymmetric


What is more, the same moderator post makes clear there have been  
repeated private warnings, previously.


Is there
[ again - On Apr 8, 2013, at 2:31 AM: ]
> ... a better option for handling the situation ... [?]

Such as taking contending matters off list?

The elimination of ad hominem behavior has to be a first step, if  
history is any guide.  Before there is any other prospect.


That means a strict about face in such behavior.

Which has been made clear, repeatedly, has _not_ happened.  As a  
moderator has noted.


David


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr  8 14:34:28 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 20:34:28 +0200
Subject: [governance] Constructive online discussions (was Re: Formal public
 warning...)
In-Reply-To: <ECD1EF34-33DC-4AC2-A999-6B66664C0A3F@post.harvard.edu>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<5162642A.2040901@apc.org>
	<ECD1EF34-33DC-4AC2-A999-6B66664C0A3F@post.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <20130408203428.4ee15d72@quill.bollow.ch>

David Allen <David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote:

> [ returning to - On Apr 8, 2013, at 2:31 AM: ]
> > ... people questioning others' integrity and intentions ...
> 
> Often of course there is a complicated mix of causal factors.
> 
> Top of the list, however:  Ad hominem attacks chill other,
> reasonable exchange.  That is, argumentation discussing the opposing
> person pejoratively.  Rather than, discussing just ideas and
> evidence, and strictly only that.

[..]

> The elimination of ad hominem behavior has to be a first step, if  
> history is any guide.  Before there is any other prospect.

Good analysis, thanks!

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 jfcallo at ciencitec.com  Mon Apr  8 15:08:42 2013
From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 15:08:42 -0400
Subject: [governance] Formal public
In-Reply-To: <06795A09-BDF9-4E91-A90D-027CAF7FB1A9@gmail.com>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch>
 <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
 <CACAaNxgNacfSEG5HwT-Eyz=XnPP32XeQEYgB+mjzBh+i2oB+gA@mail.gmail.com>
 <06795A09-BDF9-4E91-A90D-027CAF7FB1A9@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130408150842.15818jm69idv8vqy@www.ciencitec.com>

English
Distinguished members of this list.
Excuse my intervention, I do like digital communicator and now, the  
problem is that everyone always talk and think only in technical and  
referred to the civil society organizations or their representatives,  
who are away from the computer science, technique or cybernetics .
Unfortunately here in Lima, Peru, ISOC does little or nothing to  
emponderar civil society, it is important to check who are the actors,  
and for this reason we are gathering in www.internautaperu.org noes  
where participating journalists, designers, layout artists ,  
linguists, sociologists and those who can not let them participate in  
ISOC-PERU.
It is important that ample dialogue with other groups that have much  
to do not only with the technical side, but with the Internet content.
Thanks and sorry for my speech, if you break your classic and  
traditional scheme.
attentively

Spanish
Distinguidos miembros de esta lista.
Disculpen mi intervencion, lo hago como comunicador social y ahora  
digital, el problema es que siempre todos hablan y solo piensan de  
manera tecnica y mencionan a las organizaciones de la sociedad civil o  
sus representantes, quienes estan lejos de la parte informatica,  
tecnica o cibernetica.
Lamentablemente aqui en Lima, Peru, ISOC hace poco o nada por  
emponderar a la sociedad civil, es importante que se revise quienes  
son los actores, por esta razon ya noes estamos agrupando en  
www.internautaperu.org, donde participaran periodistas, diseñadores,  
diagramadores, filologos, sociologos y todos aquellos que no pueden ni  
los dejan participar en ISOC-PERU.
Es importante que se ample el dialogo a otros grupos que tienen mucho  
que ver no solo con la parte tecnica, sino con el contenido de Internet.
Gracias y disculpas por mi intervencion, si rompe vuestro clasico y  
tradicional esquema.
Atentamente
José F. Callo Romero
CEO ciencitec.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 gurstein at gmail.com  Mon Apr  8 17:08:40 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:08:40 -0700
Subject: FW: [governance] Formal public
In-Reply-To: <20130408150842.15818jm69idv8vqy@www.ciencitec.com>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <CACAaNxgNacfSEG5HwT-Eyz=XnPP32XeQEYgB+mjzBh+i2oB+gA@mail.gmail.com> <06795A09-BDF9-4E91-A90D-027CAF7FB1A9@gmail.com> <20130408150842.15818jm69idv8vqy@www.ciencitec.com>
Message-ID: <271301ce349d$4636f640$d2a4e2c0$@gmail.com>

Some time ago Norbert quite correctly I think, referred to the Habermas related notions of "civic/participative deliberation" and the rules that necessarily govern this. 

In those terms the IGC is a deliberative space and in more immediate terminology is a fundamental and necessary element for multistakeholder engagement (such deliberative spaces presumably being a necessary element in ensuring that multistakeholder engagement goes beyond simply corporatist deal making and becomes an on-going constituative element in participative democracy).

The question here thus, is not simply the in's and out's of a particular discussion or even a stream of discussions but rather the overall well being of the IGC as a deliberative public space.  So the matter at hand is what can best contribute to the well-being (or more particularly what must be done to prevent the destruction) of this particular deliberative space.  

My own feeling is that the tenor and structure of much of the recent interactions have not been contributory to the maintainence or successful operation of the IGC as a deliberative public space--this I believe, has much less to do with the basic disagreements between certain members (although that of course contributes) and rather more to do with different (national?) rhetorical styles/standards of political debate and overall in many cases a desire to score rhetorical points without making a substantive contribution to the overall discussion.  

My understanding is that attempting to "moderate" this is the basis for the actions of the co-coordinators and if so, then I would strongly urge the group to support their actions in this regard as contributing to the long term well-being of this space.

I should in this regard also note that the failure by a significant component of this space to engage in a discussion around a pre-eminent issue which is fundamental to our overall IG enterprise and which goes to the very core of the deliberation being conducted is an equally if not stronger negative statement and disruptive of attempts at useful deliberation and respectful communication.

Mike 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of jfcallo at ciencitec.com
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 12:09 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Carlos Vera Quintana
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; McTim; Milton L Mueller; Norbert Bollow; Suresh Ramasubramanian
Subject: [governance] Formal public

English
Distinguished members of this list.
Excuse my intervention, I do like digital communicator and now, the problem is that everyone always talk and think only in technical and referred to the civil society organizations or their representatives, who are away from the computer science, technique or cybernetics .
Unfortunately here in Lima, Peru, ISOC does little or nothing to emponderar civil society, it is important to check who are the actors, and for this reason we are gathering in www.internautaperu.org noes where participating journalists, designers, layout artists , linguists, sociologists and those who can not let them participate in ISOC-PERU.
It is important that ample dialogue with other groups that have much to do not only with the technical side, but with the Internet content.
Thanks and sorry for my speech, if you break your classic and traditional scheme.
attentively

Spanish
Distinguidos miembros de esta lista.
Disculpen mi intervencion, lo hago como comunicador social y ahora digital, el problema es que siempre todos hablan y solo piensan de manera tecnica y mencionan a las organizaciones de la sociedad civil o sus representantes, quienes estan lejos de la parte informatica, tecnica o cibernetica.
Lamentablemente aqui en Lima, Peru, ISOC hace poco o nada por emponderar a la sociedad civil, es importante que se revise quienes son los actores, por esta razon ya noes estamos agrupando en www.internautaperu.org, donde participaran periodistas, diseñadores, diagramadores, filologos, sociologos y todos aquellos que no pueden ni los dejan participar en ISOC-PERU.
Es importante que se ample el dialogo a otros grupos que tienen mucho que ver no solo con la parte tecnica, sino con el contenido de Internet.
Gracias y disculpas por mi intervencion, si rompe vuestro clasico y tradicional esquema.
Atentamente
José F. Callo Romero
CEO ciencitec.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 pouzin at well.com  Mon Apr  8 21:53:52 2013
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 03:53:52 +0200
Subject: [governance] Catalog of the mass surveillance industry
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYp4HZXAQ2ZuTKWtwFGT6dY7ZBcy1UHyAxjN_xZJS+JGJw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+EjHYp4HZXAQ2ZuTKWtwFGT6dY7ZBcy1UHyAxjN_xZJS+JGJw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYqhJhRnRVP6OcbBAwDDTonN8Rj_+gOu4sj0gQiErdtzbw@mail.gmail.com>

FinFisher, an addition to the mass surveillance club.

*Authors:* Morgan Marquis-Boire, Bill Marczak, Claudio Guarnieri, and John
Scott-Railton.
(Citizenlab.org)
Summary of Key Findings

   - We have found command and control servers for FinSpy backdoors, part
   of Gamma International’s FinFisher “remote monitoring solution,” in a total
   of 25 countries: Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Canada, Czech
   Republic, Estonia, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Latvia,
   Malaysia, Mexico, Mongolia, Netherlands, Qatar, Serbia, Singapore,
   Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Vietnam.


   - A FinSpy campaign in Ethiopia uses pictures of Ginbot 7, an Ethiopian
   opposition group, as bait to infect users. This continues the theme of
   FinSpy deployments with strong indications of politically-motivated
   targeting.


   - There is strong evidence of a Vietnamese FinSpy Mobile Campaign. We
   found an Android FinSpy Mobile sample in the wild with a command & control
   server in Vietnam that also exfiltrates text messages to a local phone
   number.


   - These findings call into question claims by Gamma International that
   previously reported servers were *not* part of their product line, and
   that previously discovered copies of their software were either stolen or
   demo copies.


https://citizenlab.org/2013/03/you-only-click-twice-finfishers-global-proliferation-2/
http://surveillance.rsf.org/en/gamma-international/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FinFisher
https://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/00002114.html
http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/finfisher.pdf   (in arabic)







<https://citizenlab.org/2013/03/you-only-click-twice-finfishers-global-proliferation-2/>




On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com> wrote:

> A shopping list of active providers:
>
>
> http://www.salon.com/2013/01/31/meet_the_contractors_turning_americas_police_into_a_paramilitary_force/?source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Premium%29_7_30_110
>
> In addition to well known big names, ATT, Boeing, Facebook, Google, NSA,
> etc.
> Creeping police State.
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130409/8a51abd9/attachment.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 mueller at syr.edu  Mon Apr  8 22:41:25 2013
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 02:41:25 +0000
Subject: [governance] Message to IGC/ was formal notice to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <20130408140805.5f69559a@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<5162642A.2040901@apc.org>	<20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info>
	<ABFF7E5D-23E1-4119-B41B-0BEC03068880@gmail.com>
	<456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net>
	<20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130408113058.GA31767@hserus.net> <20130408140805.5f69559a@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A501D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>



> -----Original Message-----
Norbert:
> 
> Maybe one solution would be for the people who agree with you on what
> kind of policy is desirable, to join that list?

[Milton L Mueller] 
Wow. This seems dangerously close to an invitation to leave this list and join another if you don't agree with a particular position. Am I misinterpreting the statement above? Unacceptable, if so. The whole point of this list is to have different positions represented.

I actually agree with the position that Gurstein and Parminder make wrt the manipulation of the category "technical and academic" community. I actually made that point years before them. In fact, I have been hurt by this by being excluded from groups on that basis, when I have as much claim to be counted as a member of the tech/academic community as anyone. However, the debate between Suresh, McTim on one hand and Gurstein and Parminder on the other was a legitimate one, and I saw as much hostility and aggravation on one side as the other. 

It is extremely unfortunate that Norbert has intervened in this dispute by making it clear that he basically agrees with one side of the dispute and wishes to single out one person as "causing" the problem. Notice that by doing so the polarizing debate has simply been prolonged for another 2 days and the opportunity presented by Anriette's intervention has now been lost. It will be difficult to move forward on a more even-keeled basis now. 

I believe one of the coordinators has now acted in a partisan and self-justifying manner and that this type of thing is going to kill the list, if it is not dead already. 


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr  8 23:04:20 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 08:34:20 +0530
Subject: [governance] Ex-White House Official Joins Group Fighting
 "Excessive" Online Privacy Laws
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A270B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <093d01ce2f02$50eafaa0$f2c0efe0$@gmail.com> <515A64D4.9050600@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A270B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <51638534.6060106@itforchange.net>


On Wednesday 03 April 2013 10:02 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> "Coalition for Privacy and Free Trade " is exactly the kind of issue
>> based network that are getting formed. (Bertrand, please note.) And we
>> know what they are upto. Soon there will be others, that is the trend,
>> like perhaps one led by Shell on green economy, and Nike on labour
>> friendliness.... No, this is not acceptable, We are better off with
>> evolving old fashioned democratic systems from within, with a deepening
>> democracy focus.... We have seen movements, especially in Europe, of a
>> new kind of democratic politics bypassing the existing political party
>> captures - that is where I would put my hopes instead of these dangerous
>> neolib trends. I appeal to the civil society to recognise the dangers
>> that we are headed towards in all this mushy talk of "equality of all
>> stakeholders in decision making" (read, corporate led 'governance'
>> systems), and issue based networks as the prime next gen governance
>> paradigm...
> Let me see if I understand your point.

Milton, your understanding of my point on 'issue based networks', or at 
any rate your statement of it, has a fundamental flaw, which I discuss 
below.

>   This issue network is bad and should not be allowed because you don't agree with their policy agenda?

I would say that this is a bit rhetorical, but in any case, here you are 
positioning 'issue networks' as basically advocacy networks, right. No, 
advocacy oriented issue networks are not the real problem - they are 
indeed the network age form of policy advocacy. (Although the nature of 
relationship of civil society actors with corporate and state actors 
will need to continually be critically scrutinised and analysed even in 
the network age).

Let me bring you back to what kind of 'issue networks'  we have been 
discussing here, and I quote Bertrand's last email; "The only viable 
approach is rather to build on the concept of distributed governance 
frameworks, and build issue-based governance networks, associating in a 
transparent and accountable manner the "relevant stakeholders".

To which you responded " Yes, networks focused on specific issues" (Milton)

The above makes it amply clear that we have *not* been discussing 
advocacy network but discussing 'issue networks /*as*/ governance 
mechanisms'. Importantly Bertrand made these comments in relation to the 
Tunis Agenda imperative for global governance related institutional 
developments, and indeed closed his email by speaking  of 'enhancec 
cooperations' in plural. Obviously his 'issue networks' idea has  aclose 
connection with this term of of 'enhanced cooperations'.

My critique of 'issue networks' is in terms of their employment as new 
forms of governance systems in a manner that tends to supplant the more 
institutional democratic governance systems. You may or may not agree 
with such a critique, but I cant see why you have to divert the debate 
by accusing me of being against advocacy networks per se, and freedom of 
political expression....

> In the name of democracy you are saying that private sector actors (or presumably anyone else you don't agree with) should be prevented from organizing transnational issue networks to influence policy,

They (businesses) shouldnt/ cannot be prevented as such, but civil 
society will take an independent view of how trans national capital 
shapes and distorts the global polity, and include that particular issue 
in its struggles. Most trans-national civil society has routinely taken 
such a stance, but if some IG kinds want to stand completely apart from 
this general trend, that is entirely their choice.

>   and/or that corporate stakeholders should not be considered equal stakeholders?

I dont consider private sector 'equal to' public interest actors in the 
polity, but they indeed have a right to lobby, make political demands 
etc. Do you think that they are 'equal stakeholder' as governments and 
civil society, and if so, what does such equality mean. Should they vote 
at times of substantial policy making, and do you advocate similar 
stances within the US national polity?

>
> If you're rabidly anti-corporate that all sounds fine and good, I suppose,

Again, a needless and diversionary accusation.... Corporates are a prime 
and indispensible form for organising our productive efforts today. 
Being against inappropriate policy influence of corporates is not being 
against corporates. All political systems, including the US, include 
measures for insulating governance from such inappropriate corporate 
influences.

parminder

> but if you believe in democracy, free expression and free association it does not sound so good. I would like to know how you can limit one group's political participation without limiting everyone's political participation. Organizations, ranging from labor unions to business corps to public interest organizations that are inevitably incorporated, as well as individuals, are going to lobby and jostle for benefit from the political process - regardless of whether we are talking about the national level or the transnational level.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130409/d4bfbcf6/attachment.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Apr  8 23:50:14 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:20:14 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working Group
 on Enhanced Cooperation
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A30C6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <OFC2788E76.650E99EE-ONC1257B36.0067C43C-C1257B36.0078DE95@unog.un.org> <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <CACAaNxgnmodePEjSx5eqdheDffBwzWd28wiCzeDPQsAzsEYbxw@mail.gmail.com> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxjU-zgSTWcMCrxiZugmX5wmRL2GMV0-+0CEf11DQFbXPA@mail.gmail.com> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net> <CACAaNxh0pXeh1Fy8S8cnJgV_rzOhyz9ZnbmtRX+4BszAB3+Jng@mail.gmail.com> <22C2D51B-662B-4929-930B-3C84FE853E5F@hserus.net> <3FE058A9-8921-41BA-B10F-8348235CE4F9@acm.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD239FD9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <51599BC6.6090603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A30C6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <51638FF6.7010103@itforchange.net>


Milton

Your email below makes some very important points. Will respond to few 
of them now, and others in a while....

On Thursday 04 April 2013 02:32 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> <snip>
>
> It is not just about "public representation" because that may imply a 
> standard legislative structure with traditional forms of political 
> authority but expanded, frighteningly, to a global scope. There are 
> large parts of the internet, possibly all of it, that should not be 
> governed via that paradigm at all.
>
> So there are a wide variety of new institutional mechanisms for 
> aggregating users and suppliers into policy making processes, such as 
> networked cooperation among ISPs, the mechanisms used by RIRs to elect 
> their ACs and Boards,
>

Aggregation of user and suppliers based governance mechanism can 
addressed some limited issues, they are quite inappropriate for larger 
public policy resolution, certainly very much so when political economy 
considerations are involved.

> <snip>
>
> We may have a conceptual disconnect here if, when you talk about 
> "representatives of the global public," you are talking about a 
> single, hierarchical global legislative - regulatory agency that 
> covers all aspects of "the internet." No system of representation is 
> going to make that a good idea.
>
Not necessarily.... it can and should be much more complex - federated, 
distributed and networked in different forms.... for instance I agree 
that the ICANN system need not be replaced, but merely evolved, for CIR 
management functions.

> To me it is first a question of what authority the process has, how it 
> gets that authority and how it is scoped, the degree to which it is 
> voluntary or hierarchical, subject to market discipline, or choice, or 
> not. Those things are primary. Then you can tackle questions about 
> representation.
>

Governance systems to be subject first to principles of (1) 'degree to 
which it is voluntary' and (2) 'market discipline' before one can tackle 
'questions of representation' is one of the clearest statements of 
neoliberal governace that I have seen here in some time . No, I dont 
agree to this basic political philosophy, and I understand that most of 
our differences come from this basic disagreement. Basic equity and 
social justice cannot be obtained for this world through voluntary 
governance systems subject primarily to market discipline.

> But to give you a more specific response, I was and still am an 
> advocate of publicly elected ICANN board members. I see no reason why 
> simple electoral democracy, with some  structural safeguards such as 
> regional distribution, should not be used for the board. The standard 
> risks and problems with direct democracy are limited because of the 
> limited scope of ICANN's authority. ICANN would still need a better 
> "constitution" delimiting its authority, and it may well be that the 
> best place to get that constitution in the current world is from an 
> intergovernmental process involving international law with MS 
> participation in its negotiation.
>

Agree. I think the basic ICANN system should stay as it is, with its 
larger remit and policy directions provided by international law. What 
you are proposing is a kind of an inter government convention arrived at 
with multi stakeholder participation, for instance the manner in which 
the recent UN convention on disability was arrived at... Lets work on 
this area of possible agreement.

> And not all MS participation has to be "representative" - it can also 
> be organized along the lines of the traditional Internet institutions, 
> i.e., open participation by individuals who represent only themselves. 
> Indeed, as a principle the governing well-defined sectors that require 
> specialized knowledge, that can be a very good method.
>

Specialised knowledge based governance is appropriate only for some 
narrow technical areas, like in the IETF.... larger political governance 
is based on representation and not 'knowledge' .

>
> All businesses should be expropriated and replaced by the dictatorship 
> of the public interest advocates, in line with the precepts of 
> Parminder-Gurstein thought!
>
> Just kidding.
>
> (Had you there for a moment, no?)
>

In fact the opposite is true. The current paradigm of democratic 
systems, as practised by most democracies, allow a range of political 
philosophies to find expression, and possible obtain 'political power'. 
Rightist as well as leftist groups can come to power and exercise 
respective political philosophies.  However the kind of voluntary and 
apriori market discipline based (whatever it means)  systems that you 
advocate locks-in the 'Milton' variety of political thinking for ever, 
in an irreplaceable way.... that is neo-liberal dictatorship - much more 
insidious in many ways than the traditional  dictatorhsips - where at 
least the 'enemy' and thus the target of change was rather clear..... 
Here, in neolib dictatorship it is rather more complex and hidden, 
networked, if you like it that way :)....


> Not all governance is about voting. Markets are a form of governance, 
> one that works well in many, many contexts.
>

Well, that kind of conceptual/ category elasticity is not very useful... 
That way everything is in some measure everything else. Many in fact see 
political governance as the other of 'markets' and thus complimentary to 
each other in human affairs, rather than one being a form of other.... 
Sorry, that is simply pushing the above neolib form of governance thing.
>
> Where general public input is needed, the "open participation by 
> individuals" paradigm does not need to distinguish representation by 
> status. I do not favor corporatist models that try to assign a certain 
> number of representative slots to people based on some category such 
> as "business," "labor" "civil society" or whatever.
>

Agree.
>
> However, some aspects of governance _/can/_ actually best be governed 
> through industry associations where  there is a direct alignment 
> between the economic stakes of the actors and the effectiveness of the 
> overall system. The administration of credit card number assignments, 
> for example, is handled perfectly well by a self-governing industry 
> association. Of course, it is also possible that such systems become 
> cartels or have other adverse public interest effects and need to be 
> broken up or regulated opened up to broader public participation.
>
> */I have some problem with the WSIS 'respective role' definition but 
> not going to the extent of claiming that all stakeholders have the 
> same claim to policy making process. Do you say that they an equal 
> role? If not what differential role do you see? /**//*
>
> My point of reference, again, is the individual. In that respect all 
> individuals are equal.
>

Important point, and I agree. MS-ists may please note.
>
>
> */Then perhaps US congress' decisions taken without consulting your 
> university may also be considered non binding by your university. /**//*
>
> No, because we live under the political authority of the US federal 
> government and have some opportunity to participate in selecting the 
> congress's members. I do not, however, have any representation in the 
> 30 African governments, dozens of European governments, China, Asian 
> countries, etc. who negotiated the WSIS documents.
>

Oh, really! :) / And what about lack of representation of all the people 
from all non US countries in so much in this world that gets done 
unilaterally by the US government.
.
>
> This is interesting. From below, I understand that by new institutions 
> you mean ICANN, RIR etc. I agree with the existing policy making role 
> of these institutions, and most developing countires like India also 
> agree.... I think it is extremely important we dont confuse narrow 
> technical policy role with larger public policy role in non tech areas 
> like net neutrality, data protection and privacy, ecommerce taxation, 
> cyber security and so on... Are you saying that these new institutions 
> - ICANN etc - should have a role in these latter policy areas as well.
>
> No. their mandate should remain limited.
>
> Most of the issues you list can be handled via standard national 
> regulatory processes. Certainly NN can be and is being so handled. The 
> one clear exception might be cybersecurity, we may need new 
> institutional arramgenets for that; privacy/dp may also be an 
> exception, although there are extensive and quite vigorous national 
> and supra-national regulatory institutions (EC) around that so it 
> probably is not an exception.
>

A Council of Europe document, in preparing which Wolfgang and Bertrand 
participated, lays out of a lot of Internet related public policy issues 
that are indeed, and somewhat inherently, global . This will be much 
more so when the cloud computing paradigm fully takes over. We cannot 
wipe out this patent fact for political convenience. That is what the 
process of 'enhanced cooperation' is all about. How does the world 
collectively address these pressing global policy issues. And real 
doable insitutional proposals are needed, becuase the problems that are 
faced are here and now, and rather severe.

parminder



> Yes, we should stand against any form of arbitrary interventions in 
> legitimate areas of technical policy making by the ICANN system - and 
> the root signing authority of the US government and ICANN's 
> answerability to US jurisdiction today are the two most significant 
> levers for such 'arbitrary' intervention.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Again , pl propose your model. It is difficult to just stand up in the 
> Working Group and say, we want it trans-nationalised, but right now we 
> are not sure what is looks like practically. During preceding 
> discussions I had suggested a few options.
>
> By "Again," are you referring to the fact that you've asked me this 
> question about 3 times before and I have put before you a fairly 
> detailed proposal in response each time, based on the IGP response to 
> the 2009 NTIA RFC?? Forgive me if I pass up another round.
>
>
>
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130409/c3d1f69d/attachment.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 mueller at syr.edu  Tue Apr  9 00:08:32 2013
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 04:08:32 +0000
Subject: [governance] Ex-White House Official Joins Group Fighting
 "Excessive" Online Privacy Laws
In-Reply-To: <51638534.6060106@itforchange.net>
References: <093d01ce2f02$50eafaa0$f2c0efe0$@gmail.com>
 <515A64D4.9050600@itforchange.net>
 <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A270B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
 <51638534.6060106@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A5159@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>


I would say that this is a bit rhetorical, but in any case, here you are positioning 'issue networks' as basically advocacy networks, right. No, advocacy oriented issue networks are not the real problem - they are indeed the network age form of policy advocacy. (Although the nature of relationship of civil society actors with corporate and state actors will need to continually be critically scrutinised and analysed even in the network age).

Let me bring you back to what kind of 'issue networks'  we have been discussing here, and I quote Bertrand's last email; "The only viable approach is rather to build on the concept of distributed governance frameworks, and build issue-based governance networks, associating in a transparent and accountable manner the "relevant stakeholders".

To which you responded " Yes, networks focused on specific issues" (Milton)

The above makes it amply clear that we have *not* been discussing advocacy network but discussing 'issue networks as governance mechanisms'. Importantly Bertrand made these comments in relation to the Tunis Agenda imperative for global governance related institutional developments, and indeed closed his email by speaking  of 'enhancec cooperations' in plural. Obviously his 'issue networks' idea has  aclose connection with this term of of 'enhanced cooperations'.

[Milton L Mueller] very good, you clarified this well.

My critique of 'issue networks' is in terms of their employment as new forms of governance systems in a manner that tends to supplant the more institutional democratic governance systems. You may or may not agree with such a critique, but I cant see why you have to divert the debate by accusing me of being against advocacy networks per se, and freedom of political expression...

[Milton L Mueller] didn’t mean to divert, it just sounded to me like you were attacking their right to organize an advocacy network. Clearly, you were not.

By the same token, a governance network in the sense BdlC and I used the term does not necessarily mean a corporatist or business-led network or governance structure. There are some of those, of course, and ICANN is clearly biased in that direction and if you are familiar with my work in that environment you will know that I have systematically resisted it.

The key distinction for me, in that conversation, is whether the governance occurs in a very broad, government-like legislative framework or is narrower in scope.
.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130409/4343ea92/attachment.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 iza at anr.org  Tue Apr  9 00:23:39 2013
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 13:23:39 +0900
Subject: [governance] Report of ICANN 46 Beijing meeting (1)
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKi-ChXPowF846XCMNHZvxTynK-VWX7R=_hhtqhZiN8UjQ@mail.gmail.com>

I came to ICANN Beijing meeting, its 46th meeting since 1999.
I stopped coming to ICANN meeting after 2010 Brussels which was
38th. So I missed almost three years, 7 meetings.  I have participated
almost all ICANN meetings except 2 meeting till #36, making 34.

This time, since I am with ALS, Internet Users Network, Tokyo,
ICANN offered us the travel fund to join APRALO AGM as well
as AtLarge other activities. Thank you ICANN.

Having been away for three years from ICANN, certain portions look
very new, while other areas have not beeb changed much.

One thing in particular is, the state of activities of AtLarge seem
to be much more strengthened and well-organized than, say
3 years ago, or let's say far more than 10 years ago when the current
ALS/RALO/ALAC structure was proposed.

<http://www.anr.org>A good example was the AtLarge meeting with the Board
this morning.
Well attended, not in terms of numbers of the people from the Board
and in the room, but well listened, discussed, on a rather open and
equal basis between the Board and AtLarge. It may sound normal for
those who do not know much about the dynamics of ICANN, but
it is a significant change from the days I know of them, just three years
ago.

I made the following comment there.

How can AtLarge find the interest of 2 billion Internet users (within ICANN
remit)? [was asked by a Board member]

That is our mutual question or mission – if ICANN really wants to become
what it claims to be: as “bottom up and multi-stakeholder” organization,
including the users or public. ALAC's 3R White
Paper<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/34603268/R3+-+Paper+FINAL+-+EN.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1350161916000>
is
a good direction forward.

Having AtLarge Summit with 200 or 400 people may not be a sufficient, but
necessary step.  Can UN function without general assembly?

ALAC used to be an additional portion of ICANN, supplemental, but not in
the main stream – say till 3 or 4 years ago. I think it’s time to make
AtLatge as one of the three or four pillars of ICANN, mainstreaming this
more.
Similar to the Civil Society engagement in IGF process, AtLarge, Individual
user component of ICANN, has been facing the challenges - especially from
other stakeholders.

It is clear now that ICANN has put more resources to AtLarge area, as well
as other areas.

YET, I also have a concern that ICANN is learning more towards the interest
of the Domain Name business, especially through the introduction of the new
gTLDs.

It really remains to be seen, and, it is quite relevant to our work here,
at IGC, as well.

Will try to write more later,  I have to listen to the discussion now ;-)

izumi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130409/641887d3/attachment.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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Tue Apr  9 00:50:34 2013
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 12:50:34 +0800
Subject: [governance] Report of ICANN 46 Beijing meeting (1)
In-Reply-To: <CA+YNoKi-ChXPowF846XCMNHZvxTynK-VWX7R=_hhtqhZiN8UjQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+YNoKi-ChXPowF846XCMNHZvxTynK-VWX7R=_hhtqhZiN8UjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHuaJtOE6C9eCPh+zb41T2ZWOLLfvyh46SiNzi3SKBVPqw5piA@mail.gmail.com>

One thing to remember about ICANN is that the addressing and name
space is just like a phone book and there seems to be a continuous
problem of falling out of scope of ICANN's mandate which remains the
domain name and IP addressing space. The broader internet governance
and internet public policy issues do incorporate to a certain access
such critical internet resources and their sharing in discussions but
I tend to become uncomfortable to how much emphasis is laid down in to
ICANN as if it was responsible for engaging and providing internet
access to 2 billion users. Its only one part of the stack and not
actually the whole stack.

Best


On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> I came to ICANN Beijing meeting, its 46th meeting since 1999.
> I stopped coming to ICANN meeting after 2010 Brussels which was
> 38th. So I missed almost three years, 7 meetings.  I have participated
> almost all ICANN meetings except 2 meeting till #36, making 34.
>
> This time, since I am with ALS, Internet Users Network, Tokyo,
> ICANN offered us the travel fund to join APRALO AGM as well
> as AtLarge other activities. Thank you ICANN.
>
> Having been away for three years from ICANN, certain portions look
> very new, while other areas have not beeb changed much.
>
> One thing in particular is, the state of activities of AtLarge seem
> to be much more strengthened and well-organized than, say
> 3 years ago, or let's say far more than 10 years ago when the current
> ALS/RALO/ALAC structure was proposed.
>
> A good example was the AtLarge meeting with the Board this morning.
> Well attended, not in terms of numbers of the people from the Board
> and in the room, but well listened, discussed, on a rather open and
> equal basis between the Board and AtLarge. It may sound normal for
> those who do not know much about the dynamics of ICANN, but
> it is a significant change from the days I know of them, just three years
> ago.
>
> I made the following comment there.
>
> How can AtLarge find the interest of 2 billion Internet users (within ICANN
> remit)? [was asked by a Board member]
>
> That is our mutual question or mission – if ICANN really wants to become
> what it claims to be: as “bottom up and multi-stakeholder” organization,
> including the users or public. ALAC's 3R White Paper is a good direction
> forward.
>
> Having AtLarge Summit with 200 or 400 people may not be a sufficient, but
> necessary step.  Can UN function without general assembly?
>
> ALAC used to be an additional portion of ICANN, supplemental, but not in the
> main stream – say till 3 or 4 years ago. I think it’s time to make AtLatge
> as one of the three or four pillars of ICANN, mainstreaming this more.
>
> Similar to the Civil Society engagement in IGF process, AtLarge, Individual
> user component of ICANN, has been facing the challenges - especially from
> other stakeholders.
>
> It is clear now that ICANN has put more resources to AtLarge area, as well
> as other areas.
>
> YET, I also have a concern that ICANN is learning more towards the interest
> of the Domain Name business, especially through the introduction of the new
> gTLDs.
>
> It really remains to be seen, and, it is quite relevant to our work here, at
> IGC, as well.
>
> Will try to write more later,  I have to listen to the discussion now ;-)
>
> 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
>



-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Tue Apr  9 01:03:16 2013
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 14:03:16 +0900
Subject: [governance] Report of ICANN 46 Beijing meeting (1)
In-Reply-To: <CAHuaJtOE6C9eCPh+zb41T2ZWOLLfvyh46SiNzi3SKBVPqw5piA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+YNoKi-ChXPowF846XCMNHZvxTynK-VWX7R=_hhtqhZiN8UjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHuaJtOE6C9eCPh+zb41T2ZWOLLfvyh46SiNzi3SKBVPqw5piA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKjpa9yMpOCTMHhb7NC9-vycKgYQCZ4Uh5OreKOzOWkY6w@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Fouad, who is sitting next next seat to me now.

To follow, I agree with you and that is why I added "(within ICANN remit)"
to the original question which did not contain reference to ICANN space at
all if I remember
correctly.

Bu even so, the use of Domain name and IP addresses do impact the end users
who have no idea about these explicitly.

I just spoke with one guy from Brazil, received ICANN fellowship like me,
who is running a small ISP in Brazil, Port Alegre, and asked him how many
ISPs are there in Barzil. 3,000. He also mentioned about the Indian LAN
House,
village level Internet Cafe but providing some connectivity around, I assume
(correct me if I am wrong), and how do you find the best interest of ISPs
globally could be a challenge equally.

izumi



2013/4/9 Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>

> One thing to remember about ICANN is that the addressing and name
> space is just like a phone book and there seems to be a continuous
> problem of falling out of scope of ICANN's mandate which remains the
> domain name and IP addressing space. The broader internet governance
> and internet public policy issues do incorporate to a certain access
> such critical internet resources and their sharing in discussions but
> I tend to become uncomfortable to how much emphasis is laid down in to
> ICANN as if it was responsible for engaging and providing internet
> access to 2 billion users. Its only one part of the stack and not
> actually the whole stack.
>
> Best
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> > I came to ICANN Beijing meeting, its 46th meeting since 1999.
> > I stopped coming to ICANN meeting after 2010 Brussels which was
> > 38th. So I missed almost three years, 7 meetings.  I have participated
> > almost all ICANN meetings except 2 meeting till #36, making 34.
> >
> > This time, since I am with ALS, Internet Users Network, Tokyo,
> > ICANN offered us the travel fund to join APRALO AGM as well
> > as AtLarge other activities. Thank you ICANN.
> >
> > Having been away for three years from ICANN, certain portions look
> > very new, while other areas have not beeb changed much.
> >
> > One thing in particular is, the state of activities of AtLarge seem
> > to be much more strengthened and well-organized than, say
> > 3 years ago, or let's say far more than 10 years ago when the current
> > ALS/RALO/ALAC structure was proposed.
> >
> > A good example was the AtLarge meeting with the Board this morning.
> > Well attended, not in terms of numbers of the people from the Board
> > and in the room, but well listened, discussed, on a rather open and
> > equal basis between the Board and AtLarge. It may sound normal for
> > those who do not know much about the dynamics of ICANN, but
> > it is a significant change from the days I know of them, just three years
> > ago.
> >
> > I made the following comment there.
> >
> > How can AtLarge find the interest of 2 billion Internet users (within
> ICANN
> > remit)? [was asked by a Board member]
> >
> > That is our mutual question or mission – if ICANN really wants to become
> > what it claims to be: as “bottom up and multi-stakeholder” organization,
> > including the users or public. ALAC's 3R White Paper is a good direction
> > forward.
> >
> > Having AtLarge Summit with 200 or 400 people may not be a sufficient, but
> > necessary step.  Can UN function without general assembly?
> >
> > ALAC used to be an additional portion of ICANN, supplemental, but not in
> the
> > main stream – say till 3 or 4 years ago. I think it’s time to make
> AtLatge
> > as one of the three or four pillars of ICANN, mainstreaming this more.
> >
> > Similar to the Civil Society engagement in IGF process, AtLarge,
> Individual
> > user component of ICANN, has been facing the challenges - especially from
> > other stakeholders.
> >
> > It is clear now that ICANN has put more resources to AtLarge area, as
> well
> > as other areas.
> >
> > YET, I also have a concern that ICANN is learning more towards the
> interest
> > of the Domain Name business, especially through the introduction of the
> new
> > gTLDs.
> >
> > It really remains to be seen, and, it is quite relevant to our work
> here, at
> > IGC, as well.
> >
> > Will try to write more later,  I have to listen to the discussion now ;-)
> >
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards.
> --------------------------
> Fouad Bajwa
> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>
>


-- 
                     >> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130409/a6e50d44/attachment.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 jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Apr  9 01:10:37 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 13:10:37 +0800
Subject: [governance] Report of ICANN 46 Beijing meeting (1)
In-Reply-To: <CAHuaJtOE6C9eCPh+zb41T2ZWOLLfvyh46SiNzi3SKBVPqw5piA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+YNoKi-ChXPowF846XCMNHZvxTynK-VWX7R=_hhtqhZiN8UjQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHuaJtOE6C9eCPh+zb41T2ZWOLLfvyh46SiNzi3SKBVPqw5piA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5163A2CD.8020606@ciroap.org>

On 09/04/13 12:50, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
> One thing to remember about ICANN is that the addressing and name
> space is just like a phone book and there seems to be a continuous
> problem of falling out of scope of ICANN's mandate which remains the
> domain name and IP addressing space. The broader internet governance
> and internet public policy issues do incorporate to a certain access
> such critical internet resources and their sharing in discussions but
> I tend to become uncomfortable to how much emphasis is laid down in to
> ICANN as if it was responsible for engaging and providing internet
> access to 2 billion users. Its only one part of the stack and not
> actually the whole stack.

I can't overstate how much I agree with this, though it's won't be news
to most members of this list.  It all comes down to money though,
doesn't it?  The time and effort poured into its website and stakeholder
engagement structures, its high-paid staff in offices around the world,
the volunteers who queue up to donate their time, all seem like overkill
when it comes down to the fact that it's all just about domain names and
IP addresses.  In comparison the IGF, which should be like an ICANN or
an OECD for broader Internet governance issues, is beyond a joke, and
it's not (only) due to incompetence or malice, it's due to lack of
money.  It's a case of market failure: the free market oversupplies
funding to ICANN, and undersupplies it to the IGF.  This makes
Parminder's case for public funding of the IGF rather compelling, I
would have thought.

-- 

*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

WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map:
https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130409/f2e1ecc9/attachment.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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Tue Apr  9 01:16:21 2013
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 13:16:21 +0800
Subject: [governance] Report of ICANN 46 Beijing meeting (1)
In-Reply-To: <CA+YNoKjpa9yMpOCTMHhb7NC9-vycKgYQCZ4Uh5OreKOzOWkY6w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+YNoKi-ChXPowF846XCMNHZvxTynK-VWX7R=_hhtqhZiN8UjQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHuaJtOE6C9eCPh+zb41T2ZWOLLfvyh46SiNzi3SKBVPqw5piA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+YNoKjpa9yMpOCTMHhb7NC9-vycKgYQCZ4Uh5OreKOzOWkY6w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHuaJtN6t8c3WZO8o-fBeF-wGuM8EC9fzT9HyXCUxoJefsAP+w@mail.gmail.com>

There has been such deliberations by Mr. Naresh from India about the
role of public internet cafes, telecenters and local ISPs. Again, we
come to the basic discussion that yes, every person using the Internet
can have a domain name or multiple domain names, a static ip or a
block of ip's, but how well that is true is still questionable to the
division that how many of these are government, private sector,
academia, technical community, individual domain users etc. The other
facet of this discussion is the right to access any kind of content
online and that that content is available on a website with a domain
name and/or IP address. The right to access that domain and IP is a
discussion area.

The ISP, unless its a community cooperative or community interest run
service (not the case in Urban centres), they are usually commercial
companies and may buy domain names and IP addresses and sell it to
people in their target market. We have to thus have to understand the
contracted party processes of how ICANN sells domains to the
intermediaries that are then responsible for selling down to the
consumers or users. ICANN frees itself from the challenges of law
enforcement and I believe the contracts pass on the liability to
contracted/noncontracted parties. So ISPs would fall somewhere in that
bracket of contracted and non-contracted parties but ISPs do not fall
into the remit of ICANN because the market structure of domains and
IPs places intermediaries in between ICANN and the people, user,
consumer and however you want to place it.

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> Thanks Fouad, who is sitting next next seat to me now.
>
> To follow, I agree with you and that is why I added "(within ICANN remit)"
> to the original question which did not contain reference to ICANN space at
> all if I remember
> correctly.
>
> Bu even so, the use of Domain name and IP addresses do impact the end users
> who have no idea about these explicitly.
>
> I just spoke with one guy from Brazil, received ICANN fellowship like me,
> who is running a small ISP in Brazil, Port Alegre, and asked him how many
> ISPs are there in Barzil. 3,000. He also mentioned about the Indian LAN
> House,
> village level Internet Cafe but providing some connectivity around, I assume
> (correct me if I am wrong), and how do you find the best interest of ISPs
> globally could be a challenge equally.
>
> izumi
>
>
>
> 2013/4/9 Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
>>
>> One thing to remember about ICANN is that the addressing and name
>> space is just like a phone book and there seems to be a continuous
>> problem of falling out of scope of ICANN's mandate which remains the
>> domain name and IP addressing space. The broader internet governance
>> and internet public policy issues do incorporate to a certain access
>> such critical internet resources and their sharing in discussions but
>> I tend to become uncomfortable to how much emphasis is laid down in to
>> ICANN as if it was responsible for engaging and providing internet
>> access to 2 billion users. Its only one part of the stack and not
>> actually the whole stack.
>>
>> Best
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>> > I came to ICANN Beijing meeting, its 46th meeting since 1999.
>> > I stopped coming to ICANN meeting after 2010 Brussels which was
>> > 38th. So I missed almost three years, 7 meetings.  I have participated
>> > almost all ICANN meetings except 2 meeting till #36, making 34.
>> >
>> > This time, since I am with ALS, Internet Users Network, Tokyo,
>> > ICANN offered us the travel fund to join APRALO AGM as well
>> > as AtLarge other activities. Thank you ICANN.
>> >
>> > Having been away for three years from ICANN, certain portions look
>> > very new, while other areas have not beeb changed much.
>> >
>> > One thing in particular is, the state of activities of AtLarge seem
>> > to be much more strengthened and well-organized than, say
>> > 3 years ago, or let's say far more than 10 years ago when the current
>> > ALS/RALO/ALAC structure was proposed.
>> >
>> > A good example was the AtLarge meeting with the Board this morning.
>> > Well attended, not in terms of numbers of the people from the Board
>> > and in the room, but well listened, discussed, on a rather open and
>> > equal basis between the Board and AtLarge. It may sound normal for
>> > those who do not know much about the dynamics of ICANN, but
>> > it is a significant change from the days I know of them, just three
>> > years
>> > ago.
>> >
>> > I made the following comment there.
>> >
>> > How can AtLarge find the interest of 2 billion Internet users (within
>> > ICANN
>> > remit)? [was asked by a Board member]
>> >
>> > That is our mutual question or mission – if ICANN really wants to become
>> > what it claims to be: as “bottom up and multi-stakeholder” organization,
>> > including the users or public. ALAC's 3R White Paper is a good direction
>> > forward.
>> >
>> > Having AtLarge Summit with 200 or 400 people may not be a sufficient,
>> > but
>> > necessary step.  Can UN function without general assembly?
>> >
>> > ALAC used to be an additional portion of ICANN, supplemental, but not in
>> > the
>> > main stream – say till 3 or 4 years ago. I think it’s time to make
>> > AtLatge
>> > as one of the three or four pillars of ICANN, mainstreaming this more.
>> >
>> > Similar to the Civil Society engagement in IGF process, AtLarge,
>> > Individual
>> > user component of ICANN, has been facing the challenges - especially
>> > from
>> > other stakeholders.
>> >
>> > It is clear now that ICANN has put more resources to AtLarge area, as
>> > well
>> > as other areas.
>> >
>> > YET, I also have a concern that ICANN is learning more towards the
>> > interest
>> > of the Domain Name business, especially through the introduction of the
>> > new
>> > gTLDs.
>> >
>> > It really remains to be seen, and, it is quite relevant to our work
>> > here, at
>> > IGC, as well.
>> >
>> > Will try to write more later,  I have to listen to the discussion now
>> > ;-)
>> >
>> > 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
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards.
>> --------------------------
>> Fouad Bajwa
>> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
>> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
>> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>>
>
>
>
> --
>                      >> Izumi Aizu <<
> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
> Japan
> www.anr.org



-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From aizu at anr.org  Tue Apr  9 01:20:39 2013
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 14:20:39 +0900
Subject: [governance] Report of ICANN 46 Beijing meeting (1)
In-Reply-To: <5163A2CD.8020606@ciroap.org>
References: <CA+YNoKi-ChXPowF846XCMNHZvxTynK-VWX7R=_hhtqhZiN8UjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHuaJtOE6C9eCPh+zb41T2ZWOLLfvyh46SiNzi3SKBVPqw5piA@mail.gmail.com> <5163A2CD.8020606@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKh1t_0dq8SMsGuAPO1xnK4aj_apQRgziR+01Zyk2=g6=w@mail.gmail.com>

I don't think ICANN - IGF is a kind of either or thing, though, of course,
IGF
does cover far broader and deeper public policy issues pertaining to the
Internet
than ICANN, I fully agree.

BUT, ICANN and its governance was the real starting point of the WSIS debate
on Internet Governance and root of the IGF as we know it.

Commercial interest domination can be also observed at IGF as Parminder
and others argued for the public funding. I am not [yet] fully persuaded by
the argument of public funding of UN. It also looks like UN domination, so
to speak. I would like to see multi-stakeholder funding even it is not fully
functional [yet]. But I might be wrong.

izumi




2013/4/9 Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>

>  On 09/04/13 12:50, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>
> One thing to remember about ICANN is that the addressing and name
> space is just like a phone book and there seems to be a continuous
> problem of falling out of scope of ICANN's mandate which remains the
> domain name and IP addressing space. The broader internet governance
> and internet public policy issues do incorporate to a certain access
> such critical internet resources and their sharing in discussions but
> I tend to become uncomfortable to how much emphasis is laid down in to
> ICANN as if it was responsible for engaging and providing internet
> access to 2 billion users. Its only one part of the stack and not
> actually the whole stack.
>
>
> I can't overstate how much I agree with this, though it's won't be news to
> most members of this list.  It all comes down to money though, doesn't it?
> The time and effort poured into its website and stakeholder engagement
> structures, its high-paid staff in offices around the world, the volunteers
> who queue up to donate their time, all seem like overkill when it comes
> down to the fact that it's all just about domain names and IP addresses.
> In comparison the IGF, which should be like an ICANN or an OECD for broader
> Internet governance issues, is beyond a joke, and it's not (only) due to
> incompetence or malice, it's due to lack of money.  It's a case of market
> failure: the free market oversupplies funding to ICANN, and undersupplies
> it to the IGF.  This makes Parminder's case for public funding of the IGF
> rather compelling, I would have thought.
>
> --
>
> *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
>
> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map:
> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
                        >> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130409/a6161694/attachment.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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Tue Apr  9 01:27:20 2013
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 13:27:20 +0800
Subject: [governance] Report of ICANN 46 Beijing meeting (1)
In-Reply-To: <CAHuaJtN6t8c3WZO8o-fBeF-wGuM8EC9fzT9HyXCUxoJefsAP+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+YNoKi-ChXPowF846XCMNHZvxTynK-VWX7R=_hhtqhZiN8UjQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHuaJtOE6C9eCPh+zb41T2ZWOLLfvyh46SiNzi3SKBVPqw5piA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+YNoKjpa9yMpOCTMHhb7NC9-vycKgYQCZ4Uh5OreKOzOWkY6w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHuaJtN6t8c3WZO8o-fBeF-wGuM8EC9fzT9HyXCUxoJefsAP+w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHuaJtMfauq6m=Uh4GM6EKeUjebzDLe5EHdvO69X-TVUsyiwWw@mail.gmail.com>

@Jeremy

You are very right, and when ICANN gets UScents 20 per domain sold,
now the couple of hundred million dollars and the amazing amounts of
money at its disposal and a happy domain name industry and resource
sharing organizations ;o) who cares about the people at the end of the
value chain as long as they are consuming, this is also a point of
view somewhere.




On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
> There has been such deliberations by Mr. Naresh from India about the
> role of public internet cafes, telecenters and local ISPs. Again, we
> come to the basic discussion that yes, every person using the Internet
> can have a domain name or multiple domain names, a static ip or a
> block of ip's, but how well that is true is still questionable to the
> division that how many of these are government, private sector,
> academia, technical community, individual domain users etc. The other
> facet of this discussion is the right to access any kind of content
> online and that that content is available on a website with a domain
> name and/or IP address. The right to access that domain and IP is a
> discussion area.
>
> The ISP, unless its a community cooperative or community interest run
> service (not the case in Urban centres), they are usually commercial
> companies and may buy domain names and IP addresses and sell it to
> people in their target market. We have to thus have to understand the
> contracted party processes of how ICANN sells domains to the
> intermediaries that are then responsible for selling down to the
> consumers or users. ICANN frees itself from the challenges of law
> enforcement and I believe the contracts pass on the liability to
> contracted/noncontracted parties. So ISPs would fall somewhere in that
> bracket of contracted and non-contracted parties but ISPs do not fall
> into the remit of ICANN because the market structure of domains and
> IPs places intermediaries in between ICANN and the people, user,
> consumer and however you want to place it.
>
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>> Thanks Fouad, who is sitting next next seat to me now.
>>
>> To follow, I agree with you and that is why I added "(within ICANN remit)"
>> to the original question which did not contain reference to ICANN space at
>> all if I remember
>> correctly.
>>
>> Bu even so, the use of Domain name and IP addresses do impact the end users
>> who have no idea about these explicitly.
>>
>> I just spoke with one guy from Brazil, received ICANN fellowship like me,
>> who is running a small ISP in Brazil, Port Alegre, and asked him how many
>> ISPs are there in Barzil. 3,000. He also mentioned about the Indian LAN
>> House,
>> village level Internet Cafe but providing some connectivity around, I assume
>> (correct me if I am wrong), and how do you find the best interest of ISPs
>> globally could be a challenge equally.
>>
>> izumi
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/4/9 Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
>>>
>>> One thing to remember about ICANN is that the addressing and name
>>> space is just like a phone book and there seems to be a continuous
>>> problem of falling out of scope of ICANN's mandate which remains the
>>> domain name and IP addressing space. The broader internet governance
>>> and internet public policy issues do incorporate to a certain access
>>> such critical internet resources and their sharing in discussions but
>>> I tend to become uncomfortable to how much emphasis is laid down in to
>>> ICANN as if it was responsible for engaging and providing internet
>>> access to 2 billion users. Its only one part of the stack and not
>>> actually the whole stack.
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>>> > I came to ICANN Beijing meeting, its 46th meeting since 1999.
>>> > I stopped coming to ICANN meeting after 2010 Brussels which was
>>> > 38th. So I missed almost three years, 7 meetings.  I have participated
>>> > almost all ICANN meetings except 2 meeting till #36, making 34.
>>> >
>>> > This time, since I am with ALS, Internet Users Network, Tokyo,
>>> > ICANN offered us the travel fund to join APRALO AGM as well
>>> > as AtLarge other activities. Thank you ICANN.
>>> >
>>> > Having been away for three years from ICANN, certain portions look
>>> > very new, while other areas have not beeb changed much.
>>> >
>>> > One thing in particular is, the state of activities of AtLarge seem
>>> > to be much more strengthened and well-organized than, say
>>> > 3 years ago, or let's say far more than 10 years ago when the current
>>> > ALS/RALO/ALAC structure was proposed.
>>> >
>>> > A good example was the AtLarge meeting with the Board this morning.
>>> > Well attended, not in terms of numbers of the people from the Board
>>> > and in the room, but well listened, discussed, on a rather open and
>>> > equal basis between the Board and AtLarge. It may sound normal for
>>> > those who do not know much about the dynamics of ICANN, but
>>> > it is a significant change from the days I know of them, just three
>>> > years
>>> > ago.
>>> >
>>> > I made the following comment there.
>>> >
>>> > How can AtLarge find the interest of 2 billion Internet users (within
>>> > ICANN
>>> > remit)? [was asked by a Board member]
>>> >
>>> > That is our mutual question or mission – if ICANN really wants to become
>>> > what it claims to be: as “bottom up and multi-stakeholder” organization,
>>> > including the users or public. ALAC's 3R White Paper is a good direction
>>> > forward.
>>> >
>>> > Having AtLarge Summit with 200 or 400 people may not be a sufficient,
>>> > but
>>> > necessary step.  Can UN function without general assembly?
>>> >
>>> > ALAC used to be an additional portion of ICANN, supplemental, but not in
>>> > the
>>> > main stream – say till 3 or 4 years ago. I think it’s time to make
>>> > AtLatge
>>> > as one of the three or four pillars of ICANN, mainstreaming this more.
>>> >
>>> > Similar to the Civil Society engagement in IGF process, AtLarge,
>>> > Individual
>>> > user component of ICANN, has been facing the challenges - especially
>>> > from
>>> > other stakeholders.
>>> >
>>> > It is clear now that ICANN has put more resources to AtLarge area, as
>>> > well
>>> > as other areas.
>>> >
>>> > YET, I also have a concern that ICANN is learning more towards the
>>> > interest
>>> > of the Domain Name business, especially through the introduction of the
>>> > new
>>> > gTLDs.
>>> >
>>> > It really remains to be seen, and, it is quite relevant to our work
>>> > here, at
>>> > IGC, as well.
>>> >
>>> > Will try to write more later,  I have to listen to the discussion now
>>> > ;-)
>>> >
>>> > 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
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards.
>>> --------------------------
>>> Fouad Bajwa
>>> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
>>> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
>>> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>                      >> Izumi Aizu <<
>> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>> Japan
>> www.anr.org
>
>
>
> --
> Regards.
> --------------------------
> Fouad Bajwa
> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa



-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From riaz.tayob at gmail.com  Tue Apr  9 02:02:08 2013
From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:02:08 +0300
Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?IPW_-_ICANN_CEO_Wants_To_Shift_=93C?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?entre_Of_Gravity=94_Away_From_US?=
Message-ID: <5163AEE0.1010405@gmail.com>


    ICANN CEO Wants To Shift “Centre Of Gravity” Away From US

Published on 9 April 2013 @ 1:20 am

Print This Post 
<http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/04/09/icann-ceo-wants-to-shift-centre-of-gravity-away-from-us/print/> 
Print This Post 
<http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/04/09/icann-ceo-wants-to-shift-centre-of-gravity-away-from-us/print/> 


Intellectual Property Watch

By Monika Ermert for /Intellectual Property Watch/

In an effort to improve internationalisation, the Internet Corporation 
for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) will open hubs in Singapore and 
Istanbul, to serve the Asia-Pacific and Europe, Middle East and Africa 
respectively. ICANN’s headquarters in Los Angeles will become the hub 
serving the Americas.

The hubs shall share responsibilities for all aspects of ICANN work, CEO 
Fadi Chehade said at the 46th ICANN meeting 
<http://beijing46.icann.org/> in Beijing.

ICANN leadership would work from the new hubs, and he himself would 
rotate for a year. In order to shift ICANN’s “centre of gravity” away 
from the United States, ICANN also will establish local ICANN engagement 
centres, with the first such centre to be established in Beijing. Not 
going to China would lead ICANN to lose some of its legitimacy, Chehade 
said.

Observers interpreted the move partly as a reaction to the tensions in 
the international community over internet governance, and applauded the 
Chehade’s promotion for the multi-stakeholder model. Yet at the meeting 
unfolding in Beijing, Chehade´s practical support for that model was 
questioned by stakeholders pointing to the last-minute and poorly 
consulted additions to the much-debated application process for new 
generic top-level domains (TLDs) under ICANN.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130409/c275d1b6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: printer_famfamfam.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1035 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130409/c275d1b6/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Tue Apr  9 02:11:54 2013
From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 11:41:54 +0530
Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?IPW_-_ICANN_CEO_Wants_To_Shift_?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=93Centre_Of_Gravity=94_Away_From_US?=
In-Reply-To: <5163AEE0.1010405@gmail.com>
References: <5163AEE0.1010405@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEP5zKQSY3ZuME4Qe5vGcfKtUH7fWPX35Gtdb5dO1oq7Q7G+4w@mail.gmail.com>

Unlikely to happen easily without major, major sideeffects. The US is a
heavyweight so no matter who's around the CoG will lean towards it
anyways....

Problem/question is there would need to be one centre of power @ICANN and
which country will hold it?

-C


On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>  ICANN CEO Wants To Shift “Centre Of Gravity” Away From US Published on 9
> April 2013 @ 1:20 am
>
>      [image: Print This Post]<http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/04/09/icann-ceo-wants-to-shift-centre-of-gravity-away-from-us/print/>
>  Print This Post<http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/04/09/icann-ceo-wants-to-shift-centre-of-gravity-away-from-us/print/>
>
> Intellectual Property Watch
>
> By Monika Ermert for *Intellectual Property Watch*
>
> In an effort to improve internationalisation, the Internet Corporation for
> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) will open hubs in Singapore and
> Istanbul, to serve the Asia-Pacific and Europe, Middle East and Africa
> respectively. ICANN’s headquarters in Los Angeles will become the hub
> serving the Americas.
>
> The hubs shall share responsibilities for all aspects of ICANN work, CEO
> Fadi Chehade said at the 46th ICANN meeting <http://beijing46.icann.org/>in Beijing.
>
> ICANN leadership would work from the new hubs, and he himself would rotate
> for a year. In order to shift ICANN’s “centre of gravity” away from the
> United States, ICANN also will establish local ICANN engagement centres,
> with the first such centre to be established in Beijing. Not going to China
> would lead ICANN to lose some of its legitimacy, Chehade said.
>
> Observers interpreted the move partly as a reaction to the tensions in the
> international community over internet governance, and applauded the
> Chehade’s promotion for the multi-stakeholder model. Yet at the meeting
> unfolding in Beijing, Chehade´s practical support for that model was
> questioned by stakeholders pointing to the last-minute and poorly consulted
> additions to the much-debated application process for new generic top-level
> domains (TLDs) under ICANN.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130409/16afb03f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: printer_famfamfam.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1035 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130409/16afb03f/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From bdelachapelle at gmail.com  Tue Apr  9 02:15:38 2013
From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 14:15:38 +0800
Subject: [governance] Ex-White House Official Joins Group Fighting
 "Excessive" Online Privacy Laws
In-Reply-To: <515A64D4.9050600@itforchange.net>
References: <093d01ce2f02$50eafaa0$f2c0efe0$@gmail.com> <515A64D4.9050600@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CAGF_KH81=y_ZX37HZxkKt+Gg=PtNG0p=T1yGrWsDTQ=7obSs1g@mail.gmail.com>

Parminder,

You wrote:

*"Coalition for Privacy and Free Trade " is exactly the kind of issue based
network that are getting formed. (Bertrand, please note.)*


Thanks for flagging me :-) Sorry I did not pick it up earlier.

This coalition is not at all an issue-based governance network of the sort
I was alluding to. It is a traditional advocacy group - without taking any
sides on the substance of their position. They call themselves a coalition
and I think it does not leave room for ambiguity.

Issue-based governance networks need to be multi-stakeholder and, by
definition, should include and actors with divergent perspectives and
interests (the relevant stakeholders, whatever the criteria are). They also
need to have deliberation procedures of sort...

I do not accept the argument that the creation of an additional advocacy
group undermines the concept of issue-based governance networks.

Best

Bertrand




On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:55 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>
> On Monday 01 April 2013 11:26 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>
>> http://www.motherjones.com/**politics/2013/03/daniel-**
>> weitzner-internet-privacy<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/daniel-weitzner-internet-privacy>
>> -coalition
>>
>> Regulatory capture in action?
>>
>> And what better way to ensure regulatory capture at the global level than
>> to
>> ensure that there are no global regulatory frameworks or mechanisms that
>> will ultimately need to be captured?
>>
>
> "Coalition for Privacy and Free Trade " is exactly the kind of issue based
> network that are getting formed. (Bertrand, please note.) And we know what
> they are upto. Soon there will be others, that is the trend, like perhaps
> one led by Shell on green economy, and Nike on labour friendliness.... No,
> this is not acceptable, We are better off with evolving old fashioned
> democratic systems from within, with a deepening democracy focus.... We
> have seen movements, especially in Europe, of a new kind of democratic
> politics bypassing the existing political party captures - that is where I
> would put my hopes instead of these dangerous neolib trends. I appeal to
> the civil society to recognise the dangers that we are headed towards in
> all this mushy talk of "equality of all stakeholders in decision making"
> (read, corporate led 'governance' systems), and issue based networks as the
> prime next gen governance paradigm...
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>> M
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy (
www.internetjurisdiction.net)
Member, ICANN Board of Directors
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130409/0607da0d/attachment.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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com  Tue Apr  9 02:17:21 2013
From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:17:21 +0300
Subject: [governance] Message to IGC/ was formal notice to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A501D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5162642A.2040901@apc.org>	<20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info> <ABFF7E5D-23E1-4119-B41B-0BEC03068880@gmail.com> <456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net> <20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch> <20130408113058.GA31767@hserus.net> <20130408140805.5f69559a@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A501D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <5163B271.1010203@gmail.com>

1. I do not like anyone who makes a contribution to be marginalised. But 
if the tenor is 'eye for an eye' then there is also justice in that, as 
I have found it necessary to assert from time to time.

2. There is a need for countermajoritarian approaches to deal with 
"minorities" and minority views, one need only recall the single tooter 
campaign to acknowledge the importance of this.

3. Third Worldist views on this list are frequent recipients of 
lambasting in the most hostile terms (which are tolerated). There can be 
no fairness unless this is corrected. By that I mean, entertaining 
ideas, not necessarily having to agree with them. There is a qualitative 
difference between those whose views largely find support from the rich 
and powerful countries, and minority views (CIR, public interest or 
non-market orientation, legitimacy, etc).

Well done coordinators, lets hope it works this time cos I recall one 
time when this was tried here the argument was this is just like the 
culture of the IETF where there is robust discussion. Robust discussion 
can be civil.

Thanks Norbert and Sala for raising the bar on civility!

On 2013/04/09 05:41 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> However, the debate between Suresh, McTim on one hand and Gurstein and Parminder on the other was a legitimate one, and I saw as much hostility and aggravation on one side as the other.


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr  9 03:55:55 2013
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 17:55:55 +1000
Subject: [governance] Report of ICANN 46 Beijing meeting (1)
In-Reply-To: <5163A2CD.8020606@ciroap.org>
References: <CA+YNoKi-ChXPowF846XCMNHZvxTynK-VWX7R=_hhtqhZiN8UjQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHuaJtOE6C9eCPh+zb41T2ZWOLLfvyh46SiNzi3SKBVPqw5piA@mail.gmail.com> <5163A2CD.8020606@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <AC201D81CAA046C3AC7F0C9B1A84E4EB@Toshiba>

+1

From: Jeremy Malcolm 
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 3:10 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
Subject: Re: [governance] Report of ICANN 46 Beijing meeting (1)

On 09/04/13 12:50, Fouad Bajwa wrote:

One thing to remember about ICANN is that the addressing and name
space is just like a phone book and there seems to be a continuous
problem of falling out of scope of ICANN's mandate which remains the
domain name and IP addressing space. The broader internet governance
and internet public policy issues do incorporate to a certain access
such critical internet resources and their sharing in discussions but
I tend to become uncomfortable to how much emphasis is laid down in to
ICANN as if it was responsible for engaging and providing internet
access to 2 billion users. Its only one part of the stack and not
actually the whole stack.

I can't overstate how much I agree with this, though it's won't be news to most members of this list.  It all comes down to money though, doesn't it?  The time and effort poured into its website and stakeholder engagement structures, its high-paid staff in offices around the world, the volunteers who queue up to donate their time, all seem like overkill when it comes down to the fact that it's all just about domain names and IP addresses.  In comparison the IGF, which should be like an ICANN or an OECD for broader Internet governance issues, is beyond a joke, and it's not (only) due to incompetence or malice, it's due to lack of money.  It's a case of market failure: the free market oversupplies funding to ICANN, and undersupplies it to the IGF.  This makes Parminder's case for public funding of the IGF rather compelling, I would have thought.


-- 

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

WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013

@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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130409/b1e687d0/attachment.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 nb at bollow.ch  Tue Apr  9 04:06:09 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 10:06:09 +0200
Subject: [governance] Message to IGC/ was formal notice to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A501D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<5162642A.2040901@apc.org>
	<20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info>
	<ABFF7E5D-23E1-4119-B41B-0BEC03068880@gmail.com>
	<456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net>
	<20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130408113058.GA31767@hserus.net>
	<20130408140805.5f69559a@quill.bollow.ch>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A501D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20130409100609.284ae938@quill.bollow.ch>

Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> Norbert:
> > 
> > Maybe one solution would be for the people who agree with you on
> > what kind of policy is desirable, to join that list?
> 
> [Milton L Mueller] 
> Wow. This seems dangerously close to an invitation to leave this list
> and join another if you don't agree with a particular position.

That posting was in response a demand that a certain kind of *policy* on
what kinds of posting are acceptable be instituted, a policy which is
very different from what the IGC Charter [1] foresees.
[1] http://igcaucus.org/charter

If someone wants to be on a list where personal attacks are considered
acceptable, the options for achieving that objective are to either
leave this list for a different one, or to propose a change to the IGC
Charter (which can be changed if a sufficiently large majority agrees
with a proposed change.)

By the way, the definition of IGC membership in the IGC Charter itself
is based on a similar type of logic.

Greetings,
Norbert

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nb at bollow.ch  Tue Apr  9 04:30:12 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 10:30:12 +0200
Subject: [governance] rules to support deliberation (was Re: Formal public)
In-Reply-To: <271301ce349d$4636f640$d2a4e2c0$@gmail.com>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<CACAaNxgNacfSEG5HwT-Eyz=XnPP32XeQEYgB+mjzBh+i2oB+gA@mail.gmail.com>
	<06795A09-BDF9-4E91-A90D-027CAF7FB1A9@gmail.com>
	<20130408150842.15818jm69idv8vqy@www.ciencitec.com>
	<271301ce349d$4636f640$d2a4e2c0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130409103012.2b28a658@quill.bollow.ch>

Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Some time ago Norbert quite correctly I think, referred to the
> Habermas related notions of "civic/participative deliberation" and
> the rules that necessarily govern this. 

My current view of this issue of rules is that while I'm not at all
sure what are the necessary conditions that a set of rules must satisfy
in order to allow a group to sustainably have effective deliberative
processes, it is very clear from experience (not only on this list)
that it is necessary to have some kind of rules (which may be explicit
or unwritten-informal) on what is acceptable conduct, and some kind of
incentive mechanism that promotes conformance to those rules.

What are good rules?

I think that there is a lot of room for legitimate experimentation in
this regard.

I think however that in the context of such experimentation, it is
important to avoid situations where there are written rules but in
actual reality a significantly different set of rules is informally in
effect. Even if such a situation might result in a positive experience
for the group of participants, the *value of the experience as an
experiment on deliberation environments* would IMO likely be very
limited.

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 fulvio.frati at unimi.it  Tue Apr  9 04:47:00 2013
From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 10:47:00 +0200
Subject: [governance] LAST MILE: IEEE DEST-CEE 2013 - Submission Deadline:
 April 15, 2013
Message-ID: <03dc01ce34fe$ccfd8f70$66f8ae50$@unimi.it>

SUBMISSION DEADLINE APPROACHING: 15 APRIL, 2013

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

IEEE DEST-CEE 2013

7th IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies

Special Theme - Complex Environment Engineering

24-26 July 2013 – Menlo Park, California, USA

http://dest2013.digital-ecology.org/ 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

 

About IEEE DEST 2013:

What are Digital Ecosystems?

Digital Ecosystems inherit concepts of open, loosely coupled, demand-driven,
domain clustered, agent-based self-organized collaborative environments
where species/agents form a temporary coalition (or longer term) for a
specific purpose or goals. Within this environment everyone is proactive and
responsive for their own benefit or profit. The essence of digital
ecosystems is the adoption of ecological system concepts, and creating value
by making connections through collective intelligence and promoting
collaboration instead of unbridled competition and ICT-based catalyst
effects in a number of domains, to produce networked enriched communities
and solutions. 

 

What are Digital Ecosystem Technologies?

In the present Digital Age, strong development of digital network
infrastructure has dominated our service delivery, economic growth and life
style. Future applications in domains such as Health-Science, Energy, Social
Networks and Logistics demand infrastructures that are more agile than those
operated currently. Digital Ecosystems aim to capture the notion of such
agile and adaptive infrastructures. Digital Ecosystem Technologies encompass
the advent of the whole spectrum of Internet technologies, starting from the
hyperlinked web towards pervasive internet applications, from Peer-to-Peer
systems to Grid middleware, followed by Cloud Services, Agent technologies,
Sensor Networks and Cyber Physical Systems, which has become a major theme
for business process digitalization. 

 

Complex Environment Engineering - Special Theme for IEEE-DEST 2013

Today's global challenges such as in Energy and Sustainability, Healthcare
and an Aging Society, Public Safety and Security, or Democracy and
Participation/Involvement confront us with the most Complex Environments.
Traditional ICT-support has often increased complexity, thus making the
challenges even more severe. The Digital Ecosystem perspective aims to
address the two-fold challenge of Complex Environment Engineering and
Digital Ecosystem Technology mapping. The complexity of both the challenges
and the technological solutions has to be acknowledged. 

IEEE DEST 2013 with its special theme of - Complex Environment Engineering
recognizes the key role of business process data modeling, representation
and privacy-aware analysis for Digital Ecosystems, and vice versa. In 2013,
the distinguished SEED Inauguration Workshop "Building a Digital Ecosystem
for Societal Empowerment" will take place in cooperation with IEEE DEST
2013. Further, the Innovation Adoption Forum underpins the importance of
public-private partnership as the key for delivering sustainable solutions
for our Complex Living and Business Environment – and thus our Digital
Ecosystem Habitat. Our Keynotes, Panels and Sessions will tackle the
multifaceted challenges and solutions from various stakeholders’
perspectives.

Important Dates:

- Submission of Tutorial: Dec 15, 2012

- Notification of Acceptance of Tutorial/Workshop/Special Session: Jan 15,
2013

- Paper Submission: April 15, 2013

- Author Notification: May  6, 2013

- Camera Ready Version: May 20, 2013

Contact Information:

 

Conference Secretary & Treasurer

- Gaurangi Potdar

  Dest2013 at digital-ecology.org <mailto:Dest2013 at digital-ecology.org>  

   <mailto:Gaurangi at digital-ecology.org> Gaurangi at digital-ecology.org 

 

Webmaster & Graphic Designer

- Samin Mirgheshmi

  Samin at digital-ecology.org <mailto:Samin at digital-ecology.org>  

 

Paper Submission:

Papers should be original works and up to 6 pages in length. All submitted
papers will be peer reviewed by at least 3 independent reviewers. Papers
submitted for this conference must be formatted to fit on A4 paper in a two
column format. The author should use a word processor or desktop publishing
system to produce a "camera ready" paper on A4 paper.

All manuscripts submitted for this conference must be in IEEE
Xplore-compatible PDF format. To assist authors in meeting this requirement
, IEEE has established a web based service called PDF Xpress. We strongly
suggest that you use this service. Complete  information on the papers
submission system for IEEE DEST 2013 will be made available shortly on
http://dest2013.digital-ecology.org/index.php/paper-submission 

 

Conference Location and Context:

The IEEE DEST-CEE 2013 will be hosted in Menlo Park, California. Situated in
the heart of the Silicon Valley, it´s right in the epicenter of the Digital
Ecosystem revolution. The research and innovation ecosystem here is
legendary, fuelled by the unique spirit and entrepreneurship of The Valley
and The Bay Area. Bridging the Bay, UC Berkeley and Stanford University are
world renown for their global impact in science and technology, trends
setting in society and ecology/sustainability, and economic development.
Companies such as IBM, Intel, Google, Facebook linked-in and numerous other
technology drivers are in direct proximity. From San Jose to Woodside to
Berkeley, the spirit is “in the air” – today as much as in the past decades.
IEEE DEST-CEE 2013 will take place in the heart of the Silicon Valley, at
stunning conference locations in Menlo Park and at Stanford University.
People around the globe enjoy the Californian Way of Life, blending it´s
vibrant socio-technological momentum with the tranquillity of the Pacific,
it´s redwood forests, and San Francisco and Berkeley as the spirited places
for those who still see it as the counter-culture centre of the Sixties.
Free Speech and “Flower Power” are forever in Berkeley´s and San Francisco´s
“DNA,” as much as Venture Capital Companies and technology leaders team up
in The Valley. IEEE DEST-CEE 2013 taps and gets involved into this
ecosystem. We look forward to your involvement!

                                                                

SEED Inauguration Workshop

 

Building a Digital Ecosystem for Societal Empowerment

Pre-conference symposium: July 23, and then with IEEE DEST 2013

Conference Tracks:

AREA I: FOUNDATIONS AND TECHNOLOGIES

Area I deals with the basic ICT foundations of digital ecosystems, including
large-scale, virtualized infrastructures, hosting ecosystem services and
processes. Ecosystems require a novel approach to ICT technology
development, closely related to the engineering of complex systems. Area I
includes two one-day tracks that feature contributions on how the
technological support for digital ecosystems is emerging. 

 

Track A: Foundations of Digital Ecosystems & Complex Environment Engineering


Track B: Convergence of Technologies for Sustainable Infrastructures

AREA II: SUSTAINABLE DOMAIN SOLUTIONS

Area II presents contributions in various application domains, Just as the
development of Smart Grids required the convergence of energy and
information system infrastructures, radically new approaches to the design,
convergence, and adoption of systems are required for future solutions in a
variety of domains. Radically increasing the involvement of stakeholders
with complex environments is one potential route for providing solutions in
these domains, for example in energy systems or healthcare. In the longer
term, approaches for enabling collaborative ecosystems may lead to
high-impact solutions for today´s most pressing challenges. The “Sustainable
Domain Solutions” tracks will identify domain requirements, research
challenges and systems solutions with respect to the concept of Digital
Ecosystems and Complex Environment Engineering, as outlined in the
background and objectives of IEEE DEST 2013. Within this context, the tracks
will focus on, but not be limited to, the issues like - Scalability and
availability, with respect to large infrastructure platforms; evolvability,
with respect to the introduction and life-cycle of service platforms; and
usability, with respect to human factors and user benefits. 

 

Track C: Digital Humanities

Track D: Cyber-Security Ecosystem

Track E: Hybrid Biological-Digital Systems

Track F: Healthcare and Sustainable Living

Track G: Track I: Platforms for Social and Community Involvement /
Engagement

Track H: Cyber-Physical Energy Systems

Track I: Collaborative Platforms for Sustainable Logistics and
Transportation

Track J: Fuzzy Semantic computing in digital ecosystems

Track K: Big Data Ecosystems

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130409/22d88be5/attachment.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 iza at anr.org  Tue Apr  9 05:56:09 2013
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 18:56:09 +0900
Subject: [governance] MAG working on evaluation of Workshop proposals
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKjKHb8Cc3EkH3G-DCKKLGV46BfwvOj15kz1vDdC5ruxDw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,
MAG members were requested to make initial evaluation of
the preliminary proposals by Apr 7, and Secretariat will compile the
result, for further evaluation by MAG to make selection for making full
proposals - with Apr 30 as the deadline.

I think most of them will be accepted to proceed, some will be asked to
work together with other proposals, a few might not be accepted as the
subject does not have direct relevance to IG issues.

In the mean time, MAG is working on making the guidelines/evaluation
criteria for the Full Proposal, and that should be published once finalized.

Just to let you know.

izumi

<http://www.anr.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130409/baa46878/attachment.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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Apr  9 07:35:39 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 07:35:39 -0400
Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?IPW_-_ICANN_CEO_Wants_To_Shift_?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=93Centre_Of_Gravity=94_Away_From_US?=
In-Reply-To: <CAEP5zKQSY3ZuME4Qe5vGcfKtUH7fWPX35Gtdb5dO1oq7Q7G+4w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5163AEE0.1010405@gmail.com> <CAEP5zKQSY3ZuME4Qe5vGcfKtUH7fWPX35Gtdb5dO1oq7Q7G+4w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxgmhsNrZ92pA6LkLnrHYBL34PH830v5wtnuB4HEcABRxA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar
<chaitanyabd at gmail.com>wrote:

> Unlikely to happen easily without major, major sideeffects.
>

But it is happening, can you explain these side effects?


>  The US is a heavyweight so no matter who's around the CoG will lean
> towards it anyways....
>


What's CoG?


>
> Problem/question is there would need to be one centre of power @ICANN and
> which country will hold it?
>



Why does there need to be one "centre of power" and why does it need to be
a government?

-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130409/bbb83b35/attachment.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 chaitanyabd at gmail.com  Tue Apr  9 07:59:12 2013
From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 17:29:12 +0530
Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?IPW_-_ICANN_CEO_Wants_To_Shift_?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=93Centre_Of_Gravity=94_Away_From_US?=
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxgmhsNrZ92pA6LkLnrHYBL34PH830v5wtnuB4HEcABRxA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5163AEE0.1010405@gmail.com>
	<CAEP5zKQSY3ZuME4Qe5vGcfKtUH7fWPX35Gtdb5dO1oq7Q7G+4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACAaNxgmhsNrZ92pA6LkLnrHYBL34PH830v5wtnuB4HEcABRxA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEP5zKSPrJpvPWb_xVug=_y+Uqx030o6Wo3eV1LVvawCjhkxkg@mail.gmail.com>

Side effects: Ok so some of this is conjecture; but not all. Basically the
leeway a country gives organizations based in it (as opposed to one based
out of another country) is often limited by their perception of it. ICANN
would not have immunity to anything in most countries, so for example if
they chose to be based in Dubai .XXX may be considered illegal, and the
ICANN local "fragment" (using "fragment" here as opposed to "local office"
since I expect they will operate somewhat independently in most regions).
Various regional regulation would affect ICANN's activities - that's the
side effects I'm talking about.

If there's an ICANN India "fragment" we can expect regulatory interference
- if not now then in some time - but it'll more likely be there than not.

CoG: Centre of Gravity :-/

The "centre of power" need not be a government, but it would be one
country. For most multinational organizations there's always one centre -
unless they plan to have 10 CEOs and 10 top-management teams. And the
centre of power would invariably be in the country where the head office
is.

If however ICANN does decide to have X-number of top-management teams, a
fair few of the current stuff that happens could be deemed illegal within a
local context (see: side effects).

I thought this would be obvious though which is why I didnt go into much
detail. Sorry about that.

Best,
Chaitanya




On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 5:05 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar <
> chaitanyabd at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Unlikely to happen easily without major, major sideeffects.
>>
>
> But it is happening, can you explain these side effects?
>
>
>>  The US is a heavyweight so no matter who's around the CoG will lean
>> towards it anyways....
>>
>
>
> What's CoG?
>
>
>>
>> Problem/question is there would need to be one centre of power @ICANN and
>> which country will hold it?
>>
>
>
>
> Why does there need to be one "centre of power" and why does it need to be
> a government?
>
> --
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130409/af7a6b2e/attachment.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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Apr  9 08:14:07 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 08:14:07 -0400
Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?IPW_-_ICANN_CEO_Wants_To_Shift_?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=93Centre_Of_Gravity=94_Away_From_US?=
In-Reply-To: <CAEP5zKSPrJpvPWb_xVug=_y+Uqx030o6Wo3eV1LVvawCjhkxkg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5163AEE0.1010405@gmail.com> <CAEP5zKQSY3ZuME4Qe5vGcfKtUH7fWPX35Gtdb5dO1oq7Q7G+4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxgmhsNrZ92pA6LkLnrHYBL34PH830v5wtnuB4HEcABRxA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEP5zKSPrJpvPWb_xVug=_y+Uqx030o6Wo3eV1LVvawCjhkxkg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxiSud1Bpb5sJdDEU15cEPzPBoX-qVb4BRgxUgLZBJgYzA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar
<chaitanyabd at gmail.com> wrote:
> Side effects: Ok so some of this is conjecture; but not all. Basically the
> leeway a country gives organizations based in it (as opposed to one based
> out of another country) is often limited by their perception of it. ICANN
> would not have immunity to anything in most countries, so for example if
> they chose to be based in Dubai .XXX may be considered illegal

Well the IANA contract MUST be administered from the USA according to
the contract itself, so I think that "based in" may be a misnomer.
ICANN has had offices in other countries for a while, but those nation
states haven't (yet) tried to impose authority over all of ICANN.  I
see no difference now with the hubs being put in place.


, and the
> ICANN local "fragment" (using "fragment" here as opposed to "local office"
> since I expect they will operate somewhat independently in most regions).


I think this is an assumption that may not be correct.


> Various regional regulation would affect ICANN's activities - that's the
> side effects I'm talking about.
>
> If there's an ICANN India "fragment" we can expect regulatory interference -
> if not now then in some time - but it'll more likely be there than not.

Well they could try, but I imagine any country that attempts that
would see their 'hub" dissapear.


>
> CoG: Centre of Gravity :-/
>
> The "centre of power" need not be a government, but it would be one country.
> For most multinational organizations there's always one centre - unless they
> plan to have 10 CEOs and 10 top-management teams. And the centre of power
> would invariably be in the country where the head office is.


I see, but the current strategy tries to spread this "centre of power"
throughout the world.

>
> If however ICANN does decide to have X-number of top-management teams, a
> fair few of the current stuff that happens could be deemed illegal within a
> local context (see: side effects).


I think there will only be one team, globally distributed.

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 chaitanyabd at gmail.com  Tue Apr  9 08:41:00 2013
From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 18:11:00 +0530
Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?IPW_-_ICANN_CEO_Wants_To_Shift_?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=93Centre_Of_Gravity=94_Away_From_US?=
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxiSud1Bpb5sJdDEU15cEPzPBoX-qVb4BRgxUgLZBJgYzA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5163AEE0.1010405@gmail.com>
	<CAEP5zKQSY3ZuME4Qe5vGcfKtUH7fWPX35Gtdb5dO1oq7Q7G+4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACAaNxgmhsNrZ92pA6LkLnrHYBL34PH830v5wtnuB4HEcABRxA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEP5zKSPrJpvPWb_xVug=_y+Uqx030o6Wo3eV1LVvawCjhkxkg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACAaNxiSud1Bpb5sJdDEU15cEPzPBoX-qVb4BRgxUgLZBJgYzA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEP5zKRREGjxSz9UM_fJ7f--4+D3r=giVSxy1bSptnPiyusoWA@mail.gmail.com>

If it isn't, then he's just talking about regional offices - which is no
different than any multinational org. In which case the HQ will still
remain - the US! And of course the centre of gravity cannot shift :)

Further the IANA contract would prevent a true shift of the CoG anyways.

When you say a shift of CoG - what fundamentally comes to mind is "if I'm
shifting away from region X, I should be able to operate my organization
independent of region X, and then if I choose to exit region X my
operations should continue unaffected" - if it's not that the CoG is NOT
shifting is it.

-C

-- 
> ICANN local "fragment" (using "fragment" here as opposed to "local office"
> since I expect they will operate somewhat independently in most regions).


I think this is an assumption that may not be correct.

>
> If however ICANN does decide to have X-number of top-management teams, a
> fair few of the current stuff that happens could be deemed illegal within
a
> local context (see: side effects).


I think there will only be one team, globally distributed.


On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 5:44 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar
> <chaitanyabd at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Side effects: Ok so some of this is conjecture; but not all. Basically
> the
> > leeway a country gives organizations based in it (as opposed to one based
> > out of another country) is often limited by their perception of it. ICANN
> > would not have immunity to anything in most countries, so for example if
> > they chose to be based in Dubai .XXX may be considered illegal
>
> Well the IANA contract MUST be administered from the USA according to
> the contract itself, so I think that "based in" may be a misnomer.
> ICANN has had offices in other countries for a while, but those nation
> states haven't (yet) tried to impose authority over all of ICANN.  I
> see no difference now with the hubs being put in place.
>
>
> , and the
> > ICANN local "fragment" (using "fragment" here as opposed to "local
> office"
> > since I expect they will operate somewhat independently in most regions).
>
>
> I think this is an assumption that may not be correct.
>
>
> > Various regional regulation would affect ICANN's activities - that's the
> > side effects I'm talking about.
> >
> > If there's an ICANN India "fragment" we can expect regulatory
> interference -
> > if not now then in some time - but it'll more likely be there than not.
>
> Well they could try, but I imagine any country that attempts that
> would see their 'hub" dissapear.
>
>
> >
> > CoG: Centre of Gravity :-/
> >
> > The "centre of power" need not be a government, but it would be one
> country.
> > For most multinational organizations there's always one centre - unless
> they
> > plan to have 10 CEOs and 10 top-management teams. And the centre of power
> > would invariably be in the country where the head office is.
>
>
> I see, but the current strategy tries to spread this "centre of power"
> throughout the world.
>
> >
> > If however ICANN does decide to have X-number of top-management teams, a
> > fair few of the current stuff that happens could be deemed illegal
> within a
> > local context (see: side effects).
>
>
> I think there will only be one team, globally distributed.
>
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130409/181463e0/attachment.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 nb at bollow.ch  Tue Apr  9 10:29:33 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 16:29:33 +0200
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?IPW_-_ICANN_CEO_Wants_To_Shift_?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=9CCentre_Of_Gravity=E2=80=9D_Away_From_US?=
In-Reply-To: <CAEP5zKSPrJpvPWb_xVug=_y+Uqx030o6Wo3eV1LVvawCjhkxkg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5163AEE0.1010405@gmail.com>
	<CAEP5zKQSY3ZuME4Qe5vGcfKtUH7fWPX35Gtdb5dO1oq7Q7G+4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACAaNxgmhsNrZ92pA6LkLnrHYBL34PH830v5wtnuB4HEcABRxA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEP5zKSPrJpvPWb_xVug=_y+Uqx030o6Wo3eV1LVvawCjhkxkg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130409162933.2ea3dc82@quill.bollow.ch>

Chaitanya Dhareshwar <chaitanyabd at gmail.com> wrote:

> Side effects: Ok so some of this is conjecture; but not all.
> Basically the leeway a country gives organizations based in it (as
> opposed to one based out of another country) is often limited by
> their perception of it.

Yes, how much "leeway" there really is gets tested only rarely, namely
when someone takes an issue to court. (Karl Auerbach's ICANN lawsuit is
one of the rare examples; it's an example which shows that ICANN being
subject to California law isn't all bad news, even from the perspective
of someone like me who is rather critical of any situation where a
global governance institution is subject to the laws and court system
of a country that is a military and economic superpower.)

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 chaitanyabd at gmail.com  Tue Apr  9 10:56:23 2013
From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 20:26:23 +0530
Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?IPW_-_ICANN_CEO_Wants_To_Shift_?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=93Centre_Of_Gravity=94_Away_From_US?=
In-Reply-To: <20130409162933.2ea3dc82@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <5163AEE0.1010405@gmail.com>
	<CAEP5zKQSY3ZuME4Qe5vGcfKtUH7fWPX35Gtdb5dO1oq7Q7G+4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACAaNxgmhsNrZ92pA6LkLnrHYBL34PH830v5wtnuB4HEcABRxA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEP5zKSPrJpvPWb_xVug=_y+Uqx030o6Wo3eV1LVvawCjhkxkg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130409162933.2ea3dc82@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <CAEP5zKSx4e+WV27R3KBm=ik-Tc3-sPFdmu_gVYf_REnFuRNPkA@mail.gmail.com>

Beautifully put Nobert "a global governance institution is subject to the
laws and court system of a country that is a military and economic
superpower".

I imagine it would really affect if ICANN were _REALLY_ de-centralized -
with each branch being an authority unto itself, and THEN if they were
subject to regional law in a more restrictive region.

So it's a _good_ ICANN's core is in the US of A - given the long-standing
freedom they've enjoyed (which is really only being noticed now) - leeway
in other countries may run out fast when a local (person/org) does use the
legal process. Many instances of Google/FB/etc being asked to take down
content specially in India. If the authorities realize they can strong-arm
ICANN into exterminating those source domains they'll do it! Not a pretty
picture. Hopefully that day will never come.

-C


On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Chaitanya Dhareshwar <chaitanyabd at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Side effects: Ok so some of this is conjecture; but not all.
> > Basically the leeway a country gives organizations based in it (as
> > opposed to one based out of another country) is often limited by
> > their perception of it.
>
> Yes, how much "leeway" there really is gets tested only rarely, namely
> when someone takes an issue to court. (Karl Auerbach's ICANN lawsuit is
> one of the rare examples; it's an example which shows that ICANN being
> subject to California law isn't all bad news, even from the perspective
> of someone like me who is rather critical of any situation where a
> global governance institution is subject to the laws and court system
> of a country that is a military and economic superpower.)
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130409/70939d22/attachment.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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com  Tue Apr  9 12:11:10 2013
From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 19:11:10 +0300
Subject: [governance] Brand Owners Seek Their Own ICANN Constituency Group
Message-ID: <51643D9E.9020900@gmail.com>


    Brand Owners Seek Their Own ICANN Constituency Group

Published on 9 April 2013 @ 4:00 pm

Print This Post 
<http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/04/09/brand-owners-seek-their-own-icann-constituency-group/print/> 
Print This Post 
<http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/04/09/brand-owners-seek-their-own-icann-constituency-group/print/> 


Intellectual Property Watch

By Monika Ermert for /Intellectual Property Watch/

Brand owners that have applied with the Internet Corporation for 
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) for their brand's top level domain 
(TLD) are seeking to create their own constituency group.

A third of the names applied for in the ongoing application process are 
brand TLDs, trademark lawyer Phil Sheppard said during a meeting with 
ICANN's government constituency group, called the Government Advisory 
Committee (GAC).

The brand owners would like to get their own registry model, based on 
their special business model. As all second-level domains would be under 
the control of the brand owner, they hope for a more lightweight model, 
with a reduced set of obligations, because they are not open registries 
and therefore less prone to fraud.

They also want priority when it comes to negotiating registry contracts 
with ICANN. Many things in the ICANN registry contract would be 
superfluous for brand TLDs.

"We need a new registry agreement," said Jay Scott Eveans, head of 
Global Brand Domains & Copyright at Yahoo! Inc. The Brand Registry 
Constituency would allow brand owners to have joint contract 
negotiations with ICANN.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130409/5d9645f6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: printer_famfamfam.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1035 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130409/5d9645f6/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From riaz.tayob at gmail.com  Tue Apr  9 12:28:22 2013
From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 19:28:22 +0300
Subject: [governance] Chilling Effects, The Website Powerful Companies Are
 Trying To Hide From You, Revealed
Message-ID: <516441A6.9000706@gmail.com>

Business IS politics in the US, eh?


  Chilling Effects, The Website Powerful Companies Are Trying To Hide
   From You, Revealed
  <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/09/chilling-effects-website_n_3044464.html?utm_hp_ref=business>

*Quartz*  |  By Leo Mirani Posted: 04/09/2013 10:13 am EDT  |  Updated: 
04/09/2013 10:13 am EDT


*This story originally appeared 
<http://qz.com/72073/this-article-contains-a-link-that-some-powerful-companies-dont-want-you-to-see/> 
on Quartz <http://qz.com/>. *

First came the takedown notice. Then came the takedown notice for the 
takedown notice.

Not happy with making search engines such as Google stop showing links 
to websites that carry pirated content, several companies including 
Microsoft, Warner Bros, Sony Music, NBC and Fox have also been trying to 
scrub the evidence that they have done so.

Their target is Chilling Effects <http://www.chillingeffects.org/>, a 
website created as a joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation 
and several law schools. It was formed in 2001 as a reaction to 
America's Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which clamped down on online 
piracy while giving an escape clause to websites that link to pirated 
material unwittingly. Under section 512 of the DMCA 
<http://chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi>, websites served with a 
"takedown notice" can avoid prosecution if they, well, take down links 
to any infringing material.

Google regularly (but not always) complies with notices and removes 
websites from its search index. It then publishes data about the notices 
it receives in its regularly updated transparency report 
<http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/>. It also 
passes on the notices 
<http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/faq/#chilling_effects> 
to Chilling Effects. Request-information pages in the online report 
generally link directly to the notice at Chilling Effects.

*/More from Quartz: /*

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130409/357b28e9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DYFVC2R.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 7815 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130409/357b28e9/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From riaz.tayob at gmail.com  Tue Apr  9 12:31:10 2013
From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 19:31:10 +0300
Subject: [governance] Mali gives away free domain in hopes of outside
 investment
Message-ID: <5164424E.4000209@gmail.com>

[this country, poor and restless suffers from US subsidies on cotton, 
that the WTO ruled against the US in a case with Brazil, which depress 
world prices and there is little else as a cash crop in this debt ridden 
country... prospects?]


  Mali gives away free domain in hopes of outside investment

09 Apr 2013 10:05 - Guardian Reporter 
<http://mg.co.za/author/guardian-reporter>

  *


  *



Mali has announced its little known .ML domain will be free from July, a 
move it hopes will put the country on the map.

Its domain currently ranks 177th in the world, less than half of the 
country has mobile phone coverage and only 4% of the population are 
online. But Mali could be set to become one of the world's most popular 
internet destinations after it became the first African country to give 
its domain away for free.

Mali announced on Monday that its .ML domain -- which is currently used 
by fewer than 50 active websites -- will be free from July, in a move 
which it hopes will bring much needed outside investment, and give a 
boost to Malian businesses.

"We are proud to be the first African nation to give domain names for 
free," says Moussa Dolo, general manager of Mali's Agence des 
Technologies de l'Information et de la Communication. "By providing free 
domain names to internet users worldwide, we will put Mali back on the 
map. We wish to show the rest of the world the fantastic opportunities 
our country has to offer."

The new scheme is being operated by Freedom Registry, the company which 
operates a similar .TK system for Tokelau -- the tiny cluster of coral 
atolls in the South Pacific with a population of less than 2 000 -- but 
which is now the most popular domain name in the world, with more active 
domain name registrations than Russia and China combined.

"If you look at the Tokelau experience, most registrations for .TK are 
coming from Turkey -- whose name corresponds to the letters," said Joost 
Zuurbier from Freedom Registry.

"And they are coming from many other emerging economies -- China, 
Vietnam, India -- they have a real need for domain space because other 
domains are full. .com is already taken, and if you want .cn you have to 
show your ID to the Chinese government. That's why people have been 
using .TK -- it's a free alternative, and now .ML will be just as 
attractive."

Interest in the .ML domain is expected to come from a number of 
countries, including Manila and Malaysia, attracted by the resemblance 
between the letters and their own names.

*'Good idea on paper'*
Mali's attempt to revamp its online presence comes as its economy has 
been devastated by an ongoing conflict, in which an international 
military intervention has been battling al-Qaeda-linked insurgents who 
seized control of the country's north a year ago.

But some questioned whether the move could really make a difference in a 
country where internet access and disposable incomes remain low.

"I think the .ML domain free registration process is a good idea on 
paper and could shed positive light on Mali which is sorely needed," 
said Tim Katlic, founder and editor of/oAfrica.com/ 
<http://oafrica.com/>, which tracks internet progress in African 
countries, and reports that Mali is experiencing steady online growth. 
"But in reality, I don't think it will pan out as expected, since Mali's 
internet users aren't ready for content creation -- they have limited 
desktop usage, lack of income to afford web hosting even if domain is 
free, heavy reliance on international social media sites instead of 
local ones."

But Freedom Registry said that Mali would also attract extra revenue 
from the move, with advertising income from domains which lapse split 
between the company and the Malian authorities.

"Currently we add about 20% to the GDP of Tokelau, and although it is a 
small country, Mali is much bigger and the potential is huge," said 
Zubier. "But it's not only about the money -- to Mali it's the 
infrastructure we provide."

"In the past countries needed to invest heavily in equipment to increase 
their internet traffic, but now it all exists in the cloud -- so it's a 
service that we can provide for them at no charge in Mali. It's a 
win-win situation where everyone in Mali will get their domain name for 
free, internationally people can register domains in Mali for free, and 
Mali doesn't have to invest but can still get a lot of international 
business." -- Guardian News and Media 2013

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130409/9209e849/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 45395 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130409/9209e849/attachment.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr  9 13:58:42 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 13:58:42 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: What else is discrimination?
In-Reply-To: <CAPUFQLoaONWazFX6oSxMDuSdO0dtvH3rP2CMTmU0v6PvzTtKgA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPUFQLoaONWazFX6oSxMDuSdO0dtvH3rP2CMTmU0v6PvzTtKgA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxhZWa=Mxh=ezwAz7y_+MFaM7z9ec--S5Q83RtL-apn42A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Naresh,

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Naresh Ajwani <ajwaninaresh at gmail.com>
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 22:42:41 +0530
> Subject: Re: [governance] Message to IGC/ was formal notice to Suresh
> Dear All,
>
>
> I am new to this group and have been witnessing many such exchanges & it was
> last month only there was more tense one, over one member who was not
> selected for technical group.

yes, this is the "fallout" from that!

>
> Surprisingly, didn't see any similar togetherness amongst the IGC
> coordinators to warn members over their much more aggressive comments.


I think this is a key point.  It seems that co-co's react only to
negative comments
from one part of our "political" spectrum, as per Milton's comments.

>
> If one is publicly reprimanded for pointing out his concern over divisive
> agenda, & there is all possibility in accordance, it is against the basic
> principle of freedom of speech & unlike civil society fundamentals.

Agreed.

What Suresh made was a political comment along the lines of "People
who divide us from our allies in IG processes shouldn't represent CS
in those processes."  It was NOT (IMHO) a personal attack.

If the co-co's deem it so, they should perhaps take a second look at
the following text that did NOT come from Suresh:

"One keeps hoping that you and your ilk will one day learn to conduct
an open host discussion in the democratic tradition. I am sick of this
kind of petulant contemptuous responses"

"host" in the above later clarified to "honest".

I ask the co-co's...is this NOT a far worse "personal attack" than
Suresh's request to our FP?


In other words Naresh, I agree, "prosecution" does seem to be
selective, and not in the best interests of the IGC.

-- 
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 nb at bollow.ch  Tue Apr  9 17:03:09 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 23:03:09 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: What else is discrimination?
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxhZWa=Mxh=ezwAz7y_+MFaM7z9ec--S5Q83RtL-apn42A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPUFQLoaONWazFX6oSxMDuSdO0dtvH3rP2CMTmU0v6PvzTtKgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACAaNxhZWa=Mxh=ezwAz7y_+MFaM7z9ec--S5Q83RtL-apn42A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130409230309.47173bf7@quill.bollow.ch>

[with IGC coordinator hat on]

McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> > From: Naresh Ajwani <ajwaninaresh at gmail.com>
> >
> > I am new to this group

Welcome! 

> > and have been witnessing many such exchanges
> > & it was last month only there was more tense one, over one member
> > who was not selected for technical group.
> 
> yes, this is the "fallout" from that!

Actually what has led to that public warning has a far longer history,
including expulsion of Suresh from the list in early January (well
before I became one of the coordinators). The immediate cause of that
expulsion decision back then was the manner of a personal attack on
Riaz. That expulsion was reversed on appeal, because according to our
Charter, expulsion was not procedurally possible since there had not
been a previous suspension of posting rights.

> > Surprisingly, didn't see any similar togetherness amongst the IGC
> > coordinators to warn members over their much more aggressive
> > comments.

One procedural requirement is that there must be at least one private
warning before the coordinators are even allowed to issue a public
warning.

> I think this is a key point.  It seems that co-co's react only to
> negative comments from one part of our "political" spectrum

Besides procedural correctness, we strive for being as fair and
unbiased as we possibly can be.

So far only in a single case the point of public warning (and then
suspension) has been reached.

When a single point is plotted onto a "'political' spectrum" of any
kind, it will by logical necessity still be a single point, it cannot
possibly cover the entire spectrum.

I consider it neither appropriate nor procedurally correct to engage in
a public discussion of specific disciplinary matters. If an independent
review is desired of whether the steps that have been taken were
appropriate, the appeal process is available for that.

I will also not discuss here whether some inappropriate remarks are
worse than other inappropriate remarks, nor to what extent the degree
of provocation or absence thereof should be taken in consideration when
making such an evaluation.

The main point is, and I believe that Sala and I have made that quite
clear, that we intend to implement what the IGC Charter [1] says under
the heading "Posting Rules for the IGC", and if we ever again get into
the situation that someone stubbornly refuses to comply, I believe that
we will (even if possibly again only after months of patience and
hesitation have been exhausted) again be willing to take the unpopular
step of escalating the matter to the public warning stage and beyond.
[1] http://www.igcaucus.org/charter

Furthermore, beyond the requirements of the "Posting Rules" in the IGC
Charter, I also intend to do what I can to discourage ad hominem
remarks of any kind except for those that are clearly friendly. (Not all
not-clearly-friendly ad hominem remarks are personal attacks or
otherwise forbidden by the IGC Charter, but even those such remarks
that not exactly forbidden are effectively a hindrance to constructive
discourse.)

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 jefsey at jefsey.com  Tue Apr  9 19:37:15 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 01:37:15 +0200
Subject: [governance] appeal to the IESG over the way RFC 6852 was published
Message-ID: <E1UPi0y-0006vY-3w@igcaucus.org>

For your information I have sent the following mail a few days ago to
Jari Arrko, the Chair of IETF, without any response yet. (Usually the
acknowledgment by the Chair is within a few hours).

In a nutshell: RFC 6852 (in annex in my PDF) publishes without
comments the new IETF,IAB, IEEE, W3C, ISOC paradigm to make the
internet market palatable.

The purpose of my appeal is NOT to discuss their statement. It is to
make them explain if:

- either they intent to make the internet the standardization monopoly
of a market oriented consortium they name "OpenStand" they call us to support.

- or they eventually adopt a multistakeholder approach where they
contribute for the private sector, on par with ITU (for Govs), ISO
(for intenational organisations) and a civil society "OpenUse"
innovative endeavour.

jfc

----

Dear IESG Chair and IESG Members,

For several weeks I have tried, as per RFC 2026, to avoid an appeal
concerning the way RFC 6852 was published and to consider along with
the author, now the IAB Chair, and the IETF Chair as to how to remedy
the various confusions and risks resulting from a simple quote of the
IAB, IETF, ISOC, IEEE, W3C statement as an IAB RFC, without any IAB
contextual explanation and/or an IESG disclaimer.

It seems that this effort has come to an end and that there is no
other alternative for me to formally send this appeal to the IESG
Chair in order to get things clarified with other organizations and
innovation projects like mines that, otherwise, are today prevented
from endorsing or supporting the IETF standardization paradigm.

In the coming weeks, I will try to introduce an individual submission
or two for information that could be used as a multistakeholder
experience of open cooperation between private sector and civil
society standardization efforts and help the multilogue over the
digisphere operations, management, and standardization together with
Governments and international organizations.

I thank you for your attention, and for helping a still wider enhanced
cooperation among the digisphere standardization and internet use stakeholders.

Best regards
JFC Morfin

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qmx6rypqutnws5j/20130326-Appeal-IESG.pdf

----


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From riaz.tayob at gmail.com  Wed Apr 10 03:06:28 2013
From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:06:28 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: What else is discrimination?
In-Reply-To: <20130409230309.47173bf7@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAPUFQLoaONWazFX6oSxMDuSdO0dtvH3rP2CMTmU0v6PvzTtKgA@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxhZWa=Mxh=ezwAz7y_+MFaM7z9ec--S5Q83RtL-apn42A@mail.gmail.com> <20130409230309.47173bf7@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <51650F74.1030204@gmail.com>

Thanks for this clarification, and since we are in a phase about turning 
over a new leaf:

The allegations against the coordinators is indeed a serious one, of 
bias (understanding of course your decision was made not on one 
incident). On the one hand it may be the usual tenor of the list - for 
instance calling ad hominem as in one instance with a post by Gurstein, 
that was followed the allegation, then promptly onto substantive 
discussion. On the other, it is an allegation posted on the list for 
consumption.

As this applies to the conduct of the co-co's as being biased against a 
particular view on the political spectrum, this is very serious indeed. 
As such I would like to know what you intend to do about these serious 
allegations made against you that reflects not only on yourselves but 
the IGC as well. IMHO a matter like this needs to be escalated so that 
we all are comfortable with the process and continued role of the 
co-co's. If an important constituency feels this way, left unaddressed, 
it can only have a chilling effect.

So outside of the particular case that spurred this allegation (its 
merits being a separate matter, detached but not unlinked), could you 
please now deal with this serious allegation as we simply cannot have 
people on this list feeling this way. As one Third Worldist I know all 
too often the effects of marginalisation, and hope these allegations are 
dealt with seriously, in strict accordance with the Charter and that it 
is not left to fester. If handled correctly, it will go a long way to 
chilling what ought to be limited, spurious allegations, and provide all 
with the comfort that these kinds of allegations will be made in 
circumstances that have an objective probability of success in 
'prosecution'.

I am sorry to put you on the spot about this, but needs must. Thank you 
for making this attempt, it cannot be easy, but I am sure many on this 
list would like decorum on this list that is comfortable...

Riaz


On 2013/04/10 12:03 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> [with IGC coordinator hat on]


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 10 06:58:00 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:58:00 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: What else is discrimination?
In-Reply-To: <51650F74.1030204@gmail.com>
References: <CAPUFQLoaONWazFX6oSxMDuSdO0dtvH3rP2CMTmU0v6PvzTtKgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACAaNxhZWa=Mxh=ezwAz7y_+MFaM7z9ec--S5Q83RtL-apn42A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130409230309.47173bf7@quill.bollow.ch>
	<51650F74.1030204@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130410125800.699cc179@quill.bollow.ch>

Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:

> The allegations against the coordinators is indeed a serious one, of 
> bias (understanding of course your decision was made not on one 
> incident).

Based on my experience and observations, I would suggest a broad
categorization of email discussion lists and other online fora as
follows:

a) Groups in which "moderator" action, such as excluding ("banning")
members from the group, happens frequently and without availability
of any effective checks and balances.

b) Groups in which such "moderator" action happens only rarely, and
only in clear cases of continued violation of the rules, and only after
"soft" methods for attempting to address the problem have been attempted
unsuccessfully.

c) Groups in which no formal "moderator" action is used, but where
instead "flaming" (a style of harsh criticism consisting primarily
of personal attacks) is used as disincentive against violation of
the (written or unwritten) rules of the group.

The IGC Charter clearly puts IGC in category 'b'.

It is typical for groups of category 'b' that suspicion and accusations
of bias will arise when "moderator" action is taken, especially when
that is done after a prolonged period of lack of effective action to
enforce the stated posting rules.

Therefore, in groups of category 'b', the choice of the people in a role
of "moderator" responsibility is to either take what action they (after
serious reflection, examination of the situation, hesitation, etc.)
consider to be appropriate, and accept the consequence that predictably
there will be accusations of bias etc., or to take the cowardly path of
not taking "moderator" action. In the case of IGC, the consequence of
the latter path would have been the continued deterioration of the value
of the IGC list for purposes of deliberative discussion.

> As such I would like to know what you intend to do about these
> serious allegations made against you that reflects not only on
> yourselves but the IGC as well.

Demonstrate, through continued and fair work on upholding the rules of
the IGC, and the recommendation to avoid not-clearly-friendly ad
hominem remarks in general, that the accusations are groundless.

I fully expect that the quality of the conversations, and the benefits
that everyone can draw from them, will improve significantly. At that
point, the issue of potential negative impacts of the unavoidable
initial grumbling will be moot.

> IMHO a matter like this needs to be escalated

Really the only realistically available way to escalate the matter is
the appeal process.

This current email is informal, without "coordinator hat", but if you
wish to pursue that path, I suppose that one way to proceed would be to
explicitly request from the coordinators a formal, appealable, decision
on how they choose to address the accusation of bias.

> so that we all are comfortable with the process and continued role of
> the co-co's.

Alas there are very many situations where pleasing everyone is highly
desirable but impossible.

> I am sure many on this list would like decorum on this list that is
> comfortable...

I strongly agree with that objective. I however think that the path
towards achieving it does not consist in formal escalation of the
accusations of bias, but rather in what I promised above: Continued and
fair work on upholding the posting rules of the IGC, and in addition on
promoting the recommendation to avoid not-clearly-friendly ad hominem
remarks in general. If we all implement that recommendation into our
personal styles of discourse, we'll all be at a comfortable and safe
distance from any violation of the rule against personal attacks.

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 gtw at gtwassociates.com  Wed Apr 10 13:18:15 2013
From: gtw at gtwassociates.com (GTW)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:18:15 -0400
Subject: [governance] appeal to the IESG over the way RFC 6852 was
 published
In-Reply-To: <E1UPi0t-0006tx-VX@igcaucus.org>
References: <E1UPi0t-0006tx-VX@igcaucus.org>
Message-ID: <44F93FF046EE4D9295DD3B8028737E18@GTWLaptop>

Mr Morfin ... you might wish to contemplate the relevance of the WTO TBT 
DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE ON PRINCIPLES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL 
STANDARDS, GUIDES AND RECOMMENDATIONS WITH RELATION TO ARTICLES 2, 5 AND 
ANNEX 3 OF THE AGREEMENT


> In the coming weeks, I will try to introduce an individual submission
> or two for information that could be used as a multistakeholder
> experience of open cooperation between private sector and civil
> society standardization efforts

clip of principles from 
https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-2.aspx?Id=101299&BoxNumber=3&DocumentPartNumber=1&Language=E&Window=L&PreviewContext=DP&FullTextSearch=#

 DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE ON PRINCIPLES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 
INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS, GUIDES AND RECOMMENDATIONS WITH RELATION TO 
ARTICLES 2, 5 AND ANNEX 3 OF THE AGREEMENT

Decision 132



25.  The following principles and procedures should be observed, when 
international standards, guides and recommendations (as mentioned under 
Articles 2, 5 and Annex 3 of the TBT Agreement for the preparation of 
mandatory technical regulations, conformity assessment procedures and 
voluntary standards) are elaborated, to ensure transparency, openness, 
impartiality and consensus, effectiveness and relevance, coherence, and to 
address the concerns of developing countries.

26.  The same principles should also be observed when technical work or a 
part of the international standard development is delegated under agreements 
or contracts by international standardizing bodies to other relevant 
organizations, including regional bodies.

1.  Transparency

27.  All essential information regarding current work programmes, as well as 
on proposals for standards, guides and recommendations under consideration 
and on the final results should be made easily accessible to at least all 
interested parties in the territories of at least all WTO Members. 
Procedures should be established so that adequate time and opportunities are 
provided for written comments. The information on these procedures should be 
effectively disseminated.

28.  In providing the essential information, the transparency procedures 
should, at a minimum, include:

(a)  the publication of a notice at an early appropriate stage, in such a 
manner as to enable interested parties to become acquainted with it, that 
the international standardizing body proposes to develop a particular 
standard;

(b)  the notification or other communication through established mechanisms 
to members of the international standardizing body, providing a brief 
description of the scope of the draft standard, including its objective and 
rationale. Such communications shall take place at an early appropriate 
stage, when amendments can still be introduced and comments taken into 
account;

(c)  upon request, the prompt provision to members of the international 
standardizing body of the text of the draft standard;

(d)  the provision of an adequate period of time for interested parties in 
the territory of at least all members of the international standardizing 
body to make comments in writing and take these written comments into 
account in the further consideration of the standard;

(e)  the prompt publication of a standard upon adoption; and

(f)  to publish periodically a work programme containing information on the 
standards currently being prepared and adopted.

29.  It is recognized that the publication and communication of notices, 
notifications, draft standards, comments, adopted standards or work 
programmes electronically, via the Internet, where feasible, can provide a 
useful means of ensuring the timely provision of information. At the same 
time, it is also recognized that the requisite technical means may not be 
available in some cases, particularly with regard to developing countries. 
Accordingly, it is important that procedures are in place to enable hard 
copies of such documents to be made available upon request.

2.  Openness

30.  Membership of an international standardizing body should be open on a 
non-discriminatory basis to relevant bodies of at least all WTO Members. 
This would include openness without discrimination with respect to the 
participation at the policy development level and at every stage of 
standards development, such as the:

(a)  proposal and acceptance of new work items;

(b)  technical discussion on proposals;

(c)  submission of comments on drafts in order that they can be taken into 
account;

(d)  reviewing existing standards;

(e)  voting and adoption of standards; and

(f)  dissemination of the adopted standards.

31.  Any interested member of the international standardizing body, 
including especially developing country Members, with an interest in a 
specific standardization activity should be provided with meaningful 
opportunities to participate at all stages of standard development. It is 
noted that with respect to standardizing bodies within the territory of a 
WTO Member that have accepted the Code of Good Practice for the Preparation, 
Adoption and Application of Standards by Standardizing Bodies (Annex 3 of 
the TBT Agreement) participation in a particular international 
standardization activity takes place, wherever possible, through one 
delegation representing all standardizing bodies in the territory that have 
adopted, or expected to adopt, standards for the subject-matter to which the 
international standardization activity relates. This is illustrative of the 
importance of participation in the international standardizing process 
accommodating all relevant interests.

3.  Impartiality and Consensus

32.  All relevant bodies of WTO Members should be provided with meaningful 
opportunities to contribute to the elaboration of an international standard 
so that the standard development process will not give privilege to, or 
favour the interests of, a particular supplier/s, country/ies or region/s. 
Consensus procedures should be established that seek to take into account 
the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting 
arguments.

33.  Impartiality should be accorded throughout all the standards 
development process with respect to, among other things:

(a)  access to participation in work;

(b)  submission of comments on drafts;

(c)  consideration of views expressed and comments made;

(d)  decision-making through consensus;

(e)  obtaining of information and documents;

(f)  dissemination of the international standard;

(g)  fees charged for documents;

(h)  right to transpose the international standard into a regional or 
national standard; and

(i)  revision of the international standard.

4.  Effectiveness and Relevance

34.  In order to serve the interests of the WTO membership in facilitating 
international trade and preventing unnecessary trade barriers, international 
standards need to be relevant and to effectively respond to regulatory and 
market needs, as well as scientific and technological developments in 
various countries. They should not distort the global market, have adverse 
effects on fair competition, or stifle innovation and technological 
development. In addition, they should not give preference to the 
characteristics or requirements of specific countries or regions when 
different needs or interests exist in other countries or regions. Whenever 
possible, international standards should be performance based rather than 
based on design or descriptive characteristics.

35.  Accordingly, it is important that international standardizing bodies:

(a)  take account of relevant regulatory or market needs, as feasible and 
appropriate, as well as scientific and technological developments in the 
elaboration of standards;

(b)  put in place procedures aimed at identifying and reviewing standards 
that have become obsolete, inappropriate or ineffective for various reasons; 
and

(c)  put in place procedures aimed at improving communication with the World 
Trade Organization.

5.  Coherence

36.  In order to avoid the development of conflicting international 
standards, it is important that international standardizing bodies avoid 
duplication of, or overlap with, the work of other international 
standardizing bodies. In this respect, cooperation and coordination with 
other relevant international bodies is essential.

6.  Development Dimension

37.  Constraints on developing countries, in particular, to effectively 
participate in standards development, should be taken into consideration in 
the standards development process. Tangible ways of facilitating developing 
countries' participation in international standards development should be 
sought. The impartiality and openness of any international standardization 
process requires that developing countries are not excluded de facto from 
the process. With respect to improving participation by developing 
countries, it may be appropriate to use technical assistance, in line with 
Article 11 of the TBT Agreement. Provisions for capacity building and 
technical assistance within international standardizing bodies are important 
in this context.


--------------------------------------------------
From: "JFC Morfin" <jefsey at jefsey.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 7:37 PM
To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Subject: [governance] appeal to the IESG over the way RFC 6852 was published

> For your information I have sent the following mail a few days ago to
> Jari Arrko, the Chair of IETF, without any response yet. (Usually the
> acknowledgment by the Chair is within a few hours).
>
> In a nutshell: RFC 6852 (in annex in my PDF) publishes without
> comments the new IETF,IAB, IEEE, W3C, ISOC paradigm to make the
> internet market palatable.
>
> The purpose of my appeal is NOT to discuss their statement. It is to
> make them explain if:
>
> - either they intent to make the internet the standardization monopoly
> of a market oriented consortium they name "OpenStand" they call us to 
> support.
>
> - or they eventually adopt a multistakeholder approach where they
> contribute for the private sector, on par with ITU (for Govs), ISO
> (for intenational organisations) and a civil society "OpenUse"
> innovative endeavour.
>
> jfc
>
> ----
>
> Dear IESG Chair and IESG Members,
>
> For several weeks I have tried, as per RFC 2026, to avoid an appeal
> concerning the way RFC 6852 was published and to consider along with
> the author, now the IAB Chair, and the IETF Chair as to how to remedy
> the various confusions and risks resulting from a simple quote of the
> IAB, IETF, ISOC, IEEE, W3C statement as an IAB RFC, without any IAB
> contextual explanation and/or an IESG disclaimer.
>
> It seems that this effort has come to an end and that there is no
> other alternative for me to formally send this appeal to the IESG
> Chair in order to get things clarified with other organizations and
> innovation projects like mines that, otherwise, are today prevented
> from endorsing or supporting the IETF standardization paradigm.
>
> In the coming weeks, I will try to introduce an individual submission
> or two for information that could be used as a multistakeholder
> experience of open cooperation between private sector and civil
> society standardization efforts and help the multilogue over the
> digisphere operations, management, and standardization together with
> Governments and international organizations.
>
> I thank you for your attention, and for helping a still wider enhanced
> cooperation among the digisphere standardization and internet use 
> stakeholders.
>
> Best regards
> JFC Morfin
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/qmx6rypqutnws5j/20130326-Appeal-IESG.pdf
>
> ----
>
>
>



> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
www.gtwassociates.com
301 421 4138 


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 10 21:23:41 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 09:23:41 +0800
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Today 10-12nn@Ball Rm 1] Youth Forum: Model
 ICANN Board Meeting
References: <9DB12850-F949-4F82-85BC-B1A917AFBFCF@registry.asia>
Message-ID: <E2DA93A7-97C9-49BF-B628-B289FD15FEA4@gmail.com>

Dear All,

Show the youth some support by turning up for a while if you are able too.

Kind Regards,
Sala
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Yannis Li <yannis at registry.asia>
> Date: April 11, 2013, 9:05:53 AM GMT+08:00
> To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Today 10-12nn at Ball Rm 1] Youth Forum: Model ICANN Board Meeting
> 
> Dear Sala,
> 
> Nice seeing you yesterday.
> As mentioned, we will have a youth forum this morning.
> 
> The ambassadors together with some Beijing students will have a Model ICANN Board Meeting discussing about the Applicant Support Program. We hope you can join us and share some thoughts with us.
> 
> Date: 11 Apr (Thu)
> Time: 10:00am-12:00nn
> Venue: Ball Room 1, 2nd Floor, Main Building of Hotel (Different from Convention Centre side)
> 
> Thank you very much and look forward to seeing you there.
> 
> P.S my email is moderated in the APRALO list. Grateful if you can help circulate it =)
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Yannis Li
> DotAsia Organisation Ltd.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Address: 12F, Daily House, 35-37 Haiphong Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong
> Tel: +852 5802 2500   ︳Fax: +852 5802 2502   ︳http://www.dot.asia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130411/ab3be53b/attachment.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Apr 11 01:10:46 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:40:46 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: What else is discrimination?
In-Reply-To: <51650F74.1030204@gmail.com>
References: <CAPUFQLoaONWazFX6oSxMDuSdO0dtvH3rP2CMTmU0v6PvzTtKgA@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxhZWa=Mxh=ezwAz7y_+MFaM7z9ec--S5Q83RtL-apn42A@mail.gmail.com> <20130409230309.47173bf7@quill.bollow.ch> <51650F74.1030204@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <516645D6.7080503@itforchange.net>


If some people here insist on treating the recent episode of first a 
warning and then suspension of the posting rights of a member as one of 
political bias by co-cos, then perhaps it is worth having a discussion 
on the subject of political biases on this list.

It is interesting to note how easily, and somewhat unceremoniously, such 
deep allegation have been made against the co-cos, and I understand that 
it is mostly Norbert who is being targeting. Being an avid supporter of 
democratic and accountability seeking processes I do not really have any 
major issues with these 'accusations'. If some people do feel this way 
well let them say it (although preferably substantiate it better). 
Norbert has responded to each of these accusatory points in good details 
also pointing to the avenues where further recourse lies. I also 
encourage the disaffected parties to pursue these avenues.

Meanwhile, let me  contribute my views on the proposition that has been 
put forward regarding 'two sides of a political spectrum' and 
corresponding political biases on this list. Yes, there is a strong 
political bias coming from an entrenched 'structure of power' on this 
list. That bias is in fact exactly the opposite direction to what has 
been made out by the recent accusations. Although anyone who has tried 
to pursue with any seriousness a counter-hegemonic view on this list 
knows only too well what this 'structure of power' here is and with what 
kind of devastating effectiveness it works, a few recent examples may 
still be useful because entrenched social power also has this thing 
about quickly getting invisible, although no less potent for that.

Taking again from the serious attacks against the integrity of Norbert - 
our duly elected co-coordinator -  one is reminded how very recently 
some questions were raised on this list about very important 
constitutive processes of multistakeholderism (MSiism) - with regard to 
definitions and selection processes of representatives of the so-called 
technical and academic community. In that case, the integrity of the 
concerned 'high officers' (as in holders of a public duty, somewhat like 
our co-cos) was never questioned by anyone. Simply some definition 
clarifications were sought, and some corresponding arguments made. And 
what happened? The concerned person gives one indirect response, which 
includes a gross personal accusation against Michael, which was 
confirmed later to be false, and refuses to engage from there on, even 
to withdraw the false accusation (of what has now come to be known as 
'double dipping'). Meanwhile, and see how the 'structure of power' 
operates on this list, numerous contributions came down harshly on those 
who had raised the process questions, attributing all kinds of personal 
motives to those who raised the questions (please note at which point a 
discussion is rendered ad hominen). Inter alia, I was accused repeatedly 
of having a 'gotcha mentality'. Now, I can assure you friends, that when 
a concerted 'shut up' attack of this kind is launched, using an 
elaborate rank and file arrangement, and often employing sophisticated 
English/ slang by native speakers, it is mostly enough to 'shut people 
up'. I still want to know from the 'right thinking' but perhaps silent 
people on this list why should such 'shutting up' tactics be accepted 
and condoned, /which is where the shift to ad hominem first takes 
place/, whereby political arguments are ascribed to personal 
characteristics of the dissenting people.

To continue with explicating examples, a little later, I asked for a 
discussion about the processes employed by civil society focal point for 
CSTD selection, and even before anything substantial could be said or 
discussed at all, words like 'gotcha thinking' and 'be careful' etc 
begun flowing on the list. (Compare this with the unguarded allegations 
against Norbert.) Rather amusing, but also very instructive of what are 
the 'structures of power' on this list, and what political biases have 
their way. (One member even asked me to be careful not to say anything 
that may 'irritate him' - what cheek! Can anyone from the other side of 
the 'political spectrum' ever aspire to such a high social standing 
whereby such smug pre-warnings can be issued !!) While I wanted a simple 
discussion, some process clarifications, and to contribute to codifying 
procedures for the future, the fact is that the discussion simply could 
not take place. Neither I have the clarifications I wanted, nor could we 
codify good processes for the future. Such multifarious pressures and 
tactics get brought into play, all of course based on the existing 
'structure of power'.  Now if this is the fate of an effort initiated by 
me who by any standard is rather hardened after all the skirmishes and 
battles on this list (no doubt very tough to survive) one can predict 
what may happen to any such move from other likely 'dissenters'. Well, 
they mostly dont speak up. People recognise and work within the 
'structure of power'. Not that they are necessary compromised thus, just 
that the cost in terms of time, personal exposure etc becomes too much 
for most.....

All this of course has a long and ongoing history. A few months back, 
some of us trying to discuss problematic practices of google were told 
to back off, and in rather harsh terms. This is the 'structure of 
power'. People learn to estimate the cost of opening up certain issues 
on this list, and that is what has the chilling effect. A list of taboo 
issues has thus been created - and the cost of breaking these taboos is 
clear. If a few hardier ones still persist, then they can be pulled into 
personalised exchanges (employing some people relatively good at such 
techniques) and the real options before those who seek to carry on doing 
the required political work become rather difficult. I wont elaborate, 
but one needs to be in such positions to know what it takes to persist 
with ones political convictions and political work in such a situation. 
It is rather too easy (and sometimes convenient) to take narrow 
moralistic positions from rarefied heights on these issues, in a manner 
that could be blind to the operation of the 'power structure' which 
seeks to control the nature of debate in this civil society group.

The fact that accusations of political bias on Norbert are being made so 
easily and repeatedly also follows the contours of such a power 
structure. Were it that a person from the 'other side of the political 
spectrum' had done but a fraction of what the 'offending member' did in 
the present instance, he would have been chased off the list months 
back. For the last many months almost anything I post on the list is 
responded to almost immediately by the concerned member in a most 
personalised ad hominem manner - of the kind ' you and/ or your 
organisations is like this or that'.....  For months now I never reply 
to his emails (please check archives). However, such a behaviour does 
considerably constrain my ability to do a meaningful discussion on this 
list. Still, neither did I seek his removal from the list or even 
suspension, nor I do so now. He can stay, and we would manage rather 
well despite him.

Our elected co-coordinator can so easily be subject to rather serious 
allegations, and he responds to all of them without taking offence. On 
the other hand, there are others from which even to ask clarificatory 
questions leads to volleys of personalised accusations against those who 
dare question, and other, often sophisticated, stonewalling tactics.... 
So if there indeed are political biases and power structures on this 
list, the nature of them is quite evident.

It may be difficult to judge who is right and who less so in a debate, 
or between two sides of a 'political spectrum'; however it is much 
easier to judge who resists some kind of discussions and debates and who 
and what kind of perspectives are victims of such resistance. Such an 
exploration may be the best way to begin understanding what is happening 
on the list, and what all the 'right thinking people' must stand up 
against. Norbert merely acted against the steep gradient of existing 
power structure in fulfilling his duty. The kind of allegations of 
political bias that are pouring in is just the minimum he has to face. 
He has also earned various kinds of black marks vis a vis the powerful 
of the IG comity, and he will have to contend with the negative 
consequences of concerning any kind of standing and growth in the global 
IG space. But some people just take the attitude - what the heck, simply 
stick to the principles, and ones political convictions. I congratulate 
Norbert for that.

parminder





On Wednesday 10 April 2013 12:36 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote:
> Thanks for this clarification, and since we are in a phase about 
> turning over a new leaf:
>
> The allegations against the coordinators is indeed a serious one, of 
> bias (understanding of course your decision was made not on one 
> incident). On the one hand it may be the usual tenor of the list - for 
> instance calling ad hominem as in one instance with a post by 
> Gurstein, that was followed the allegation, then promptly onto 
> substantive discussion. On the other, it is an allegation posted on 
> the list for consumption.
>
> As this applies to the conduct of the co-co's as being biased against 
> a particular view on the political spectrum, this is very serious 
> indeed. As such I would like to know what you intend to do about these 
> serious allegations made against you that reflects not only on 
> yourselves but the IGC as well. IMHO a matter like this needs to be 
> escalated so that we all are comfortable with the process and 
> continued role of the co-co's. If an important constituency feels this 
> way, left unaddressed, it can only have a chilling effect.
>
> So outside of the particular case that spurred this allegation (its 
> merits being a separate matter, detached but not unlinked), could you 
> please now deal with this serious allegation as we simply cannot have 
> people on this list feeling this way. As one Third Worldist I know all 
> too often the effects of marginalisation, and hope these allegations 
> are dealt with seriously, in strict accordance with the Charter and 
> that it is not left to fester. If handled correctly, it will go a long 
> way to chilling what ought to be limited, spurious allegations, and 
> provide all with the comfort that these kinds of allegations will be 
> made in circumstances that have an objective probability of success in 
> 'prosecution'.
>
> I am sorry to put you on the spot about this, but needs must. Thank 
> you for making this attempt, it cannot be easy, but I am sure many on 
> this list would like decorum on this list that is comfortable...
>
> Riaz
>
>
> On 2013/04/10 12:03 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>> [with IGC coordinator hat on]
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130411/16566a0d/attachment.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 nareshajwani at ccaoi.in  Thu Apr 11 02:12:53 2013
From: nareshajwani at ccaoi.in (CCAOI)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:42:53 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: What else is discrimination?
In-Reply-To: <516645D6.7080503@itforchange.net>
References: <CAPUFQLoaONWazFX6oSxMDuSdO0dtvH3rP2CMTmU0v6PvzTtKgA@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxhZWa=Mxh=ezwAz7y_+MFaM7z9ec--S5Q83RtL-apn42A@mail.gmail.com> <20130409230309.47173bf7@quill.bollow.ch> <51650F74.1030204@gmail.com> <516645D6.7080503@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <00c501ce367b$9cfbfb80$d6f3f280$@in>

Unfortunately, many people's stand is where they sit. Arrogant communications which can instigate anyone is old time bad politics and zero intimidating in current environment.

 

I really hope Suresh to bear all this with dignity & courage. I have seen him taking the causes in a few yet very effective words. 

 

Regards

 

Naresh Ajwani

 

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 10:41 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: What else is discrimination?

 


If some people here insist on treating the recent episode of first a warning and then suspension of the posting rights of a member as one of political bias by co-cos, then perhaps it is worth having a discussion on the subject of political biases on this list.

It is interesting to note how easily, and somewhat unceremoniously, such deep allegation have been made against the co-cos, and I understand that it is mostly Norbert who is being targeting. Being an avid supporter of democratic and accountability seeking processes I do not really have any major issues with these 'accusations'. If some people do feel this way well let them say it (although preferably substantiate it better). Norbert has responded to each  of these accusatory points in good details also pointing to the avenues where further recourse lies. I also encourage the disaffected parties to pursue these avenues. 

Meanwhile, let me  contribute my views on the proposition that has been put forward regarding 'two sides of a political spectrum' and corresponding political biases on this list. Yes, there is a strong political bias coming from an entrenched 'structure of power' on this list. That bias is in fact exactly the opposite direction to what has been made out by the recent accusations. Although anyone who has tried to pursue with any seriousness a counter-hegemonic view on this list knows only too well what this 'structure of power' here is and with what kind of devastating effectiveness it works, a few recent examples may still be useful because entrenched social power also has this thing about quickly getting invisible, although no less potent for that.

Taking again from the serious attacks against the integrity of Norbert - our duly elected co-coordinator -  one is reminded how very recently some questions were raised on this list about very important constitutive processes of multistakeholderism (MSiism) - with regard to definitions and selection processes of representatives of the so-called technical and academic community. In that case, the integrity of the concerned 'high officers' (as in holders of a public duty, somewhat like our co-cos) was never questioned by anyone. Simply some definition clarifications were sought, and some corresponding arguments made. And what happened? The concerned person gives one indirect response, which includes a gross personal accusation against Michael, which was confirmed later to be false, and refuses to engage from there on, even to withdraw the false accusation (of what has now come to be known as 'double dipping'). Meanwhile, and see how the 'structure of power' operates on this list, numerous contributions came down harshly on those who had raised the process questions, attributing all kinds of personal motives to those who raised the questions (please note at which point a discussion is rendered ad hominen). Inter alia, I was accused repeatedly of having a 'gotcha mentality'. Now, I can assure you friends, that when a concerted 'shut up' attack of this kind is launched, using an elaborate rank and file arrangement, and often employing sophisticated English/ slang by native speakers, it is mostly enough to 'shut people up'. I still want to know from the 'right thinking' but perhaps silent people on this list why should such 'shutting up' tactics be accepted and condoned, which is where the shift to ad hominem first takes place, whereby political arguments are ascribed to personal characteristics of the dissenting people.  

To continue with explicating examples, a little later, I asked for a discussion about the processes employed by civil society focal point for CSTD selection, and even before anything substantial could be said or discussed at all, words like 'gotcha thinking' and 'be careful' etc begun flowing on the list. (Compare this with the unguarded allegations against Norbert.) Rather amusing, but also very instructive of what are the 'structures of power' on this list, and what political biases have their way. (One member even asked me to be careful not to say anything that may 'irritate him' - what cheek! Can anyone from the other side of the 'political spectrum' ever aspire to such a high social standing whereby such smug pre-warnings can be issued !!) While I wanted a simple discussion, some process clarifications, and to contribute to codifying procedures for the future, the fact is that the discussion simply could not take place. Neither I have the clarifications I wanted, nor could we codify good processes for the future. Such multifarious pressures and tactics get brought into play, all of course based on the existing 'structure of power'.  Now if this is the fate of an effort initiated by me who by any standard is rather hardened after all the skirmishes and battles on this list (no doubt very tough to survive) one can predict what may happen to any such move from other likely 'dissenters'. Well, they mostly dont speak up. People recognise and work within the 'structure of power'. Not that they are necessary compromised thus, just that the cost in terms of time, personal exposure etc becomes too much for most.....

All this of course has a long and ongoing history. A few months back, some of us trying to discuss problematic practices of google were told to back off, and in rather harsh terms. This is the 'structure of power'. People learn to estimate the cost of opening up certain issues on this list, and that is what has the chilling effect. A list of taboo issues has thus been created - and the cost of breaking these taboos is clear. If a few hardier ones still persist, then they can be pulled into personalised exchanges (employing some people relatively good at such techniques) and the real options before those who seek to carry on doing the required political work become rather difficult. I wont elaborate, but one needs to be in such positions to know what it takes to persist with ones political convictions and political work in such a situation. It is rather too easy (and sometimes convenient) to take narrow moralistic positions from rarefied heights on these issues, in a manner that could be blind to the operation of the 'power structure' which seeks to control the nature of debate in this civil society group. 

The fact that accusations of political bias on Norbert are being made so easily and repeatedly also follows the contours of such a power structure. Were it that a person from the 'other side of the political spectrum' had done but a fraction of what the 'offending member' did in the present instance, he would have been chased off the list months back. For the last many months almost anything I post on the list is responded to almost immediately by the concerned member in a most personalised ad hominem manner - of the kind ' you and/ or your organisations is like this or that'.....  For months now I never reply to his emails (please check archives). However, such a behaviour does considerably constrain my ability to do a meaningful discussion on this list. Still, neither did I seek his removal from the list or even suspension, nor I do so now. He can stay, and we would manage rather well despite him.

Our elected co-coordinator can so easily be subject to rather serious allegations, and he responds to all of them without taking offence. On the other hand, there are others from which even to ask clarificatory questions leads to volleys of personalised accusations against those who dare question, and other, often sophisticated, stonewalling tactics.... So if there indeed are political biases and power structures on this list, the nature of them is quite evident. 

It may be difficult to judge who is right and who less so in a debate, or between two sides of a 'political spectrum'; however it is much easier to judge who resists some kind of discussions and debates and who and what kind of perspectives are victims of such resistance. Such an exploration may be the best way to begin understanding what is happening on the list, and what all the 'right thinking people' must stand up against. Norbert merely acted against the steep gradient of existing power structure in fulfilling his duty. The kind of allegations of political bias that are pouring in is just the minimum he has to face. He has also earned various kinds of black marks vis a vis the powerful of the IG comity, and he will have to contend with the negative consequences of concerning any kind of standing and growth in the global IG space. But some people just take the attitude - what the heck, simply stick to the principles, and ones political convictions. I congratulate Norbert for that. 

parminder 






On Wednesday 10 April 2013 12:36 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote:

Thanks for this clarification, and since we are in a phase about turning over a new leaf: 
  
The allegations against the coordinators is indeed a serious one, of bias (understanding of course your decision was made not on one incident). On the one hand it may be the usual tenor of the list - for instance calling ad hominem as in one instance with a post by Gurstein, that was followed the allegation, then promptly onto substantive discussion. On the other, it is an allegation posted on the list for consumption.  

As this applies to the conduct of the co-co's as being biased against a particular view on the political spectrum, this is very serious indeed. As such I would like to know what you intend to do about these serious allegations made against you that reflects not only on yourselves but the IGC as well. IMHO a matter like this needs to be escalated so that we all are comfortable with the process and continued role of the co-co's. If an important constituency feels this way, left unaddressed, it can only have a chilling effect. 

So outside of the particular case that spurred this allegation (its merits being a separate matter, detached but not unlinked), could you please now deal with this serious allegation as we simply cannot have people on this list feeling this way. As one Third Worldist I know all too often the effects of marginalisation, and hope these allegations are dealt with seriously, in strict accordance with the Charter and that it is not left to fester. If handled correctly, it will go a long way to chilling what ought to be limited, spurious allegations, and provide all with the comfort that these kinds of allegations will be made in circumstances that have an objective probability of success in 'prosecution'. 

I am sorry to put you on the spot about this, but needs must. Thank you for making this attempt, it cannot be easy, but I am sure many on this list would like decorum on this list that is comfortable... 

Riaz 


On 2013/04/10 12:03 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: 



[with IGC coordinator hat on] 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130411/7e58a158/attachment.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 avri at acm.org  Thu Apr 11 02:25:05 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 14:25:05 +0800
Subject: [governance] Re: What else is discrimination?
In-Reply-To: <516645D6.7080503@itforchange.net>
References: <CAPUFQLoaONWazFX6oSxMDuSdO0dtvH3rP2CMTmU0v6PvzTtKgA@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxhZWa=Mxh=ezwAz7y_+MFaM7z9ec--S5Q83RtL-apn42A@mail.gmail.com> <20130409230309.47173bf7@quill.bollow.ch> <51650F74.1030204@gmail.com> <516645D6.7080503@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <169b7c7d-5940-4f34-9a4d-cb0218a5867f@email.android.com>

Hi, 

What I am curious about its the degree to which the coordinators were pressured behind the scenes in private email that was not transparent to the rest of us.

Obviously netiquette would prevent them from telling us who sent what.

But perhaps an indication of how much email, or how many bytes of email, were sent to pressure them one way our another would be helpful. I would also be interested in knowing the percentage of pressure either way.

It would be good to have an bit of transparency in this.

I, for one, sent no private email on this subject. Perhaps those making accusations can indicate how much they sent.
Avri Doria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130411/51162685/attachment.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 nareshajwani at ccaoi.in  Thu Apr 11 07:26:34 2013
From: nareshajwani at ccaoi.in (CCAOI)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:56:34 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: What else is discrimination?
In-Reply-To: <20130409230309.47173bf7@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAPUFQLoaONWazFX6oSxMDuSdO0dtvH3rP2CMTmU0v6PvzTtKgA@mail.gmail.com>	<CACAaNxhZWa=Mxh=ezwAz7y_+MFaM7z9ec--S5Q83RtL-apn42A@mail.gmail.com> <20130409230309.47173bf7@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <002101ce36a7$713bb5e0$53b321a0$@in>


Dear Norbert,

".....The main point is, and I believe that Sala and I have made that quite
clear, that we intend to implement what the IGC Charter [1] says under
the heading "Posting Rules for the IGC", and if we ever again get into
the situation that someone stubbornly refuses to comply, I believe that
we will (even if possibly again only after months of patience and
hesitation have been exhausted) again be willing to take the unpopular
step of escalating the matter to the public warning stage and beyond.
[1] http://www.igcaucus.org/charter..."

I had appreciated your response and had not pursued my posting, "what
else is discrimination", further till I saw a similar situation again.
Aren't we choosing switch-off/on positions at convenience.... Isn't it
the time for co--co chairs to willingly take the unpopular step to
escalate the matter to the public warning stage and beyond, on the
postings from others having sadistic pleasure on humiliation to any
member & rubbing them further.

I hereby appeal to everyone's conscious to decide or echo concern for
one member, who has contributed immensely for various causes, being
cornered to this extent. It's not about which side we are at, it's
about the call of our conscience... our fundamentals of not silencing
even our worst critic, despite him/her being in minority... it's about
watching a boxing bout and enjoying or supporting someone who has been
punching below belts... Save this noble movement where the cause is
bigger than personal emotions. I appeal!

Regards,

Naresh Ajwani

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 2:33 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Cc: McTim; Naresh Ajwani
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: What else is discrimination?

[with IGC coordinator hat on]

McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> > From: Naresh Ajwani <ajwaninaresh at gmail.com>
> >
> > I am new to this group

Welcome! 

> > and have been witnessing many such exchanges & it was last month 
> > only there was more tense one, over one member who was not selected 
> > for technical group.
> 
> yes, this is the "fallout" from that!

Actually what has led to that public warning has a far longer history,
including expulsion of Suresh from the list in early January (well before I
became one of the coordinators). The immediate cause of that expulsion
decision back then was the manner of a personal attack on Riaz. That
expulsion was reversed on appeal, because according to our Charter,
expulsion was not procedurally possible since there had not been a previous
suspension of posting rights.

> > Surprisingly, didn't see any similar togetherness amongst the IGC 
> > coordinators to warn members over their much more aggressive 
> > comments.

One procedural requirement is that there must be at least one private
warning before the coordinators are even allowed to issue a public warning.

> I think this is a key point.  It seems that co-co's react only to 
> negative comments from one part of our "political" spectrum

Besides procedural correctness, we strive for being as fair and unbiased as
we possibly can be.

So far only in a single case the point of public warning (and then
suspension) has been reached.

When a single point is plotted onto a "'political' spectrum" of any kind, it
will by logical necessity still be a single point, it cannot possibly cover
the entire spectrum.

I consider it neither appropriate nor procedurally correct to engage in a
public discussion of specific disciplinary matters. If an independent review
is desired of whether the steps that have been taken were appropriate, the
appeal process is available for that.

I will also not discuss here whether some inappropriate remarks are worse
than other inappropriate remarks, nor to what extent the degree of
provocation or absence thereof should be taken in consideration when making
such an evaluation.

The main point is, and I believe that Sala and I have made that quite clear,
that we intend to implement what the IGC Charter [1] says under the heading
"Posting Rules for the IGC", and if we ever again get into the situation
that someone stubbornly refuses to comply, I believe that we will (even if
possibly again only after months of patience and hesitation have been
exhausted) again be willing to take the unpopular step of escalating the
matter to the public warning stage and beyond.
[1] http://www.igcaucus.org/charter

Furthermore, beyond the requirements of the "Posting Rules" in the IGC
Charter, I also intend to do what I can to discourage ad hominem remarks of
any kind except for those that are clearly friendly. (Not all
not-clearly-friendly ad hominem remarks are personal attacks or otherwise
forbidden by the IGC Charter, but even those such remarks that not exactly
forbidden are effectively a hindrance to constructive
discourse.)

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  Thu Apr 11 09:09:48 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 09:09:48 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: What else is discrimination?
In-Reply-To: <516645D6.7080503@itforchange.net>
References: <CAPUFQLoaONWazFX6oSxMDuSdO0dtvH3rP2CMTmU0v6PvzTtKgA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxhZWa=Mxh=ezwAz7y_+MFaM7z9ec--S5Q83RtL-apn42A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130409230309.47173bf7@quill.bollow.ch> <51650F74.1030204@gmail.com> <516645D6.7080503@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxgc82xteZ51GzCp_7QJF9EaaSH_o7D4kiCdtm3ac07zKw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Parminder,

A rich vein to mine, see inline below:

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:10 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> If some people here insist on treating the recent episode of first a warning
> and then suspension of the posting rights of a member as one of political
> bias by co-cos

The political bias comes not in suspending one person, but in NOT
suspending others who are guilty of far worse ad hominemism.


, then perhaps it is worth having a discussion on the subject
> of political biases on this list.
>
> It is interesting to note how easily, and somewhat unceremoniously, such
> deep allegation have been made against the co-cos, and I understand that it
> is mostly Norbert who is being targeting.

no, it's both co-cos who make the decisions and seem to let one side
heap abuse on members, but only punish the victims of such abuse.

 Being an avid supporter of
> democratic and accountability seeking processes I do not really have any
> major issues with these 'accusations'. If some people do feel this way well
> let them say it (although preferably substantiate it better).

Are not the quotes supplied substantiation enough? You accused people
of dishonesty AND of supplying "petulant contemptuous" responses.

 Norbert has
> responded to each  of these accusatory points in good details also pointing
> to the avenues where further recourse lies.


No, in fact he hasn't.  He has only stated he will not comment on the
list about them.

 I also encourage the disaffected
> parties to pursue these avenues.
>
<conspiracy theory snipped>

> Taking again from the serious attacks against the integrity of Norbert - our
> duly elected co-coordinator -  one is reminded how very recently some
> questions were raised on this list about very important constitutive
> processes of multistakeholderism (MSiism) - with regard to definitions and
> selection processes of representatives of the so-called technical and
> academic community. In that case, the integrity of the concerned 'high
> officers' (as in holders of a public duty, somewhat like our co-cos) was
> never questioned by anyone.

There never was any reason to call their integrity into question, although you
seem to be doing that via the back door now!


 Simply some definition clarifications were
> sought, and some corresponding arguments made. And what happened?


You didn't accept reality, that's what happened.  The fact is that a
person from the T&A who works in an academic environment was selected.
 You chose not to accept that that person could be called "Academic".


 The
> concerned person gives one indirect response, which includes a gross
> personal accusation against Michael, which was confirmed later to be false,
> and refuses to engage from there on, even to withdraw the false accusation
> (of what has now come to be known as 'double dipping').

I fail to see how one can call the perception of double dipping a
"gross personal accusation".


 Meanwhile, and see
> how the 'structure of power' operates on this list, numerous contributions
> came down harshly on those who had raised the process questions, attributing
> all kinds of personal motives to those who raised the questions (please note
> at which point a discussion is rendered ad hominen).

What personal motives are you talking about?  I saw none of that in
the discussion.

 Inter alia, I was
> accused repeatedly of having a 'gotcha mentality'.

Is that NOT your style of argumentation that we have seen on the list for years?


 Now, I can assure you
> friends, that when a concerted 'shut up' attack of this kind is launched,
> using an elaborate rank and file arrangement, and often employing
> sophisticated English/ slang by native speakers,


words like "ilk" and 'so-called" you mean?


 it is mostly enough to
> 'shut people up'. I still want to know from the 'right thinking' but perhaps
> silent people on this list why should such 'shutting up' tactics be accepted
> and condoned, which is where the shift to ad hominem first takes place,


pot. kettle. black.  For the non-native English speakers who may still
be following this
exchange, I am trying to point out the loaded language or "fighting
words' often employed by those on the list who like to portray
themselves as victims.


> whereby political arguments are ascribed to personal characteristics of the
> dissenting people.
>
> To continue with explicating examples, a little later, I asked for a
> discussion about the processes employed by civil society focal point for
> CSTD selection, and even before anything substantial could be said or
> discussed at all, words like 'gotcha thinking' and 'be careful' etc begun
> flowing on the list. (Compare this with the unguarded allegations against
> Norbert.)

How was Milton's accusation "unguarded"?

<more conspiracy theory snipped>

> The fact that accusations of political bias on Norbert are being made so
> easily and repeatedly also follows the contours of such a power structure.


Or is is that we see that only one side is being prosecuted?


> Were it that a person from the 'other side of the political spectrum' had
> done but a fraction of what the 'offending member' did in the present
> instance, he would have been chased off the list months back.

IMHO, "the other side of the political spectrum" has consistently been
far more abusive than the  'offending member'.


 For the last
> many months almost anything I post on the list is responded to almost
> immediately by the concerned member in a most personalised ad hominem manner
> - of the kind ' you and/ or your organisations is like this or that'.....
> For months now I never reply to his emails (please check archives).


I just spent ~30 seconds looking at previous mails and found that you
do reply to him directly multiple times.  Look at March 22nd for
several examples (that is the first and only thread I looked at).



 However,
> such a behaviour does considerably constrain my ability to do a meaningful
> discussion on this list. Still, neither did I seek his removal from the list
> or even suspension, nor I do so now. He can stay, and we would manage rather
> well despite him.

<insult ignored>

>
> Our elected co-coordinator can so easily be subject to rather serious
> allegations

Are we not supposed to stand up against perceived injustice?

, and he responds to all of them without taking offence. On the
> other hand, there are others from which even to ask clarificatory questions
> leads to volleys of personalised accusations against those who dare
> question, and other, often sophisticated, stonewalling tactics


again, pot. kettle. black.

For the record, and to respond to Avri and Suresh's comments, I have
not had any back channel communications with the cocos on this topic,
nor am I employed by any agency of the T&A Community.

2 days ago, I did accept a role on the AfriNIC NomCom, which is a
volunteer 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From avri at acm.org  Thu Apr 11 06:39:17 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 18:39:17 +0800
Subject: [governance] Re: What else is discrimination?
In-Reply-To: <516645D6.7080503@itforchange.net>
References: <CAPUFQLoaONWazFX6oSxMDuSdO0dtvH3rP2CMTmU0v6PvzTtKgA@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxhZWa=Mxh=ezwAz7y_+MFaM7z9ec--S5Q83RtL-apn42A@mail.gmail.com> <20130409230309.47173bf7@quill.bollow.ch> <51650F74.1030204@gmail.com> <516645D6.7080503@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <1081564d-26a6-4cea-9751-139b6db1104f@email.android.com>



parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

es, there is a strong 
>political bias coming from an entrenched 'structure of power' on this 
>list. That bias is in fact exactly the opposite direction to what has 
>been made out by the recent accusations. Although anyone who has tried 
>to pursue with any seriousness a counter-hegemonic view on this list 
>knows only too well what this 'structure of power' here is and with
>what 
>kind of devastating effectiveness it works, a few recent examples may 
>still be useful because entrenched social power also has this thing 
>about quickly getting invisible, although no less potent for that.
>

Indeed on this list it its you who rules and the rest of us who run scared.
People of my ilk are the voice in the wilderness on this list these days.

I am certainly always nervous about engaging when you are involved.
I do it because I fear fear more than I fear your wrath, 
but have no doubt, 
I am afraid of your wrath 
and the way you wield language.

I hope confessing my fear is not considered an attack.
But please know I will not let you render me 
or those of my ilk 
invisible.


>Inter alia, I was accuseful
>repeatedly 
>of having a 'gotcha mentality'.

My statement was that you used that argument technique.
I never meant to imply anything about your mentality.
I would consider discussing anyone's mentality inappropriate.



Avri Doria

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From kerry at kdbsystems.com  Thu Apr 11 10:50:41 2013
From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 14:50:41 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: What else is discrimination?
In-Reply-To: <1081564d-26a6-4cea-9751-139b6db1104f@email.android.com>
References: <CAPUFQLoaONWazFX6oSxMDuSdO0dtvH3rP2CMTmU0v6PvzTtKgA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxhZWa=Mxh=ezwAz7y_+MFaM7z9ec--S5Q83RtL-apn42A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130409230309.47173bf7@quill.bollow.ch> <51650F74.1030204@gmail.com>
 <516645D6.7080503@itforchange.net>
 <1081564d-26a6-4cea-9751-139b6db1104f@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <A0615421071EDD4A9F851117D67D538A8238F92B@EXCH01.KDBSystems.local>

> Indeed on this list it its you who rules and the rest of us who run scared.
> People of my ilk are the voice in the wilderness on this list these days.
> 
> I am certainly always nervous about engaging when you are involved.
> I do it because I fear fear more than I fear your wrath,
> but have no doubt,
> I am afraid of your wrath
> and the way you wield language.
> 

Avri, you are not a voice in the wilderness. You are a much respected (at least by me) voice on this list.

I find I limit my contributions to this list because I fear my opinions will be ridiculed and I will not be able to resist stooping to the same level of argument to defend them. Many times I have considered unsubscribing as I watch yet another thread deteriorate into dogma against dogma rather than considered debate trying to reach consensus or even just agreeing to disagree as there is no consensus. I feel sorry for the moderators who have to try to police something that really shouldn't need policing. I have moderated many lists, newsgroups, and forums since the early days of FIDO and BBSs. This list has some of the worst cases of skirting the rules while ridiculing other participants I have ever seen.

Kerry Brown
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From drc at virtualized.org  Thu Apr 11 13:16:08 2013
From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 01:16:08 +0800
Subject: [governance] What else is discrimination?
In-Reply-To: <A0615421071EDD4A9F851117D67D538A8238F92B@EXCH01.KDBSystems.local>
References: <CAPUFQLoaONWazFX6oSxMDuSdO0dtvH3rP2CMTmU0v6PvzTtKgA@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxhZWa=Mxh=ezwAz7y_+MFaM7z9ec--S5Q83RtL-apn42A@mail.gmail.com> <20130409230309.47173bf7@quill.bollow.ch> <51650F74.1030204@gmail.com> <516645D6.7080503@itforchange.net> <1081564d-26a6-4cea-9751-139b6db1104f@email.android.com> <A0615421071EDD4A9F851117D67D538A8238F92B@EXCH01.KDBSystems.local>
Message-ID: <DA5748E3-88FB-40CB-BF8C-ACE0D8919354@virtualized.org>

On Apr 11, 2013, at 10:50 PM, Kerry Brown <kerry at kdbsystems.com> wrote:
> I find I limit my contributions to this list because I fear my opinions will be ridiculed and I will not be able to resist stooping to the same level of argument to defend them.

I also limit my contribution, although not from concern about my opinions being ridiculed, rather that I find repeated attempts to try to correct the same misrepresentations as tedious to write as I imagine they are to read. After a while, I figure anyone who actually cares to understand does and the others will continue to misrepresent regardless of what I might say.

> Many times I have considered unsubscribing as I watch yet another thread deteriorate into dogma against dogma rather than considered debate trying to reach consensus or even just agreeing to disagree as there is no consensus. I feel sorry for the moderators who have to try to police something that really shouldn't need policing. I have moderated many lists, newsgroups, and forums since the early days of FIDO and BBSs. This list has some of the worst cases of skirting the rules while ridiculing other participants I have ever seen.

+1

Back to lurking.

Regards,
-drc


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Fri Apr 12 04:06:08 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 16:06:08 +0800
Subject: [governance] New Best Bits list to work towards shared position on
 evolution of IG arrangements
Message-ID: <5167C070.1060303@ciroap.org>

As we get closer to "relaunching" Best Bits for 2013 with a new website
and some new faces, it's time to get down to one of the main orders of
business for this year: the positive agenda for the evolution of
Internet governance arrangements.  (If you need a refresher on this
year's agenda, check  the list archive at
http://lists.igcaucus.org/arc/bestbits/2013-03/msg00005.html.)

As you know, an Enhanced Cooperation Working Group of the UN CSTD is
tasked with making recommendations about potential improvements to the
status quo, and it is important that this doesn't become an excuse for
the introduction of an ITU-style intergovernmental mechanism.  At the
other extreme, a stick-in-the-mud approach that protects incumbent
vested interests would be equally harmful, and there was some agreement
at our last workshop that civil society can do better than that.

At the October 2013 Best Bits meeting in Bali that we plan to hold ahead
of the IGF (thanks APC), one of our objectives will be to reach
agreement amongst as many as possible of the participants on a positive
model (or models) for evolution of existing arrangements, so that the
civil society representatives in CSTD Working Group can advocate more
strongly for such a model than if we had not spent the time to develop
such a shared position (which, make no mistake, the other stakeholder
groups *will* have done).

We are really very privileged that all but one (so far) of the civil
society representatives in the CSTD Working Group have agreed to
participate in this discussion with Best Bits members, forming a little
informal working group for discussion.  For now a separate mailing list
has been set up for this discussion, though if enough people feel
strongly that the discussion should take place on the main Best Bits
list, we can consider rolling the lists together later.

Join this working group, click "Subscribe" on this page:

http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/ec

Whilst this is certainly not meant as an exclusive place for discussion,
the "value add" intended to be provided is that it will be reasonably
tightly focussed on the end goal of developing a concrete proposal (or
proposals) for the larger group to discuss, and which will assist the
civil society representatives at the CSTD in making the case that there
is at least one model of evolutionary change that enjoys fairly broad
support from civil society.

Since the legitimacy of our proposal depends on the inclusiveness of the
exercise (which is and always has been a top priority for the Best Bits
network), feel free to cc this invitation to other civil society lists
that may also be interested in getting involved (I've added the IGC
governance list above already).  For those who are not already members
of the *main* Best Bits list, you should also join that: you can do by
hitting "Subscribe" at a different address,
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/bestbits.

We are also planning to call soon for volunteers for a lightweight Best
Bits steering group with balanced representation from all regions.  But
I will leave Andrew to tell more about this in a separate message.  I
will also have news soon about fundraising for travel funds, that will
allow a good number of you to participate in Bali if you would otherwise
have difficulty in doing so.  And of course, the new website and
calendar coming soon!  It will be an exciting and important year.

-- 

*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

WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map:
https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130412/feec2dd4/attachment.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 nb at bollow.ch  Fri Apr 12 04:13:53 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:13:53 +0200
Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance
Message-ID: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch>

Dear all

I'm looking for texts (not necessarily formal publications; convenient
online availability would be a plus) on the various conflicts of
interest in Internet Governance (in the broad sense of the WGIG
definition [1]).

Would would you recommend?

Greetings,
Norbert

[1] WGIG="Working Group on Internet Governance", the definition proposed
by WGIG is cited for example on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_governance#Definition

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From fulvio.frati at unimi.it  Fri Apr 12 05:03:46 2013
From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 11:03:46 +0200
Subject: [governance] IEEE BigData Congress 2013: Special Session on BigData
 Quality, Security and Privacy
Message-ID: <00ea01ce375c$a3ac9ac0$eb05d040$@unimi.it>

[Apologies for multiple sendings]

****************************************************************************

IEEE BigData Congress 2013

Special Session on BigData Quality, Security and Privacy

Session Chair: Lionel Brunie (INSA-Lyon, France)

http://www.ieeebigdata.org/2013/

****************************************************************************

BigData research has unveiled the potential of huge data stores for many
business applications. For the research community dealing with data
protection and secure data communication, however, Big Data equals big risk.

The security, privacy and quality implications for collecting, storing and
utilizing BigData are many-fold.  In BigData environments, the sheer volume
of data being collected and stored is often too large for organizations to
sift through it and determine the sensitive nature of a particular data
item. 

As big data environments rapidly expand, the quantity and size of opaque
objects that need to be properly managed also increases. For this reason,
new techniques are needed to (i) assess the quality, and (ii) transparently
encrypt blocks big data stored in the cloud or on premises. Such solutions
must work while maintaining the highest levels of data availability and
performance. 

This session will foster an understanding of the open issues, give
visibility on ground-breaking work in progress and reveal innovative
techniques for managing emerging data technologies.

The Special Session on BigData quality, security and privacy, to be held in
the framework of the IEEE BigData Congress 2013
(http://www.ieeebigdata.org/2013/)  encourages submissions of last minute,
work-in-progress papers on the following topics:

- Enhanced Security Capabilities for BigData Systems

- Managing User Access in a BigData Environment

- Policy & Governance in a BigData Environment

- Migrating BigData to the Cloud

- Protecting Citizen & Business Privacy in the Era of BigData

- BigData and Security Analytics

- BigData and Assurance: Beyond PCI and HIPAA

- User Profiling in BigData Environments

- De-anonymization using BigData Analysis Tools

- Trust and Reputation Management in BigData Environments

- BigData and Differential Privacy

- Data Provenance in BigData Environments

Important Dates

- Full Paper Submission Due Date: April 27, 2013 Extended!

- Decision Notification (Electronic): May 4, 2013

- Camera-Ready Copy Due Date & Pre-registration Due: May 11, 2013

Paper Submission

Authors are invited to submit original, unpublished research papers that are
not being considered in another forum. 

The Special Session will accept full papers (6 pages) and position papers (4
pages). Papers are REQUIRED to be formatted using the IEEE Proceedings
template (http://conferences.computer.org/scc/2013/IEEECS_CPS_8.5x11x2.zip )
in Word or Latex
(http://conferences.computer.org/scc/2013/IEEECS_CPS_LaTeX_Letter_2Col.zip).


 

The submitted papers can only be in the format of PDF or WORD. At least one
author of each accepted paper is required to attend the conference and
present the paper. Electronic submission of manuscripts (in PDF or Word
formats) is required. Submissions should include paper title, abstract, name
of authors, their affiliations, and emails addresses.

Please use the BigData 2013 Research Track Paper Submission System at 

http://www.confhub.com/conf.php?id=271 to submit your research papers to
BigData 2013 Special Session. You can select one or two of the research
topics when you submit your paper in the online submission system so it will
be reviewed by the right subject matter experts.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130412/90dc11d6/attachment.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Apr 12 06:03:27 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:33:27 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: What else is discrimination?
In-Reply-To: <1081564d-26a6-4cea-9751-139b6db1104f@email.android.com>
References: <CAPUFQLoaONWazFX6oSxMDuSdO0dtvH3rP2CMTmU0v6PvzTtKgA@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxhZWa=Mxh=ezwAz7y_+MFaM7z9ec--S5Q83RtL-apn42A@mail.gmail.com> <20130409230309.47173bf7@quill.bollow.ch> <51650F74.1030204@gmail.com> <516645D6.7080503@itforchange.net> <1081564d-26a6-4cea-9751-139b6db1104f@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <5167DBEF.2050707@itforchange.net>



Are you, Avri, really already fearful of this list and its interactions? 
Dont then ever try to be one from a developing country, seeking to 
articulate views that dont match the status quo in global IG today. You 
wont survive a week over here. Just a friendly advice in case you ever 
thought of switching roles :) . parminder

On Thursday 11 April 2013 04:09 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>  wrote:
>
> es, there is a strong
>> political bias coming from an entrenched 'structure of power' on this
>> list. That bias is in fact exactly the opposite direction to what has
>> been made out by the recent accusations. Although anyone who has tried
>> to pursue with any seriousness a counter-hegemonic view on this list
>> knows only too well what this 'structure of power' here is and with
>> what
>> kind of devastating effectiveness it works, a few recent examples may
>> still be useful because entrenched social power also has this thing
>> about quickly getting invisible, although no less potent for that.
>>
> Indeed on this list it its you who rules and the rest of us who run scared.
> People of my ilk are the voice in the wilderness on this list these days.
>
> I am certainly always nervous about engaging when you are involved.
> I do it because I fear fear more than I fear your wrath,
> but have no doubt,
> I am afraid of your wrath
> and the way you wield language.
>
> I hope confessing my fear is not considered an attack.
> But please know I will not let you render me
> or those of my ilk
> invisible.
>
>
>> Inter alia, I was accuseful
>> repeatedly
>> of having a 'gotcha mentality'.
> My statement was that you used that argument technique.
> I never meant to imply anything about your mentality.
> I would consider discussing anyone's mentality inappropriate.
>
>
>
> Avri Doria
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130412/a855d5d0/attachment.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 kabani.asif at gmail.com  Fri Apr 12 06:34:50 2013
From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:34:50 +0500
Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <CAOzvoR3Q5_o5+P5ubp_2QFx+X+suzowH04Vp6zWbZeCQnQY0Rg@mail.gmail.com>

Norbet,

Many thanks for bring this up, also if possible the WIKI need to be
updated, How that can be looking into my member / community. The graphic
also needs to be discussed in the wiki articles.

*Asif Kabani, MBA*
*
*
*Connect @*
[image: Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/kabani.asif> [image:
Twitter]<https://twitter.com/Kabaniasif>
 [image: Youtube] <http://www.youtube.com/user/asifkabani> [image:
LinkedIn]<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kabani>

*Before you print - Think about the** **ENVIRONMENT*



On 12 April 2013 13:13, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Dear all
>
> I'm looking for texts (not necessarily formal publications; convenient
> online availability would be a plus) on the various conflicts of
> interest in Internet Governance (in the broad sense of the WGIG
> definition [1]).
>
> Would would you recommend?
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
> [1] WGIG="Working Group on Internet Governance", the definition proposed
> by WGIG is cited for example on Wikipedia:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_governance#Definition
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130412/d7643dc5/attachment.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Apr 12 07:12:14 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 16:42:14 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: What else is discrimination?
In-Reply-To: <169b7c7d-5940-4f34-9a4d-cb0218a5867f@email.android.com>
References: <CAPUFQLoaONWazFX6oSxMDuSdO0dtvH3rP2CMTmU0v6PvzTtKgA@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxhZWa=Mxh=ezwAz7y_+MFaM7z9ec--S5Q83RtL-apn42A@mail.gmail.com> <20130409230309.47173bf7@quill.bollow.ch> <51650F74.1030204@gmail.com> <516645D6.7080503@itforchange.net> <169b7c7d-5940-4f34-9a4d-cb0218a5867f@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <5167EC0E.1020307@itforchange.net>


On Thursday 11 April 2013 11:55 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What I am curious about its the degree to which the coordinators were 
> pressured behind the scenes in private email that was not transparent 
> to the rest of us.
>
> Obviously netiquette would prevent them from telling us who sent what.
>
> But perhaps an indication of how much email, or how many bytes of 
> email, were sent to pressure them one way our another would be 
> helpful. I would also be interested in knowing the percentage of 
> pressure either way.
>
> It would be good to have an bit of transparency in this.

Yes, I encourage coordinators to volunteer the above information.

>
> I, for one, sent no private email on this subject. Perhaps those 
> making accusations can indicate how much they sent.

I dont know what accusation you speak of here. I said nothing about 
anyone sending offline messages to the coordinator. Anyway, neither did 
I send any email to coordinators on this subject. I had no interest in 
Suresh's suspension. From earlier experience I could judge the boil over 
that it would entail, although what actually happened, especially 
efforts towards getting an eye for an eye surpassed my expectation. It 
become very evidently and deeply political. Coordinators can be expected 
to face continued pressure on this count, some kind of collective 
recompense in form of another 'disciplinary action' will continue to be 
sought with considerable energy. Hopefully, justice will not be reduced 
to balancing demands of different political camps.

parminder

> Avri Doria 


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 12 09:20:55 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:20:55 +0200
Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <20130412152055.36b1d07b@quill.bollow.ch>

Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> I'm looking for texts (not necessarily formal publications; convenient
> online availability would be a plus) on the various conflicts of
> interest in Internet Governance (in the broad sense of the WGIG
> definition [1]).

I've been asked in private email whether my question is about
"conflicts of interest" policies such as for example ICANN's.

I apologize that I haven't been clear enough.

What I'm looking for is write-ups about actual large-scale conflicts
between different Internet-related interests.

Such as for example the conflicts between the traditional publishing
industries and those who want a paradigm change in regard to fundamental
principles of copyright.

Or the conflicts between designing the Internet and its rules of
governance for being either explicitly pro-democracy (see e.g. the
"Compact for the Internet" vision of Neelie Kroes, Vice President of the
European Commission responsible for the Digital Agenda,
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-11-605_en.htm ), or
primarily in accordance to economic interests, or to a large extent in
accordance to desires of law enforcement bodies (desires which when
satisfied will not only make matters more convenient for law
enforcement bodies in democratic countries, but the same kinds of
structures in the Internet techno-ecosystem would also support
non-democratic governments in violating human rights of the citizens
and residents of their countries.)

Etc... there's no shortage of conflicts.

Greetings,
Norbert

> Would would you recommend?
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> [1] WGIG="Working Group on Internet Governance", the definition
> proposed by WGIG is cited for example on Wikipedia:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_governance#Definition
> 


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dl at panamo.eu  Fri Apr 12 09:40:07 2013
From: dl at panamo.eu (dl at panamo.eu)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:40:07 +0200
Subject: [governance] New TLDs program: a failed Revolution?
Message-ID: <88bd237d16438c473f14c19bb077d2a9@localhost>

Hi,
My paper for the first EINS Conf. on the new TLDs program is online:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hhlp5myyiaps5zc/EINS_Lacroix_April_2013_ICANN.pdf
(9 pages)

A shorter version will come.

@+, best regards

--
Dominique Lacroix
reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr

Internet European Societies
http://ies-france.eu


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 12 09:55:17 2013
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 22:55:17 +0900
Subject: [governance] Re: What else is discrimination?
In-Reply-To: <1081564d-26a6-4cea-9751-139b6db1104f@email.android.com>
References: <CAPUFQLoaONWazFX6oSxMDuSdO0dtvH3rP2CMTmU0v6PvzTtKgA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxhZWa=Mxh=ezwAz7y_+MFaM7z9ec--S5Q83RtL-apn42A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130409230309.47173bf7@quill.bollow.ch> <51650F74.1030204@gmail.com>
 <516645D6.7080503@itforchange.net> <1081564d-26a6-4cea-9751-139b6db1104f@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKhcNmWUzLegr5jSkLUi4YfkVRXDoDK9x3+f8Roz4E-S-g@mail.gmail.com>

Well said, Avri.

It's not due to single person, in my view, but collectively, it needs some
courage to post any message for many, I suspect. I also felt similar way,
afraid of being accused, or severely criticized one way or other. As I am
not native in English, it's difficult to feel the emotions and nuances.

That is really a pity as this list is meant to be a forum for free exchange
of our ideas among civil society members involved with Internet governance
issues.

I must say that during my tenure of co-co, I did not address this issue
that well.

I feel some sympathy to the co-cos now as it is such a difficult task to
maintain the list live and relevant among such diverse views and positions.
And when I was selected as the co-co three years ago, I was very excited,
or maybe over excited about my role, yet several predecessors of the co-cos
including Adam and Jeannette gave me rather objective advice reminding me
that the primary role of co-co is to lead the IGC to reach consensus, not
pushing my own ideas too much. Yes, that is written in the Charter, but
more than that it is critical point to be aware of for the new co-co.

I still hope that the energy exposed during the heated debate will lead us
to more productive outcomes despite some noise.

izumi back from ICANN Beijing








2013/4/11 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>

>
>
> parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> es, there is a strong
> >political bias coming from an entrenched 'structure of power' on this
> >list. That bias is in fact exactly the opposite direction to what has
> >been made out by the recent accusations. Although anyone who has tried
> >to pursue with any seriousness a counter-hegemonic view on this list
> >knows only too well what this 'structure of power' here is and with
> >what
> >kind of devastating effectiveness it works, a few recent examples may
> >still be useful because entrenched social power also has this thing
> >about quickly getting invisible, although no less potent for that.
> >
>
> Indeed on this list it its you who rules and the rest of us who run scared.
> People of my ilk are the voice in the wilderness on this list these days.
>
> I am certainly always nervous about engaging when you are involved.
> I do it because I fear fear more than I fear your wrath,
> but have no doubt,
> I am afraid of your wrath
> and the way you wield language.
>
> I hope confessing my fear is not considered an attack.
> But please know I will not let you render me
> or those of my ilk
> invisible.
>
>
> >Inter alia, I was accuseful
> >repeatedly
> >of having a 'gotcha mentality'.
>
> My statement was that you used that argument technique.
> I never meant to imply anything about your mentality.
> I would consider discussing anyone's mentality inappropriate.
>
>
>
> Avri Doria
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130412/ef312c41/attachment.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 avri at ella.com  Fri Apr 12 06:17:38 2013
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 18:17:38 +0800
Subject: [governance] Re: What else is discrimination?
In-Reply-To: <5167DBEF.2050707@itforchange.net>
References: <CAPUFQLoaONWazFX6oSxMDuSdO0dtvH3rP2CMTmU0v6PvzTtKgA@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxhZWa=Mxh=ezwAz7y_+MFaM7z9ec--S5Q83RtL-apn42A@mail.gmail.com> <20130409230309.47173bf7@quill.bollow.ch> <51650F74.1030204@gmail.com> <516645D6.7080503@itforchange.net> <1081564d-26a6-4cea-9751-139b6db1104f@email.android.com> <5167DBEF.2050707@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <b64ea25c-27e1-4f0b-9267-909523040f24@email.android.com>

Ah misreporting again.

It is your reactions I am apprehensive and sometimes afraid of.
But you got me.
Congrats

Or maybe ...
My challenge to you, try being queer sometime in any culture.
Perhaps we should see whose tale of woe is bigger.


parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>
>
>Are you, Avri, really already fearful of this list and its
>interactions? 
>Dont then ever try to be one from a developing country, seeking to 
>articulate views that dont match the status quo in global IG today. You
>
>wont survive a week over here. Just a friendly advice in case you ever 
>thought of switching roles :) . parminder
>
>On Thursday 11 April 2013 04:09 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>  wrote:
>>
>> es, there is a strong
>>> political bias coming from an entrenched 'structure of power' on
>this
>>> list. That bias is in fact exactly the opposite direction to what
>has
>>> been made out by the recent accusations. Although anyone who has
>tried
>>> to pursue with any seriousness a counter-hegemonic view on this list
>>> knows only too well what this 'structure of power' here is and with
>>> what
>>> kind of devastating effectiveness it works, a few recent examples
>may
>>> still be useful because entrenched social power also has this thing
>>> about quickly getting invisible, although no less potent for that.
>>>
>> Indeed on this list it its you who rules and the rest of us who run
>scared.
>> People of my ilk are the voice in the wilderness on this list these
>days.
>>
>> I am certainly always nervous about engaging when you are involved.
>> I do it because I fear fear more than I fear your wrath,
>> but have no doubt,
>> I am afraid of your wrath
>> and the way you wield language.
>>
>> I hope confessing my fear is not considered an attack.
>> But please know I will not let you render me
>> or those of my ilk
>> invisible.
>>
>>
>>> Inter alia, I was accuseful
>>> repeatedly
>>> of having a 'gotcha mentality'.
>> My statement was that you used that argument technique.
>> I never meant to imply anything about your mentality.
>> I would consider discussing anyone's mentality inappropriate.
>>
>>
>>
>> Avri Doria
>>

~~~
avri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130412/79f10287/attachment.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  Fri Apr 12 12:40:45 2013
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:40:45 +0100
Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <HaSYk1BNkDaRFAvr@internetpolicyagency.com>

One of the most significant I'm aware of (and I hope this is within the 
remit of your question): The private sector has built extensive networks 
[fixed and mobile] using $billons of investment on which their 
shareholders [many of whom are the consumers' pension funds] expect a 
return, versus many customers who feel entitled to have unlimited usage 
for a relatively trivial monthly payment (which they sometimes dress up 
as "Network Neutrality").

I post this not to support either of the above points of view, but 
merely to inform readers of the conflict it unquestionably represents.
-- 
Roland Perry

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nb at bollow.ch  Fri Apr 12 13:20:13 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:20:13 +0200
Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <HaSYk1BNkDaRFAvr@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch>
	<HaSYk1BNkDaRFAvr@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch>

Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:

> One of the most significant I'm aware of (and I hope this is within
> the remit of your question):

It definitely is, and it's a conflict that I have not been sufficiently
conscious of, so thank you very much for pointing this out!

Greetings,
Norbert

> The private sector has built extensive
> networks [fixed and mobile] using $billons of investment on which
> their shareholders [many of whom are the consumers' pension funds]
> expect a return, versus many customers who feel entitled to have
> unlimited usage for a relatively trivial monthly payment (which they
> sometimes dress up as "Network Neutrality").
> 
> I post this not to support either of the above points of view, but 
> merely to inform readers of the conflict it unquestionably represents.


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Fri Apr 12 22:56:02 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 10:56:02 +0800
Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United
 States Regarding Internet Governance
Message-ID: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org>

It doesn't seem to have been mentioned here yet (or maybe only in passing) that there is a bill on Internet governance being debated in the Energy & Commerce Committee of the US House of Representatives at the moment.  There will doubtless be stampede of uncritical support for it from politicians of all sides (there is no hidden intellectual property "gotcha"), but unfortunately its premises are fundamentally flawed.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/markup/markup-bill-affirm-policy-united-states-regarding-internet-governance

It only has two sections: one on "Findings" and one on "Policy regarding Internet governance", which flows from the findings.  The latter simply states:

"It is the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control and to preserve and advance the successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet."

So this is obviously nonsense; it is not US policy to promote a global Internet free from government control, only free from the control of other governments besides itself.  And note that US policy is only to "preserve and advance" not to "enhance" the multistakeholder model, which continues the fiction that the multistakeholder institutions that we have now are adequate both in their inclusiveness and in the breadth of Internet governance topics that they cover.

Of course, you can argue for more beneficial interpretations by defining "control" and "multistakeholder model" expansively, but even so this bill is just going to entrench the standoff between the US and other countries, which is not going to be helpful in reaching compromise on the evolution of Internet governance arrangements this year...

-- 
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

WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013

@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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130413/5c64bbc5/attachment.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 cveraq at gmail.com  Fri Apr 12 23:10:16 2013
From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 22:10:16 -0500
Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United
 States Regarding Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <78F58EA2-370B-418A-9181-24E9FF0BC1F0@gmail.com>

Very good points. 

Carlos Vera

El 12/04/2013, a las 21:56, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> escribió:

> It doesn't seem to have been mentioned here yet (or maybe only in passing) that there is a bill on Internet governance being debated in the Energy & Commerce Committee of the US House of Representatives at the moment.  There will doubtless be stampede of uncritical support for it from politicians of all sides (there is no hidden intellectual property "gotcha"), but unfortunately its premises are fundamentally flawed.
> 
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/markup/markup-bill-affirm-policy-united-states-regarding-internet-governance
> 
> It only has two sections: one on "Findings" and one on "Policy regarding Internet governance", which flows from the findings.  The latter simply states:
> 
> "It is the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control and to preserve and advance the successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet."
> 
> So this is obviously nonsense; it is not US policy to promote a global Internet free from government control, only free from the control of other governments besides itself.  And note that US policy is only to "preserve and advance" not to "enhance" the multistakeholder model, which continues the fiction that the multistakeholder institutions that we have now are adequate both in their inclusiveness and in the breadth of Internet governance topics that they cover.
> 
> Of course, you can argue for more beneficial interpretations by defining "control" and "multistakeholder model" expansively, but even so this bill is just going to entrench the standoff between the US and other countries, which is not going to be helpful in reaching compromise on the evolution of Internet governance arrangements this year...
> 
> -- 
> 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
> 
> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013
> 
> @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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130412/aba783bd/attachment.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 avri at acm.org  Fri Apr 12 23:23:09 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 11:23:09 +0800
Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United
 States Regarding Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <10dd39a6-2818-4666-90c6-574f68f03ef4@email.android.com>

Hi,

I have not read the bill yet, but from what you say, I find its premise reasonable. I am sure I will find something to be critical of when I have read the whole thing.

Or did you mean critical thought in the philosophical sense. Which can agrees as much as it can disagree.

I too wish for an Internet free of government control.  Any government control. 
Though of course I accept them as one stakeholder among the other stakeholders.

And I too wish to preserve and advance, aka make better and more prevalent, the multistakeholder model.

So from what you have quoted, I find little to disagree with so far. 
Though I am sure I will find lots to quibble about in the full language.

Yes, there are governments that wish to control the Internet. 
But I do not believe that its in anyone's interests, not civil society's and not even the governments, for them to try do so.  
I don't believe they would ever succeed, but they could certainly cause a lot of dangers and degradation of the rights concerns we all have in the operation of an open Internet.

I do believe the model needs to be enhanced, aka made better or advanced. 
And I do believe there are many parts of the model that can be advanced, enhanced and improved.
And I do believe there is a lot of room for improvements in stakeholder participation, accountability and transparency.

If only we could focus on that instead of constantly needing to defend it against those who would destroy it by turning it into a intergovernmental fiefdom.

Now whether I believe anything the US Congress does can actually achieve that goal is another matter completely.

But I would personally be happy to see every government make a pledge to keep their hands off of the management of the Internet and to become good actors as stakeholders in the governance of the Internet.

Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

>It doesn't seem to have been mentioned here yet (or maybe only in
>passing) that there is a bill on Internet governance being debated in
>the Energy & Commerce Committee of the US House of Representatives at
>the moment.  There will doubtless be stampede of uncritical support for
>it from politicians of all sides (there is no hidden intellectual
>property "gotcha"), but unfortunately its premises are fundamentally
>flawed.
>
>http://energycommerce.house.gov/markup/markup-bill-affirm-policy-united-states-regarding-internet-governance
>
>It only has two sections: one on "Findings" and one on "Policy
>regarding Internet governance", which flows from the findings.  The
>latter simply states:
>
>"It is the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet
>free from government control and to preserve and advance the successful
>multistakeholder model that governs the Internet."
>
>So this is obviously nonsense; it is not US policy to promote a global
>Internet free from government control, only free from the control of
>other governments besides itself.  And note that US policy is only to
>"preserve and advance" not to "enhance" the multistakeholder model,
>which continues the fiction that the multistakeholder institutions that
>we have now are adequate both in their inclusiveness and in the breadth
>of Internet governance topics that they cover.
>
>Of course, you can argue for more beneficial interpretations by
>defining "control" and "multistakeholder model" expansively, but even
>so this bill is just going to entrench the standoff between the US and
>other countries, which is not going to be helpful in reaching
>compromise on the evolution of Internet governance arrangements this
>year...
>
>-- 
>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
>
>WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map:
>https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013
>
>@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
>www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
>Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
>necessary.

Avri Doria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130413/cbfc6d48/attachment.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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri Apr 12 23:35:18 2013
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 13:35:18 +1000
Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United
 States Regarding Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <EE796AE9A5FF43279790844911092B2F@Toshiba>

yes, the concept of no government involvement is nonsense. The Public Knowledge response (or draft response, it may have changed) included the following. Not that I entirely agree with it, but it makes some relevant points about the language.

“ we fear that the broad language of the proposed bill may
intrude on areas of consumer protection, competition policy, law enforcement and
cybersecurity long considered appropriate for national policy formulated by governments
with input from civil society, business and the technical community. For example, the
United States has by law protected the privacy of children online through Child Online
Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) for nearly 15 years. Although we opposed the ITU
resolution to require countries to limit spam, the United States protects its citizens from
spam through the CAN-SPAM Act. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), the Department of Justice and numerous other
federal and state agencies have long played a critical role in protecting consumers and
promoting competition and their existing statutes.
We fear that if this bill becomes law, rather than being understood as simply a resolution
directed specifically against the efforts to expand the jurisdiction of the ITU, these
important and long-standing government policies will be undermined. Our opposition to
ceding authority to the ITU to decide how to balance consumer protection and free
expression is not because we see no role for government in protecting consumers or
promoting competition. Rather, we believe those matters are best decided here at home,
by a Congress accountable to the people and enforced by a government constrained by
the Constitution. Similarly, many who oppose addressing cybersecurity or law
enforcement issues at the ITU regard it as entirely appropriate for Congress or other
federal agencies to address these concerns, subject to the Constitutional limitations of due
process and free expression.”

Certainly a number of US groups have opposed the language for this and similar reasons.

From: Jeremy Malcolm 
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 12:56 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance

It doesn't seem to have been mentioned here yet (or maybe only in passing) that there is a bill on Internet governance being debated in the Energy & Commerce Committee of the US House of Representatives at the moment.  There will doubtless be stampede of uncritical support for it from politicians of all sides (there is no hidden intellectual property "gotcha"), but unfortunately its premises are fundamentally flawed.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/markup/markup-bill-affirm-policy-united-states-regarding-internet-governance

It only has two sections: one on "Findings" and one on "Policy regarding Internet governance", which flows from the findings.  The latter simply states:

"It is the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control and to preserve and advance the successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet."

So this is obviously nonsense; it is not US policy to promote a global Internet free from government control, only free from the control of other governments besides itself.  And note that US policy is only to "preserve and advance" not to "enhance" the multistakeholder model, which continues the fiction that the multistakeholder institutions that we have now are adequate both in their inclusiveness and in the breadth of Internet governance topics that they cover.

Of course, you can argue for more beneficial interpretations by defining "control" and "multistakeholder model" expansively, but even so this bill is just going to entrench the standoff between the US and other countries, which is not going to be helpful in reaching compromise on the evolution of Internet governance arrangements this year...

-- 

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


WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013

@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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130413/ce793248/attachment.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 avri at acm.org  Fri Apr 12 23:43:49 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 11:43:49 +0800
Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United
 States Regarding Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <10dd39a6-2818-4666-90c6-574f68f03ef4@email.android.com>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <10dd39a6-2818-4666-90c6-574f68f03ef4@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <6262618d-41a4-43ee-ba63-c5aca0397725@email.android.com>

Hi.

The issue its _not_ one of no government involvement. They are stakeholder that play a role. 

It is one of no government control.

Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I have not read the bill yet, but from what you say, I find its premise
>reasonable. I am sure I will find something to be critical of when I
>have read the whole thing.
>
>Or did you mean critical thought in the philosophical sense. Which can
>agrees as much as it can disagree.
>
>I too wish for an Internet free of government control.  Any government
>control. 
>Though of course I accept them as one stakeholder among the other
>stakeholders.
>
>And I too wish to preserve and advance, aka make better and more
>prevalent, the multistakeholder model.
>
>So from what you have quoted, I find little to disagree with so far. 
>Though I am sure I will find lots to quibble about in the full
>language.
>
>Yes, there are governments that wish to control the Internet. 
>But I do not believe that its in anyone's interests, not civil
>society's and not even the governments, for them to try do so.  
>I don't believe they would ever succeed, but they could certainly cause
>a lot of dangers and degradation of the rights concerns we all have in
>the operation of an open Internet.
>
>I do believe the model needs to be enhanced, aka made better or
>advanced. 
>And I do believe there are many parts of the model that can be
>advanced, enhanced and improved.
>And I do believe there is a lot of room for improvements in stakeholder
>participation, accountability and transparency.
>
>If only we could focus on that instead of constantly needing to defend
>it against those who would destroy it by turning it into a
>intergovernmental fiefdom.
>
>Now whether I believe anything the US Congress does can actually
>achieve that goal is another matter completely.
>
>But I would personally be happy to see every government make a pledge
>to keep their hands off of the management of the Internet and to become
>good actors as stakeholders in the governance of the Internet.
>
>Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>
>>It doesn't seem to have been mentioned here yet (or maybe only in
>>passing) that there is a bill on Internet governance being debated in
>>the Energy & Commerce Committee of the US House of Representatives at
>>the moment.  There will doubtless be stampede of uncritical support
>for
>>it from politicians of all sides (there is no hidden intellectual
>>property "gotcha"), but unfortunately its premises are fundamentally
>>flawed.
>>
>>http://energycommerce.house.gov/markup/markup-bill-affirm-policy-united-states-regarding-internet-governance
>>
>>It only has two sections: one on "Findings" and one on "Policy
>>regarding Internet governance", which flows from the findings.  The
>>latter simply states:
>>
>>"It is the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet
>>free from government control and to preserve and advance the
>successful
>>multistakeholder model that governs the Internet."
>>
>>So this is obviously nonsense; it is not US policy to promote a global
>>Internet free from government control, only free from the control of
>>other governments besides itself.  And note that US policy is only to
>>"preserve and advance" not to "enhance" the multistakeholder model,
>>which continues the fiction that the multistakeholder institutions
>that
>>we have now are adequate both in their inclusiveness and in the
>breadth
>>of Internet governance topics that they cover.
>>
>>Of course, you can argue for more beneficial interpretations by
>>defining "control" and "multistakeholder model" expansively, but even
>>so this bill is just going to entrench the standoff between the US and
>>other countries, which is not going to be helpful in reaching
>>compromise on the evolution of Internet governance arrangements this
>>year...
>>
>>-- 
>>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
>>
>>WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map:
>>https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013
>>
>>@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
>>www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>
>>Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
>>necessary.
>
>Avri Doria

Avri Doria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130413/012dbe32/attachment.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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri Apr 12 23:54:11 2013
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 13:54:11 +1000
Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United
 States Regarding Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <6262618d-41a4-43ee-ba63-c5aca0397725@email.android.com>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <10dd39a6-2818-4666-90c6-574f68f03ef4@email.android.com> <6262618d-41a4-43ee-ba63-c5aca0397725@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <055BBE6056AC406F871CC5F179D007AF@Toshiba>

sorry, my loose language.

However I would be very surprised if the US government (or most governments in fact) were to determine they dont have a controlling role in areas such as competition policy, law enforcement etc

From: Avri Doria 
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 1:43 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
Subject: Re: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance

Hi.

The issue its _not_ one of no government involvement. They are stakeholder that play a role. 

It is one of no government control.


Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote: 
  Hi,

  I have not read the bill yet, but from what you say, I find its premise reasonable. I am sure I will find something to be critical of when I have read the whole thing.

  Or did you mean critical thought in the philosophical sense. Which can agrees as much as it can disagree.

  I too wish for an Internet free of government control. Any government control. 
  Though of course I accept them as one stakeholder among the other stakeholders.

  And I too wish to preserve and advance, aka make better and more prevalent, the multistakeholder model.

  So from what you have quoted, I find little to disagree with so far. 
  Though I am sure I will find lots to quibble about in the full language.

  Yes, there are governments that wish to control the Internet. 
  But I do not believe that its in anyone's interests, not civil society's and not even the governments, for them to try do so. 
  I don't believe they would ever succeed, but they could certainly cause a lot of dangers and degradation of the rights concerns we all have in the operation of an open Internet.

  I do believe the model needs to be enhanced, aka made better or advanced. 
  And I do believe there are many parts of the model that can be advanced, enhanced and improved.
  And I do believe there is a lot of room for improvements in stakeholder participation, accountability and transparency.

  If only we could focus on that instead of constantly needing to defend it against those who would destroy it by turning it into a intergovernmental fiefdom.

  Now whether I believe anything the US Congress does can actually achieve that goal is another matter completely.

  But I would personally be happy to see every government make a pledge to keep their hands off of the management of the Internet and to become good actors as stakeholders in the governance of the Internet.


  Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote: 
    It doesn't seem to have been mentioned here yet (or maybe only in passing) that there is a bill on Internet governance being debated in the Energy & Commerce Committee of the US House of Representatives at the moment.  There will doubtless be stampede of uncritical support for it from politicians of all sides (there is no hidden intellectual property "gotcha"), but unfortunately its premises are fundamentally flawed.

    http://energycommerce.house.gov/markup/markup-bill-affirm-policy-united-states-regarding-internet-governance

    It only has two sections: one on "Findings" and one on "Policy regarding Internet governance", which flows from the findings.  The latter simply states:

    "It is the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control and to preserve and advance the successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet."

    So this is obviously nonsense; it is not US policy to promote a global Internet free from government control, only free from the control of other governments besides itself.  And note that US policy is only to "preserve and advance" not to "enhance" the multistakeholder model, which continues the fiction that the multistakeholder institutions that we have now are adequate both in their inclusiveness and in the breadth of Internet governance topics that they cover.

    Of course, you can argue for more beneficial interpretations by defining "control" and "multistakeholder model" expansively, but even so this bill is just going to entrench the standoff between the US and other countries, which is not going to be helpful in reaching compromise on the evolution of Internet governance arrangements this year...

    -- 

    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


    WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013

    @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

    Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.



  Avri Doria

Avri Doria 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130413/1ff05e4a/attachment.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 andrea at digitalpolicy.it  Sat Apr 13 01:56:01 2013
From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 13:56:01 +0800
Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United
 States Regarding Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <6262618d-41a4-43ee-ba63-c5aca0397725@email.android.com>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org>
	<10dd39a6-2818-4666-90c6-574f68f03ef4@email.android.com>
	<6262618d-41a4-43ee-ba63-c5aca0397725@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <CAOLD2+bn6d3vqZDShzUH=70zbbEQjk6j=c6aAjOROBVArLDEjQ@mail.gmail.com>

Avri,

On Saturday, April 13, 2013, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> The issue its _not_ one of no government involvement. They are
stakeholder that play a role.
>
> It is one of no government control.

How can be governments / public authorities be "one of the stakeholders"
when enforcing existing laws?

It's not a trick question, although it might be a tricky one.

Ciao,

Andrea

-- 

--
I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it
in mind.
Twitter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130413/38b57da8/attachment.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 avri at acm.org  Sat Apr 13 02:42:15 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 14:42:15 +0800
Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United
 States Regarding Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <CAOLD2+bn6d3vqZDShzUH=70zbbEQjk6j=c6aAjOROBVArLDEjQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <10dd39a6-2818-4666-90c6-574f68f03ef4@email.android.com> <6262618d-41a4-43ee-ba63-c5aca0397725@email.android.com> <CAOLD2+bn6d3vqZDShzUH=70zbbEQjk6j=c6aAjOROBVArLDEjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75347822-95f9-49be-a736-9df72fdeebaf@email.android.com>

Hi,

Quick answer while waiting to board.

Within their national borders governments can do whatever their citizens let then get away with according to the imposition of national law: whatever degree of democracy, or lack thereof, they use. 

On the Internet, especially in transjurisdictional areas and especially in the management of the network they are but one stakeholder among many.



Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:

>Avri,
>
>On Saturday, April 13, 2013, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> The issue its _not_ one of no government involvement. They are
>stakeholder that play a role.
>>
>> It is one of no government control.
>
>How can be governments / public authorities be "one of the
>stakeholders"
>when enforcing existing laws?
>
>It's not a trick question, although it might be a tricky one.
>
>Ciao,
>
>Andrea
>
>-- 
>
>--
>I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself.
>Keep it
>in mind.
>Twitter: @andreaglorioso
>Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
>LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro

Avri Doria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130413/c6e0c956/attachment.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  Sat Apr 13 04:10:53 2013
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 09:10:53 +0100
Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United
 States Regarding Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <CAOLD2+bn6d3vqZDShzUH=70zbbEQjk6j=c6aAjOROBVArLDEjQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org>
 <10dd39a6-2818-4666-90c6-574f68f03ef4@email.android.com>
 <6262618d-41a4-43ee-ba63-c5aca0397725@email.android.com>
 <CAOLD2+bn6d3vqZDShzUH=70zbbEQjk6j=c6aAjOROBVArLDEjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <NIy6g9DNMRaRFAOf@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<CAOLD2+bn6d3vqZDShzUH=70zbbEQjk6j=c6aAjOROBVArLDEjQ at mail.gmail.com>, at 
13:56:01 on Sat, 13 Apr 2013, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> 
writes

>How can be governments / public authorities be "one of the 
>stakeholders" when enforcing existing laws?
>
>It's not a trick question, although it might be a tricky one.

It all depends what is meant by "The Internet".

Let's take an example: If a government outlawed VoIP within its borders, 
and required ISPs to block it, that would most likely be the kind of 
control which would draw disapproval from a wide audience.

But if a government approached a VoIP provider and said "by law we 
require you record identities of subscribers, and *today* we require you 
to divulge the identity of *this* subscriber, because either (a) his 
house is apparently on fire and he couldn't tell the emergency operator 
what the address was; or (b) a call from that number triggered an 
explosive device, and we wish to investigate whether he is the 
perpetrator"; then perhaps such control would draw a greater degree of 
general approval.

And halfway in between, should a government be allowed to control what 
telephone numbers are assigned, by the supplier, to VoIP subscribers, so 
that they are globally unique and not already in use by a completely 
different telco's subscriber?
-- 
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 dl at panamo.eu  Sat Apr 13 05:10:51 2013
From: dl at panamo.eu (dl at panamo.eu)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 11:10:51 +0200
Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United
 States Regarding Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <CAOLD2+bn6d3vqZDShzUH=70zbbEQjk6j=c6aAjOROBVArLDEjQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org>
 <10dd39a6-2818-4666-90c6-574f68f03ef4@email.android.com>
 <6262618d-41a4-43ee-ba63-c5aca0397725@email.android.com>
 <CAOLD2+bn6d3vqZDShzUH=70zbbEQjk6j=c6aAjOROBVArLDEjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <24bf59c1fe1a663e39791062e14dc7ae@localhost>

Hi all,

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 13:56:01 +0800, Andrea Glorioso
<andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
> How can be governments / public authorities be "one of the
> stakeholders" when enforcing existing laws?
> 
> It's not a trick question, although it might be a tricky one. 

Right. And who will enforce public interest?

Best, @+, Dominique

--
Dominique Lacroix
reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr
ies-france.eu


> Avri,
> 
> On Saturday, April 13, 2013, Avri Doria  wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> The issue its _not_ one of no government involvement. They are
> stakeholder that play a role.
>  >
>> It is one of no government control.
> 
> How can be governments / public authorities be "one of the
> stakeholders" when enforcing existing laws?
> 
> It's not a trick question, although it might be a tricky one. 
> 
> Ciao,
> 
> Andrea


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From andrea at digitalpolicy.it  Sat Apr 13 05:35:50 2013
From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 17:35:50 +0800
Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United
 States Regarding Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <NIy6g9DNMRaRFAOf@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org>
	<10dd39a6-2818-4666-90c6-574f68f03ef4@email.android.com>
	<6262618d-41a4-43ee-ba63-c5aca0397725@email.android.com>
	<CAOLD2+bn6d3vqZDShzUH=70zbbEQjk6j=c6aAjOROBVArLDEjQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<NIy6g9DNMRaRFAOf@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <CAOLD2+Y2HG5xLTjJ-7LzXg+ZLoYekAKiVPhV7EOTnpmLrHc=YA@mail.gmail.com>

Roland,

My question was meant to have a slightly different objective than assessing
what is seen as legitimate or not, although this is also an element.

I'm more interested in understanding who is supposed to enforce laws.

Best,

Andrea

On Saturday, April 13, 2013, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com>
wrote:
> In message <CAOLD2+bn6d3vqZDShzUH=70zbbEQjk6j=
c6aAjOROBVArLDEjQ at mail.gmail.com>, at 13:56:01 on Sat, 13 Apr 2013, Andrea
Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> writes
>
>> How can be governments / public authorities be "one of the stakeholders"
when enforcing existing laws?
>>
>> It's not a trick question, although it might be a tricky one.
>
> It all depends what is meant by "The Internet".
>
> Let's take an example: If a government outlawed VoIP within its borders,
and required ISPs to block it, that would most likely be the kind of
control which would draw disapproval from a wide audience.
>
> But if a government approached a VoIP provider and said "by law we
require you record identities of subscribers, and *today* we require you to
divulge the identity of *this* subscriber, because either (a) his house is
apparently on fire and he couldn't tell the emergency operator what the
address was; or (b) a call from that number triggered an explosive device,
and we wish to investigate whether he is the perpetrator"; then perhaps
such control would draw a greater degree of general approval.
>
> And halfway in between, should a government be allowed to control what
telephone numbers are assigned, by the supplier, to VoIP subscribers, so
that they are globally unique and not already in use by a completely
different telco's subscriber?
> --
> Roland Perry
>
>

-- 

--
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130413/b45faf89/attachment.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  Sat Apr 13 06:20:05 2013
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 11:20:05 +0100
Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United
 States Regarding Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <CAOLD2+Y2HG5xLTjJ-7LzXg+ZLoYekAKiVPhV7EOTnpmLrHc=YA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org>
 <10dd39a6-2818-4666-90c6-574f68f03ef4@email.android.com>
 <6262618d-41a4-43ee-ba63-c5aca0397725@email.android.com>
 <CAOLD2+bn6d3vqZDShzUH=70zbbEQjk6j=c6aAjOROBVArLDEjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <NIy6g9DNMRaRFAOf@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <CAOLD2+Y2HG5xLTjJ-7LzXg+ZLoYekAKiVPhV7EOTnpmLrHc=YA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <yOEVBkQVFTaRFAI5@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<CAOLD2+Y2HG5xLTjJ-7LzXg+ZLoYekAKiVPhV7EOTnpmLrHc=YA at mail.gmail.com>, at 
17:35:50 on Sat, 13 Apr 2013, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> 
writes
>Roland,
>My question was meant to have a slightly different objective than
>assessing what is seen as legitimate or not, although this is also an
>element.

I was trying hard not to pre-empt whether the activities I listed were 
in fact legitimate, rather I was picking [one small] area of "Internet" 
policy where I hope people can see that there are a *range* of issues to 
be addressed, and that you can't (eg) put all VoIP issues into one box 
and accept or deny "government control" of either "none of them" or "all 
of them". Each aspect needs a debate of its own.

Some might not even agree that all three aspects of my example are 
*Internet* Governance.

>I'm more interested in understanding who is supposed to enforce laws.

Whichever agencies have those laws within their remit. Which is often a 
domestic agency, but might be an international one.

And a tricky question from me: If people who uphold the law are 
potentially not a legitimate stakeholder, what about the people who 
break the law? [Who could be individuals, corporations and even 
sometimes governments]

R.

>Best,
>Andrea
>On Saturday, April 13, 2013, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>> In message <CAOLD2+bn6d3vqZDShzUH=70zbbEQjk6j=
>c6aAjOROBVArLDEjQ at mail.gmail.com>, at 13:56:01 on Sat, 13 Apr 2013,
>Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> writes
>>
>>> How can be governments / public authorities be "one of the
>stakeholders" when enforcing existing laws?
>>>
>>> It's not a trick question, although it might be a tricky one.
>>
>> It all depends what is meant by "The Internet".
>>
>> Let's take an example: If a government outlawed VoIP within its
>borders, and required ISPs to block it, that would most likely be the
>kind of control which would draw disapproval from a wide audience.
>>
>> But if a government approached a VoIP provider and said "by law we
>require you record identities of subscribers, and *today* we require
>you to divulge the identity of *this* subscriber, because either (a)
>his house is apparently on fire and he couldn't tell the emergency
>operator what the address was; or (b) a call from that number triggered
>an explosive device, and we wish to investigate whether he is the
>perpetrator"; then perhaps such control would draw a greater degree of
>general approval.
>>
>> And halfway in between, should a government be allowed to control
>what telephone numbers are assigned, by the supplier, to VoIP
>subscribers, so that they are globally unique and not already in use by
>a completely different telco's subscriber?
>> --
>> Roland Perry
>>
>>
>
>--
>
>--
>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

-- 
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 genekimmelman at gmail.com  Sat Apr 13 09:55:02 2013
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 09:55:02 -0400
Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United
 States Regarding Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <CA+4KnA9peWBPTT5NUBx-0giwZVvDiiKWREy6S8ydOcyLFotT2g@mail.gmail.com>

Jeremy raises some important points about this proposed legislation
currently before the U.S. Congress. A number of U.S. NGOs have written
letters objecting to the language in the legislation, both for impact on
important aspects of freedom of expression/citizen and consumer protection
under U.S. law, and for misstating the current status of global engagement
in Internet policy and the multistakeholder process.  I believe the groups
will be sharing their views more broadly with this community, and will be
pushing for changes in the legislation as it moves through the review
process before the U.S. Congress.


On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> It doesn't seem to have been mentioned here yet (or maybe only in passing)
> that there is a bill on Internet governance being debated in the Energy &
> Commerce Committee of the US House of Representatives at the moment.  There
> will doubtless be stampede of uncritical support for it from politicians of
> all sides (there is no hidden intellectual property "gotcha"), but
> unfortunately its premises are fundamentally flawed.
>
>
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/markup/markup-bill-affirm-policy-united-states-regarding-internet-governance
>
> It only has two sections: one on "Findings" and one on "Policy regarding
> Internet governance", which flows from the findings.  The latter simply
> states:
>
> "It is the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free
> from government control and to preserve and advance the successful
> multistakeholder model that governs the Internet."
>
> So this is obviously nonsense; it is not US policy to promote a global
> Internet free from government control, only free from the control of other
> governments besides itself.  And note that US policy is only to "preserve
> and advance" not to "enhance" the multistakeholder model, which continues
> the fiction that the multistakeholder institutions that we have now are
> adequate both in their inclusiveness and in the breadth of Internet
> governance topics that they cover.
>
> Of course, you can argue for more beneficial interpretations by defining
> "control" and "multistakeholder model" expansively, but even so this bill
> is just going to entrench the standoff between the US and other countries,
> which is not going to be helpful in reaching compromise on the evolution of
> Internet governance arrangements this year...
>
> --
>
> *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
>
> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map:
> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130413/cb18e07d/attachment.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 gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Apr 13 10:26:05 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 07:26:05 -0700
Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United
 States Regarding Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <CA+4KnA9peWBPTT5NUBx-0giwZVvDiiKWREy6S8ydOcyLFotT2g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <CA+4KnA9peWBPTT5NUBx-0giwZVvDiiKWREy6S8ydOcyLFotT2g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <080901ce3852$dd763b70$9862b250$@gmail.com>

This, once visibly put into practice, is very welcome news indeed. Many in
the rest of the world were astonished at the capacity of certain elements of
US Civil Society and the Technical Community to offer uncritical support for
what is so evidently self-serving hypocrisy of the form, do as we say not as
we do.

 

M

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Gene Kimmonce
elman
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 6:55 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jeremy Malcolm
Subject: Re: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United
States Regarding Internet Governance

 

Jeremy raises some important points about this proposed legislation
currently before the U.S. Congress. A number of U.S. NGOs have written
letters objecting to the language in the legislation, both for impact on
important aspects of freedom of expression/citizen and consumer protection
under U.S. law, and for misstating the current status of global engagement
in Internet policy and the multistakeholder process.  I believe the groups
will be sharing their views more broadly with this community, and will be
pushing for changes in the legislation as it moves through the review
process before the U.S. Congress.

 

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

It doesn't seem to have been mentioned here yet (or maybe only in passing)
that there is a bill on Internet governance being debated in the Energy &
Commerce Committee of the US House of Representatives at the moment.  There
will doubtless be stampede of uncritical support for it from politicians of
all sides (there is no hidden intellectual property "gotcha"), but
unfortunately its premises are fundamentally flawed.

 

http://energycommerce.house.gov/markup/markup-bill-affirm-policy-united-stat
es-regarding-internet-governance

 

It only has two sections: one on "Findings" and one on "Policy regarding
Internet governance", which flows from the findings.  The latter simply
states:

 

"It is the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free
from government control and to preserve and advance the successful
multistakeholder model that governs the Internet."

 

So this is obviously nonsense; it is not US policy to promote a global
Internet free from government control, only free from the control of other
governments besides itself.  And note that US policy is only to "preserve
and advance" not to "enhance" the multistakeholder model, which continues
the fiction that the multistakeholder institutions that we have now are
adequate both in their inclusiveness and in the breadth of Internet
governance topics that they cover.

 

Of course, you can argue for more beneficial interpretations by defining
"control" and "multistakeholder model" expansively, but even so this bill is
just going to entrench the standoff between the US and other countries,
which is not going to be helpful in reaching compromise on the evolution of
Internet governance arrangements this year...

 

-- 

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 <tel:%2B60%203%207726%201599> 

WCRD 2013 - Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map:
https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/>  |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . Don't print
this email unless necessary.

 


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130413/012e3698/attachment.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 lmcknigh at syr.edu  Sat Apr 13 14:51:53 2013
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 18:51:53 +0000
Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United
 States Regarding Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <080901ce3852$dd763b70$9862b250$@gmail.com>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org>
 <CA+4KnA9peWBPTT5NUBx-0giwZVvDiiKWREy6S8ydOcyLFotT2g@mail.gmail.com>,<080901ce3852$dd763b70$9862b250$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1E844B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Before we get too too excited about this Internet governance bill....note it is just at the level of the House subcommittee and would have to go to the full House of Representatives and then...

Oh yeah, there would need to be a corresponding Senate bill for this to be any more than political theater.

Maybe such a thing has been introduced to the Senate but from a quick scan I find no mention.

In sum, lots of noise and no substance here, unless and until the Senate moves something similar along.

Since the Obama administration likes its wiggle room as much as the next government, and is not backing the House (Republicans) efforts, then...much ado about not very much, is my (always humble) analysis.

But hey, at least house republicans have learned to say the words 'multistakeholder model' and 'internet governance,' we should count our blessings ; )

Lee




________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 10:26 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Gene Kimmelman'; 'Jeremy Malcolm'
Subject: RE: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance

This, once visibly put into practice, is very welcome news indeed. Many in the rest of the world were astonished at the capacity of certain elements of US Civil Society and the Technical Community to offer uncritical support for what is so evidently self-serving hypocrisy of the form, do as we say not as we do.

M

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Gene Kimmonce elman
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 6:55 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jeremy Malcolm
Subject: Re: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance

Jeremy raises some important points about this proposed legislation currently before the U.S. Congress. A number of U.S. NGOs have written letters objecting to the language in the legislation, both for impact on important aspects of freedom of expression/citizen and consumer protection under U.S. law, and for misstating the current status of global engagement in Internet policy and the multistakeholder process.  I believe the groups will be sharing their views more broadly with this community, and will be pushing for changes in the legislation as it moves through the review process before the U.S. Congress.

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org<mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
It doesn't seem to have been mentioned here yet (or maybe only in passing) that there is a bill on Internet governance being debated in the Energy & Commerce Committee of the US House of Representatives at the moment.  There will doubtless be stampede of uncritical support for it from politicians of all sides (there is no hidden intellectual property "gotcha"), but unfortunately its premises are fundamentally flawed.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/markup/markup-bill-affirm-policy-united-states-regarding-internet-governance

It only has two sections: one on "Findings" and one on "Policy regarding Internet governance", which flows from the findings.  The latter simply states:

"It is the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control and to preserve and advance the successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet."

So this is obviously nonsense; it is not US policy to promote a global Internet free from government control, only free from the control of other governments besides itself.  And note that US policy is only to "preserve and advance" not to "enhance" the multistakeholder model, which continues the fiction that the multistakeholder institutions that we have now are adequate both in their inclusiveness and in the breadth of Internet governance topics that they cover.

Of course, you can argue for more beneficial interpretations by defining "control" and "multistakeholder model" expansively, but even so this bill is just going to entrench the standoff between the US and other countries, which is not going to be helpful in reaching compromise on the evolution of Internet governance arrangements this year...

--

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<tel:%2B60%203%207726%201599>

WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org<http://www.consumersinternational.org/> | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't print this email unless necessary.


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130413/1e89c6d5/attachment.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 gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Apr 13 15:54:43 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 12:54:43 -0700
Subject: [governance] FW: Letter to House Energy and Commerce Committee from
 OTI and CDT
References: <86C24DC3-3A18-4486-969B-119BC55284C1@gmail.com> <E73DFBB5-A49D-4865-8CC7-34AB7E218A6E@gmail.com> 
Message-ID: <092e01ce3880$c4d9cae0$4e8d60a0$@gmail.com>

(Gene and I have been going back and forth on this a bit and he asked me to
forward this.)

FWIW I think the attached letter presents a very useful platform from which
broader based collaborations and international campaigns in the IG areas can
be developed through the BestBits discussions among others, and perhaps even
help to move the discussion forward on the IGC list beyond the current
unproductive stalemate.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 12:08 PM
To: gurstein at gmail.com
Subject: Letter to House Energy and Commerce Committee from OTI and CDT

Would you mind posting for me? I'm on mobile device now
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CDT-OTI letter re House bill on Internet governance.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 153062 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130413/c62579d5/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From avri at ella.com  Sat Apr 13 17:07:40 2013
From: avri at ella.com (=?utf-8?B?QXZyaSBEb3JpYQ==?=)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 17:07:40 -0400
Subject: [governance] FW: Letter to House Energy and Commerce Committee
 from OTI and CDT
Message-ID: <201304132107.r3DL7fhF027473@atl4mhob08.myregisteredsite.com>

I certainly neither  support  this letter nor its interpretation of the bill. 


avri

----- Reply message -----
From: "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com>
To: <bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org>, <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Cc: "Gene Kimmelman" <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
Subject: [governance] FW: Letter to House Energy and Commerce Committee from OTI and CDT
Date: Sat, Apr 13, 2013 15:54


(Gene and I have been going back and forth on this a bit and he asked me to
forward this.)

FWIW I think the attached letter presents a very useful platform from which
broader based collaborations and international campaigns in the IG areas can
be developed through the BestBits discussions among others, and perhaps even
help to move the discussion forward on the IGC list beyond the current
unproductive stalemate.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 12:08 PM
To: gurstein at gmail.com
Subject: Letter to House Energy and Commerce Committee from OTI and CDT

Would you mind posting for me? I'm on mobile device now

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130413/4865e3eb/attachment.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 avri at acm.org  Sat Apr 13 19:30:48 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 19:30:48 -0400
Subject: [governance] FW: Letter to House Energy and Commerce Committee
 from OTI and CDT
In-Reply-To: <092e01ce3880$c4d9cae0$4e8d60a0$@gmail.com>
References: <86C24DC3-3A18-4486-969B-119BC55284C1@gmail.com> <E73DFBB5-A49D-4865-8CC7-34AB7E218A6E@gmail.com> <092e01ce3880$c4d9cae0$4e8d60a0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fb5fc8df-cb20-4ccf-9854-0d0ebac50752@email.android.com>

Hi,

As I said in a previous email, I think the interpretation some people are giving this bill is mistaken.
And I think any messages should support the primary position, even if there are things we wish to comment critically (after thought and discussion) on.
Of course I am speaking only in relation to IGC and Bestbits, CDT and OTI are none of my concern.

But whatever the case, the conversation on IGC has been going on for all of a day. 
In what way does this qualify as unproductive and stalemated?

I know a few people say "US Bill bad," 
and one says, "not so fast"? 

I thought we were just starting to get into a possibly useful discussion of the role of government in Internet governance. For example just last Thursday the GAC put out a intergovernmental communique that opened up a whole discussion on government wanting ICANN to get into the content regulation business. Does this civil society group think that is an appropriate thing? If the governments were in charge instead of just one stakeholder, that would now be the rule as opposed to a discussion item.

We should really not rush to turn the Internet over to the same organizational structures, governments, that have persisted in making such a mess of the rest of the world. A multi stakeholder model that builds participatory democracy on top of representative democracy and other forms of participation is an advance in democracy, not a loss.

GAC - government advisory committee of ICANN
https://gacweb.icann.org/plugins/servlet/mobile#content/view/27132037


michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

>(Gene and I have been going back and forth on this a bit and he asked
>me to
>forward this.)
>
>FWIW I think the attached letter presents a very useful platform from
>which
>broader based collaborations and international campaigns in the IG
>areas can
>be developed through the BestBits discussions among others, and perhaps
>even
>help to move the discussion forward on the IGC list beyond the current
>unproductive stalemate.
>
>M
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] 
>Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 12:08 PM
>To: gurstein at gmail.com
>Subject: Letter to House Energy and Commerce Committee from OTI and CDT
>
>Would you mind posting for me? I'm on mobile device now

Avri Doria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130413/24d097fd/attachment.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 diegocanabarro at gmail.com  Sat Apr 13 20:23:54 2013
From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 19:23:54 -0500
Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <HaSYk1BNkDaRFAvr@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <CA+MV=uFxdgt22VpqfFs3ZHFs+_tgbZvz8Xz1ssAXn2hShe_-0g@mail.gmail.com>

At the International Studies Association Annual Convention last week in San
Francisco, an official from the US Department of State said: "there's no
commons on cyberspace". That perception is closely related to the conflict
presented by Mr. Perry bellow in this thread. I'm still struggling with
that assertion.


On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>
> > One of the most significant I'm aware of (and I hope this is within
> > the remit of your question):
>
> It definitely is, and it's a conflict that I have not been sufficiently
> conscious of, so thank you very much for pointing this out!
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
> > The private sector has built extensive
> > networks [fixed and mobile] using $billons of investment on which
> > their shareholders [many of whom are the consumers' pension funds]
> > expect a return, versus many customers who feel entitled to have
> > unlimited usage for a relatively trivial monthly payment (which they
> > sometimes dress up as "Network Neutrality").
> >
> > I post this not to support either of the above points of view, but
> > merely to inform readers of the conflict it unquestionably represents.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130413/59bb39cd/attachment.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 avri at ella.com  Sat Apr 13 20:30:53 2013
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 20:30:53 -0400
Subject: [governance] Question about inappropriate behavior  was RE: [] US
 House Bill ...
In-Reply-To: <080901ce3852$dd763b70$9862b250$@gmail.com>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <CA+4KnA9peWBPTT5NUBx-0giwZVvDiiKWREy6S8ydOcyLFotT2g@mail.gmail.com> <080901ce3852$dd763b70$9862b250$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cf8a1368-5f84-4b4b-bb19-1b7ac1898dcb@email.android.com>

michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote: 

.... Many in the rest of the world were astonished at the capacity of certain elements of US Civil Society and the Technical Community to offer uncritical support for what is so evidently self-serving hypocrisy of the form, ....

~~~

I am wondering, for calibration sake, as I never approve of people being warned/removed from the list unless it is for genuine hate speech, or overt and continuous bullying.

Does this statement, which chills debate, calls people of a particular nation and those of another stakeholder group hypocrites for their beliefs and creates a hostile environment, the kind of thing the coordinators look for when deciding to start the netiquette warning process?

Again I am not suggesting any such thing, just trying to understand the criteria for transparencies sake.

Thanks.





~~~
avri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130413/8e51a590/attachment.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 avri at acm.org  Sat Apr 13 20:50:06 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 20:50:06 -0400
Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <CA+MV=uFxdgt22VpqfFs3ZHFs+_tgbZvz8Xz1ssAXn2hShe_-0g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <HaSYk1BNkDaRFAvr@internetpolicyagency.com> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+MV=uFxdgt22VpqfFs3ZHFs+_tgbZvz8Xz1ssAXn2hShe_-0g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com>

All of the Internet, like the land world before it, was once commons. Then, as before, the rich, the powerful and greedy, with the assistance of the governments they bought, and continue to buy, began to misappropriate those commons and called it property.  Each day more of that commons its stolen. Each day more of the linguistic commons is stolen and called intellectual property. The Internet commons is almost gone. This its what government do best - with some very few exceptions - assist in the theft of the commons.

I have no problem with those who create art or new Internet spaces enjoying the fruits of their creativity and inventiveness. A neologism may be owned. A new Internet space may be owned. But the language itself or the Internet should not be.

Diego Rafael Canabarro <diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:

>At the International Studies Association Annual Convention last week in
>San
>Francisco, an official from the US Department of State said: "there's
>no
>commons on cyberspace". That perception is closely related to the
>conflict
>presented by Mr. Perry bellow in this thread. I'm still struggling with
>that assertion.
>
>
>On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
>> Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>>
>> > One of the most significant I'm aware of (and I hope this is within
>> > the remit of your question):
>>
>> It definitely is, and it's a conflict that I have not been
>sufficiently
>> conscious of, so thank you very much for pointing this out!
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>>
>> > The private sector has built extensive
>> > networks [fixed and mobile] using $billons of investment on which
>> > their shareholders [many of whom are the consumers' pension funds]
>> > expect a return, versus many customers who feel entitled to have
>> > unlimited usage for a relatively trivial monthly payment (which
>they
>> > sometimes dress up as "Network Neutrality").
>> >
>> > I post this not to support either of the above points of view, but
>> > merely to inform readers of the conflict it unquestionably
>represents.
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To 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)
>--

Avri Doria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130413/e67354e9/attachment.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 gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Apr 13 22:28:45 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 19:28:45 -0700
Subject: [governance] Question about inappropriate behavior  was RE: []
 US House Bill ...
In-Reply-To: <cf8a1368-5f84-4b4b-bb19-1b7ac1898dcb@email.android.com>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <CA+4KnA9peWBPTT5NUBx-0giwZVvDiiKWREy6S8ydOcyLFotT2g@mail.gmail.com> <080901ce3852$dd763b70$9862b250$@gmail.com> <cf8a1368-5f84-4b4b-bb19-1b7ac1898dcb@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <09d201ce38b7$d34a8510$79df8f30$@gmail.com>

Hmmm… I would have thought that this was precisely the kind of statement that would precipitate debate rather than chill it.. but since I see that various distinguished members of US civil society have already, unbeknownst to me, made basically the same comments about their own government and the positions, perhaps rather hastily taken by some of their CS confreres, it seems that there may not be much debate arising from this after all; unless of course the USG chooses to react to my comments, which somehow I rather doubt :) 

 

So perhaps we can get on with trying to collaboratively work out appropriate civil society positions in an extremely complex and rapidly evolving global environment.

 

M

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 5:31 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: [governance] Question about inappropriate behavior was RE: [] US House Bill ...

 

michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote: 

.... Many in the rest of the world were astonished at the capacity of certain elements of US Civil Society and the Technical Community to offer uncritical support for what is so evidently self-serving hypocrisy of the form, ....

~~~

I am wondering, for calibration sake, as I never approve of people being warned/removed from the list unless it is for genuine hate speech, or overt and continuous bullying.

Does this statement, which chills debate, calls people of a particular nation and those of another stakeholder group hypocrites for their beliefs and creates a hostile environment, the kind of thing the coordinators look for when deciding to start the netiquette warning process?

Again I am not suggesting any such thing, just trying to understand the criteria for transparencies sake.

Thanks.



~~~
avri

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130413/5f2caaad/attachment.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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Sat Apr 13 22:36:53 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 22:36:53 -0400
Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United
 States Regarding Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <080901ce3852$dd763b70$9862b250$@gmail.com>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org>
 <CA+4KnA9peWBPTT5NUBx-0giwZVvDiiKWREy6S8ydOcyLFotT2g@mail.gmail.com> <080901ce3852$dd763b70$9862b250$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxiOM76KCLq_VsTDuQq+Hd_EYn5+i7Hwjz0+dS2e-NzqLA@mail.gmail.com>

Michael,

I, like Avri have some questions about this post:


On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 10:26 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> This, once visibly put into practice, is very welcome news indeed. Many

How many is many?

 in
> the rest of the world


where in the rest of the world specifically?


 were astonished at the capacity of certain elements of
> US Civil Society and the Technical Community to offer uncritical support for
> what is so evidently self-serving hypocrisy of the form, do as we say not as
> we do.

Are you talking about the recent contretemps about your non-appointment by T&A,
or are you talking about the bill in the House?

If the former, why would you use this thread, and not any of the others?

If the latter, I thought you are in support of the letter from OTI and CDT
(both orgs are folk whose work I like and respect a great deal BTW)?

Perhaps if we all stopped top-posting, I could make greater sense of the matter.

On the substance of this proposed bill, I don't see the "impact on
> important aspects of freedom of expression/citizen and consumer protection
> under U.S. law".  that Gene sees.

While I don't normally support much of what the Republicans in the
U.S. put forth,
the language on human rights is something that we have been asking for, no?

If they pass this (which as per Lee is a long shot) can we not throw
it in their face
the next time they try and do a dodgy domain seizure/expand
monitoring/$badthingthat
we don't like?

I'm inclined to agree with Avri that the letter in reaction to this
bill is a bit of a stretch.

I also agree with her that it's not a very helpful tone you have
chosen, and join her in asking
if "tone" like this would trigger a warning.

-- 
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  Sat Apr 13 22:45:59 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 22:45:59 -0400
Subject: [governance] Question about inappropriate behavior was RE: []
 US House Bill ...
In-Reply-To: <09d201ce38b7$d34a8510$79df8f30$@gmail.com>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org>
 <CA+4KnA9peWBPTT5NUBx-0giwZVvDiiKWREy6S8ydOcyLFotT2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <080901ce3852$dd763b70$9862b250$@gmail.com> <cf8a1368-5f84-4b4b-bb19-1b7ac1898dcb@email.android.com>
 <09d201ce38b7$d34a8510$79df8f30$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxgGz_tGkY01-fj_GrjE5Oo0_vA5kMLWSj1+HVZp_tRkzQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 10:28 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmmm… I would have thought that this was precisely the kind of statement
> that would precipitate debate rather than chill it.. but since I see that
> various distinguished members of US civil society have already, unbeknownst
> to me, made basically the same comments about their own government and the
> positions, perhaps rather hastily taken by some of their CS confreres,



Who in CS is supporting this proposed legislation?  I have not seen
any CS or T&A folks support it (perhaps I have missed those in my news
feeds).

 it
> seems that there may not be much debate arising from this after all; unless
> of course the USG chooses to react to my comments, which somehow I rather
> doubt :)
>
>
>
> So perhaps we can get on with trying to collaboratively work out appropriate
> civil society positions in an extremely complex and rapidly evolving global
> environment.

If you want to work collaboratively, perhaps not accusing people of
hypocrisy is not the best way to accomplish that goal!

-- 
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 genekimmelman at gmail.com  Sat Apr 13 22:52:46 2013
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 22:52:46 -0400
Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United
 States Regarding Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxiOM76KCLq_VsTDuQq+Hd_EYn5+i7Hwjz0+dS2e-NzqLA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <CA+4KnA9peWBPTT5NUBx-0giwZVvDiiKWREy6S8ydOcyLFotT2g@mail.gmail.com> <080901ce3852$dd763b70$9862b250$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxiOM76KCLq_VsTDuQq+Hd_EYn5+i7Hwjz0+dS2e-NzqLA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8C5BC240-FE57-4103-8F20-3748983128EB@gmail.com>

I"d also like to commend to the attention of this list the letter that Public Knowledge sent in opposition to the legislation as drafted, and Harold Feld's blog on this issue.  In a nutshell, legislative language that conflates "internet governance" with "the internet" without any appropriate definitions appears to suggest that traditional regulation of the internet's basic infrastructure should be eliminated.  This isn't just a knee-jerk, extreme reaction to ambiguity  -- when the ambiguities were pointed out to the bill's sponsor and suggested clarifications rejected, it became difficult for many of us to feel comfortable with these ambiguities.  So the letters I refer to point out dangers to nondiscrimination rules, antitrust oversight and other traditional tools to promote competition and the public interest.  If it is true that there is no intent to implicate these regulatory tools until existing U.S. law, it is difficult to understand the sponsor's unwillingness to do so.
On Apr 13, 2013, at 10:36 PM, McTim wrote:

> Michael,
> 
> I, like Avri have some questions about this post:
> 
> 
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 10:26 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>> This, once visibly put into practice, is very welcome news indeed. Many
> 
> How many is many?
> 
> in
>> the rest of the world
> 
> 
> where in the rest of the world specifically?
> 
> 
> were astonished at the capacity of certain elements of
>> US Civil Society and the Technical Community to offer uncritical support for
>> what is so evidently self-serving hypocrisy of the form, do as we say not as
>> we do.
> 
> Are you talking about the recent contretemps about your non-appointment by T&A,
> or are you talking about the bill in the House?
> 
> If the former, why would you use this thread, and not any of the others?
> 
> If the latter, I thought you are in support of the letter from OTI and CDT
> (both orgs are folk whose work I like and respect a great deal BTW)?
> 
> Perhaps if we all stopped top-posting, I could make greater sense of the matter.
> 
> On the substance of this proposed bill, I don't see the "impact on
>> important aspects of freedom of expression/citizen and consumer protection
>> under U.S. law".  that Gene sees.
> 
> While I don't normally support much of what the Republicans in the
> U.S. put forth,
> the language on human rights is something that we have been asking for, no?
> 
> If they pass this (which as per Lee is a long shot) can we not throw
> it in their face
> the next time they try and do a dodgy domain seizure/expand
> monitoring/$badthingthat
> we don't like?
> 
> I'm inclined to agree with Avri that the letter in reaction to this
> bill is a bit of a stretch.
> 
> I also agree with her that it's not a very helpful tone you have
> chosen, and join her in asking
> if "tone" like this would trigger a warning.
> 
> -- 
> 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 nb at bollow.ch  Sun Apr 14 02:38:29 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 08:38:29 +0200
Subject: [governance] Question about inappropriate behavior  was RE: []
 US House Bill ...
In-Reply-To: <cf8a1368-5f84-4b4b-bb19-1b7ac1898dcb@email.android.com>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org>
	<CA+4KnA9peWBPTT5NUBx-0giwZVvDiiKWREy6S8ydOcyLFotT2g@mail.gmail.com>
	<080901ce3852$dd763b70$9862b250$@gmail.com>
	<cf8a1368-5f84-4b4b-bb19-1b7ac1898dcb@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <20130414083829.0945988f@quill.bollow.ch>

[with IGC coordinator hat on]

Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
> Does this statement, which [...]
> the kind of thing the coordinators look for when deciding to start
> the netiquette warning process?

I'd like to quite generally discourage public discussion of whether
some particular statement violates the posting rules or not. If some
remark has the effect of increasing the degree to which the IGC is a
hostile environment, then quoting the statement and criticizing it
will increase that effect.

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  Sun Apr 14 04:31:23 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 14:01:23 +0530
Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United
 States Regarding Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <EE796AE9A5FF43279790844911092B2F@Toshiba>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <EE796AE9A5FF43279790844911092B2F@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <516A695B.1010404@itforchange.net>


On Saturday 13 April 2013 09:05 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> yes, the concept of no government involvement is nonsense. The Public 
> Knowledge response (or draft response, it may have changed) included 
> the following. Not that I entirely agree with it, but it makes some 
> relevant points about the language.
> “ we fear that the broad language of the proposed bill may
> intrude on areas of consumer protection, competition policy, law 
> enforcement and
> cybersecurity long considered appropriate for national policy 
> formulated by governments
> with input from civil society, business and the technical community. 
> For example, the
> United States has by law protected the privacy of children online 
> through Child Online
> Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) for nearly 15 years. Although we 
> opposed the ITU
> resolution to require countries to limit spam, the United States 
> protects its citizens from
> spam through the CAN-SPAM Act. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the 
> Federal
> Communications Commission (FCC), the Department of Justice and 
> numerous other
> federal and state agencies have long played a critical role in 
> protecting consumers and
> promoting competition and their existing statutes.
> We fear that if this bill becomes law, rather than being understood as 
> simply a resolution
> directed specifically against the efforts to expand the jurisdiction 
> of the ITU, these
> important and long-standing government policies will be undermined. 
> Our opposition to
> ceding authority to the ITU to decide how to balance consumer 
> protection and free
> expression is not because we see no role for government in protecting 
> consumers or
> promoting competition. Rather, we believe those matters are best 
> decided here at home,
> by a Congress accountable to the people and enforced by a government 
> constrained by
> the Constitution. Similarly, many who oppose addressing cybersecurity 
> or law
> enforcement issues at the ITU regard it as entirely appropriate for 
> Congress or other
> federal agencies to address these concerns, subject to the 
> Constitutional limitations of due
> process and free expression.”


Public Knowledge's draft letter is most instructive of what has really 
been happening in the global IG space. How the term 'government control' 
has been deviously used to further entrench hegemonies, and a neoliberal 
paradigm. A paradigm of complete non regulation of the emerging 
'communication realm, put forward more appealingly as 'an Internet free 
from governmental control', was the name of the game at WCIT. Here the 
front of 'protecting Internet freedoms' was employed to cover the real 
geo-economic intentions of using the Internet as the new pillar of 
global domination by US and its allies. We raised this issue through an 
oped in a top Indian daily ' Hyping one threat to hide another 
<http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/hyping-one-threat-to-hide-another/article4140922.ece>'. 


The chickens have now come home to roost, as we had predicted in the 
mentioned op-ed. Excuse me to quote it, I simply cant resist the 
temptation .

    "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.’ "

US civil society was most active seeking that Internet - and with it, 
really, all future communication systems - should 'completely' stay out 
of ITU's realm. (Just opposing China/ Russia proposals of 'national 
Internet segement' and national control of CIRs etc is a completely 
different matter. What was opposed was even references to Internet 
related universal service obligations, net neutrlaity and such things.) 
What was even more problematic was that civil society from most 
developing countries also joined the (apparently well- resourced) 
chorus. And now when this game of de-regulation of communicative realm 
plays out in our respective national domains, do give a thought to 
whether the manner in which the WCIT game got played was the right thing 
to do for progressive causes... There is yet opportunity to re-look at 
what is being done to our futures, especially those of the marginalised 
people,  in the name of 'Internet freedoms' and multistakeholderism.

parminder


> Certainly a number of US groups have opposed the language for this and 
> similar reasons.
> *From:* Jeremy Malcolm <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 13, 2013 12:56 PM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> *Subject:* [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the 
> United States Regarding Internet Governance
> It doesn't seem to have been mentioned here yet (or maybe only in 
> passing) that there is a bill on Internet governance being debated in 
> the Energy & Commerce Committee of the US House of Representatives at 
> the moment.  There will doubtless be stampede of uncritical support 
> for it from politicians of all sides (there is no hidden intellectual 
> property "gotcha"), but unfortunately its premises are fundamentally 
> flawed.
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/markup/markup-bill-affirm-policy-united-states-regarding-internet-governance
> It only has two sections: one on "Findings" and one on "Policy 
> regarding Internet governance", which flows from the findings.  The 
> latter simply states:
> "It is the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet 
> free from government control and to preserve and advance the 
> successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet."
> So this is obviously nonsense; it is not US policy to promote a global 
> Internet free from government control, only free from the control of 
> other governments besides itself.  And note that US policy is only to 
> "preserve and advance" not to "enhance" the multistakeholder model, 
> which continues the fiction that the multistakeholder institutions 
> that we have now are adequate both in their inclusiveness and in the 
> breadth of Internet governance topics that they cover.
> Of course, you can argue for more beneficial interpretations by 
> defining "control" and "multistakeholder model" expansively, but even 
> so this bill is just going to entrench the standoff between the US and 
> other countries, which is not going to be helpful in reaching 
> compromise on the evolution of Internet governance arrangements this 
> year...
> -- 
>
> *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
>
> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: 
> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/> | 
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational 
> <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't 
> print this email unless necessary.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130414/3ee2cf1a/attachment.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Apr 14 04:58:14 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 14:28:14 +0530
Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United
 States Regarding Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <EE796AE9A5FF43279790844911092B2F@Toshiba>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <EE796AE9A5FF43279790844911092B2F@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <516A6FA6.6070802@itforchange.net>


On Saturday 13 April 2013 09:05 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> yes, the concept of no government involvement is nonsense. The Public 
> Knowledge response (or draft response, it may have changed) included 
> the following. Not that I entirely agree with it, but it makes some 
> relevant points about the language.
> “ we fear that the broad language of the proposed bill may
> intrude on areas of consumer protection, competition policy, law 
> enforcement and
> cybersecurity long considered appropriate for national policy 
> formulated by governments
> with input from civil society, business and the technical community.

The 'Public Knowledge' statement is also very clear on respective roles 
of different groups or stakeholders vis a vis the public policy role of 
governments. This is the single most contentious issue in global IG 
today..... A good rejoinder to all those 'all stakeholders are equal in 
public policy making processes' kind of dangerous anti-democracy 
statements, that this elist/group also seem to be rife with. 'Public 
Knowledge' takes a clear and strong position against such a formulation. 
IT for Change has since long warned that playing with democratic 
principles at the global level can have extremely dangerous consequences 
for national and local level democracy practices and principles.

what are basic democratic principles for local and national levels 
remain unchanged for global levels. We all know that facts as well 
possibilities at each level are different, and these have to be worked 
with, however, without breaching larger democratic principles (which are 
repeated sought to be breached in the name of MSism).... UN based 
multilateral systems are far from perfect (but so are are our national 
systems in different ways). But then the processes at multilateral 
levels are also different - for instance need for consensus for most 
processes, and the fact that almost always anything agreed to 
internationally becomes effective only when ratified, and that there are 
almost zero coercive implementation mechanisms in the hands of 
multilateral systems (expect for some of the kind which US routinely 
usurps, but that is a different matter). Still, the democratic practices 
at global levels should be further improved - with all kinds of new 
participative, transparency, accountability etc methods..... Which 
however is very different from using the pretext of 'democracy deficit' 
to institutionalise practices and institutions that are 'in principle' 
anit-democratic, like seeking that a corporation should have a similar 
voting power as a government in international policy making settings.

parminder


> For example, the
> United States has by law protected the privacy of children online 
> through Child Online
> Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) for nearly 15 years. Although we 
> opposed the ITU
> resolution to require countries to limit spam, the United States 
> protects its citizens from
> spam through the CAN-SPAM Act. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the 
> Federal
> Communications Commission (FCC), the Department of Justice and 
> numerous other
> federal and state agencies have long played a critical role in 
> protecting consumers and
> promoting competition and their existing statutes.
> We fear that if this bill becomes law, rather than being understood as 
> simply a resolution
> directed specifically against the efforts to expand the jurisdiction 
> of the ITU, these
> important and long-standing government policies will be undermined. 
> Our opposition to
> ceding authority to the ITU to decide how to balance consumer 
> protection and free
> expression is not because we see no role for government in protecting 
> consumers or
> promoting competition. Rather, we believe those matters are best 
> decided here at home,
> by a Congress accountable to the people and enforced by a government 
> constrained by
> the Constitution. Similarly, many who oppose addressing cybersecurity 
> or law
> enforcement issues at the ITU regard it as entirely appropriate for 
> Congress or other
> federal agencies to address these concerns, subject to the 
> Constitutional limitations of due
> process and free expression.”
> Certainly a number of US groups have opposed the language for this and 
> similar reasons.
> *From:* Jeremy Malcolm <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 13, 2013 12:56 PM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> *Subject:* [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the 
> United States Regarding Internet Governance
> It doesn't seem to have been mentioned here yet (or maybe only in 
> passing) that there is a bill on Internet governance being debated in 
> the Energy & Commerce Committee of the US House of Representatives at 
> the moment.  There will doubtless be stampede of uncritical support 
> for it from politicians of all sides (there is no hidden intellectual 
> property "gotcha"), but unfortunately its premises are fundamentally 
> flawed.
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/markup/markup-bill-affirm-policy-united-states-regarding-internet-governance
> It only has two sections: one on "Findings" and one on "Policy 
> regarding Internet governance", which flows from the findings.  The 
> latter simply states:
> "It is the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet 
> free from government control and to preserve and advance the 
> successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet."
> So this is obviously nonsense; it is not US policy to promote a global 
> Internet free from government control, only free from the control of 
> other governments besides itself.  And note that US policy is only to 
> "preserve and advance" not to "enhance" the multistakeholder model, 
> which continues the fiction that the multistakeholder institutions 
> that we have now are adequate both in their inclusiveness and in the 
> breadth of Internet governance topics that they cover.
> Of course, you can argue for more beneficial interpretations by 
> defining "control" and "multistakeholder model" expansively, but even 
> so this bill is just going to entrench the standoff between the US and 
> other countries, which is not going to be helpful in reaching 
> compromise on the evolution of Internet governance arrangements this 
> year...
> -- 
>
> *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
>
> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: 
> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/> | 
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational 
> <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't 
> print this email unless necessary.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130414/99364727/attachment.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  Sun Apr 14 05:56:39 2013
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 10:56:39 +0100
Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com>
References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch>
 <HaSYk1BNkDaRFAvr@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch>
 <CA+MV=uFxdgt22VpqfFs3ZHFs+_tgbZvz8Xz1ssAXn2hShe_-0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <fTUOGQ1X1naRFAM8@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40 at email.android.com>, at 
20:50:06 on Sat, 13 Apr 2013, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> writes
>I have no problem with those who create art or new Internet spaces 
>enjoying the fruits of their creativity and inventiveness. A neologism 
>may be owned. A new Internet space may be owned. But the language 
>itself or the Internet should not be

The Internet is a collection of routers, cables and peering agreements. 
Curiously enough, a majority of the latter are still maintained on a "no 
settlement" basis - in other words traffic passes but no money changes 
hands. But someone has to install the routers and cables, and that has 
to be owned and paid for.

Or are you talking about ownership of things like the HTTP and SMTP 
protocols which make the WWW and email possible.

I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that all content on the Internet is 
inside what you call "spaces" (like Yahoo, eBay, Facebook, Twitter...) 
which are OK to own.

Just so I understand, can you give some examples of things you think 
have been [mis]appropriated, that used to be [Internet] commons and 
aren't any longer.
-- 
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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sun Apr 14 06:16:49 2013
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 20:16:49 +1000
Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United
 States Regarding Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <516A6FA6.6070802@itforchange.net>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <EE796AE9A5FF43279790844911092B2F@Toshiba> <516A6FA6.6070802@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <D8DB636DF4AD4CA5AA7078BE25E9C3B0@Toshiba>

The interesting thing about this debate is that it is typical of the tensions within this group between idealism and pragmatism.

Avri puts the idealist end of the spectrum well - 

“All of the Internet, like the land world before it, was once commons. Then, as before, the rich, the powerful and greedy, with the assistance of the governments they bought, and continue to buy, began to misappropriate those commons and called it property. Each day more of that commons its stolen. Each day more of the linguistic commons is stolen and called intellectual property. The Internet commons is almost gone. This its what government do best - with some very few exceptions - assist in the theft of the commons.”

And at least part of me agrees wholeheartedly with an analysis that sees governments as bodies who don’t represent the public interest here, and the less we have to do with them the better. That’s an idealist stance.

But on the other hand is the pragmatic end of the spectrum. Here, many of us acknowledge that governments, fortunately or unfortunately, do exist, and somehow or other we have to bring them to the table and find a way to make their involvement here less harmful and more in line with the public interest. At this end of the spectrum we acknowledge a role for governments and insist on a role for others parties as well.

In the early days of Green politics this split (most obvious in Germany where the “fundies” (fundamentalists) and “realos” (realists) fought huge political battles on all sorts of issues, each side passionately claiming that a real “green” party had to (from one end of the spectrum) stand up for its basic principles and never compromise, or (from the other end) come up with implementable policies which may not achieve everything we want but would at least get something useful done. Neither side was wrong!

And I think those same tensions exist in much of what we discuss here. Perhaps some “status-quoists” are people who can see how imperfect governments are, and therefore suggest their involvement won’t be helpful. Perhaps those arguing that we have to involve all governments (citing democratic principles often) , are just realising that they do exist, they are legitimate structures honoured by most people, and they cant be ignored..

And with various shades in between. I must admit to moving often from one end of this spectrum to the other. In the middle, perhaps, is the “pragmatic idealist” – and somewhere in the middle of our various positions in this debate there just might be a position or two where we can find some common ground.

That is, if we can overcome some linguistic and cultural differences.......







From: parminder 
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2013 6:58 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
Subject: Re: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance


On Saturday 13 April 2013 09:05 AM, Ian Peter wrote:

  yes, the concept of no government involvement is nonsense. The Public Knowledge response (or draft response, it may have changed) included the following. Not that I entirely agree with it, but it makes some relevant points about the language.

  “ we fear that the broad language of the proposed bill may
  intrude on areas of consumer protection, competition policy, law enforcement and
  cybersecurity long considered appropriate for national policy formulated by governments
  with input from civil society, business and the technical community.

The 'Public Knowledge' statement is also very clear on respective roles of different groups or stakeholders vis a vis the public policy role of governments. This is the single most contentious issue in global IG today..... A good rejoinder to all those 'all stakeholders are equal in public policy making processes' kind of dangerous anti-democracy statements, that this elist/group also seem to be rife with. 'Public Knowledge' takes a clear and strong position against such a formulation. IT for Change has since long warned that playing with democratic principles at the global level can have extremely dangerous consequences for national and local level democracy practices and principles. 

what are basic democratic principles for local and national levels remain unchanged for global levels. We all know that facts as well possibilities at each level are different, and these have to be worked with, however, without breaching larger democratic principles (which are repeated sought to be breached in the name of MSism).... UN based multilateral systems are far from perfect (but so are are our national systems in different ways). But then the processes at multilateral levels are also different - for instance need for consensus for most processes, and the fact that almost always anything agreed to internationally becomes effective only when ratified, and that there are almost zero coercive implementation mechanisms in the hands of multilateral systems (expect for some of the kind which US routinely usurps, but that is a different matter). Still, the democratic practices at global levels should be further improved - with all kinds of new participative, transparency, accountability etc methods..... Which however is very different from using the pretext of 'democracy deficit' to institutionalise practices and institutions that are 'in principle' anit-democratic, like seeking that a corporation should have a similar voting power as a government in international policy making settings.

parminder 



  For example, the
  United States has by law protected the privacy of children online through Child Online
  Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) for nearly 15 years. Although we opposed the ITU
  resolution to require countries to limit spam, the United States protects its citizens from
  spam through the CAN-SPAM Act. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Federal
  Communications Commission (FCC), the Department of Justice and numerous other
  federal and state agencies have long played a critical role in protecting consumers and
  promoting competition and their existing statutes.
  We fear that if this bill becomes law, rather than being understood as simply a resolution
  directed specifically against the efforts to expand the jurisdiction of the ITU, these
  important and long-standing government policies will be undermined. Our opposition to
  ceding authority to the ITU to decide how to balance consumer protection and free
  expression is not because we see no role for government in protecting consumers or
  promoting competition. Rather, we believe those matters are best decided here at home,
  by a Congress accountable to the people and enforced by a government constrained by
  the Constitution. Similarly, many who oppose addressing cybersecurity or law
  enforcement issues at the ITU regard it as entirely appropriate for Congress or other
  federal agencies to address these concerns, subject to the Constitutional limitations of due
  process and free expression.”

  Certainly a number of US groups have opposed the language for this and similar reasons.

  From: Jeremy Malcolm 
  Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 12:56 PM
  To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
  Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance

  It doesn't seem to have been mentioned here yet (or maybe only in passing) that there is a bill on Internet governance being debated in the Energy & Commerce Committee of the US House of Representatives at the moment.  There will doubtless be stampede of uncritical support for it from politicians of all sides (there is no hidden intellectual property "gotcha"), but unfortunately its premises are fundamentally flawed.

  http://energycommerce.house.gov/markup/markup-bill-affirm-policy-united-states-regarding-internet-governance

  It only has two sections: one on "Findings" and one on "Policy regarding Internet governance", which flows from the findings.  The latter simply states:

  "It is the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control and to preserve and advance the successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet."

  So this is obviously nonsense; it is not US policy to promote a global Internet free from government control, only free from the control of other governments besides itself.  And note that US policy is only to "preserve and advance" not to "enhance" the multistakeholder model, which continues the fiction that the multistakeholder institutions that we have now are adequate both in their inclusiveness and in the breadth of Internet governance topics that they cover.

  Of course, you can argue for more beneficial interpretations by defining "control" and "multistakeholder model" expansively, but even so this bill is just going to entrench the standoff between the US and other countries, which is not going to be helpful in reaching compromise on the evolution of Internet governance arrangements this year...

  -- 

  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

  WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013

  @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





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130414/ce8b401e/attachment.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Apr 14 07:46:51 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 17:16:51 +0530
Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United
 States Regarding Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <D8DB636DF4AD4CA5AA7078BE25E9C3B0@Toshiba>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <EE796AE9A5FF43279790844911092B2F@Toshiba> <516A6FA6.6070802@itforchange.net> <D8DB636DF4AD4CA5AA7078BE25E9C3B0@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <516A972B.2040802@itforchange.net>


On Sunday 14 April 2013 03:46 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
> The interesting thing about this debate is that it is typical of the 
> tensions within this group between idealism and pragmatism.
> Avri puts the idealist end of the spectrum well -
> “All of the Internet, like the land world before it, was once commons. 
> Then, as before, the rich, the powerful and greedy, with the 
> assistance of the governments they bought, and continue to buy, began 
> to misappropriate those commons and called it property. Each day more 
> of that commons its stolen. Each day more of the linguistic commons is 
> stolen and called intellectual property. The Internet commons is 
> almost gone. This its what government do best - with some very few 
> exceptions - assist in the theft of the commons.”
> And at least part of me agrees wholeheartedly with an analysis that 
> sees governments as bodies who don’t represent the public interest 
> here, and the less we have to do with them the better. That’s an 
> idealist stance.
> But on the other hand is the pragmatic end of the spectrum. Here, many 
> of us acknowledge that governments, fortunately or unfortunately, do 
> exist, and somehow or other we have to bring them to the table and 
> find a way to make their involvement here less harmful and more in 
> line with the public interest. At this end of the spectrum we 
> acknowledge a role for governments and insist on a role for others 
> parties as well.
> In the early days of Green politics this split (most obvious in 
> Germany where the “fundies” (fundamentalists) and “realos” (realists) 
> fought huge political battles on all sorts of issues, each side 
> passionately claiming that a real “green” party had to (from one end 
> of the spectrum) stand up for its basic principles and never 
> compromise, or (from the other end) come up with implementable 
> policies which may not achieve everything we want but would at least 
> get something useful done. Neither side was wrong!
> And I think those same tensions exist in much of what we discuss here. 
> Perhaps some “status-quoists” are people who can see how imperfect 
> governments are, and therefore suggest their involvement won’t be 
> helpful. Perhaps those arguing that we have to involve all governments 
> (citing democratic principles often) , are just realising that they do 
> exist, they are legitimate structures honoured by most people, and 
> they cant be ignored..

Perhaps we should make a distinction between technical governance of the 
Internet (ICANN plus system) and Internet's political governance in 
different socio-economic areas. Both the institutional requirements and 
institutional histories in the two cases are very different.  In the 
former area, it is meaningful to talk about, well we should or may have 
to involve governments as well.... In the latter area, the starting 
point is governments, and we have to discuss who else and which manner 
they have to be involved.

A lot of enhanced cooperation discussions involve very confusing cross 
talks between these two different governance spaces.....

What you consider as idealist and what pragmatist also differs 
accordingly. I am pretty sure that as far for larger political 
governance of the Internet is concerned it is more idealist to begin 
with an inter-gov arrangements then with systems that give 
institutionalised political power to corporates, which if anything is a 
pragmatic adjustment.

parminder









> And with various shades in between. I must admit to moving often from 
> one end of this spectrum to the other. In the middle, perhaps, is the 
> “pragmatic idealist” – and somewhere in the middle of our various 
> positions in this debate there just might be a position or two where 
> we can find some common ground.
> That is, if we can overcome some linguistic and cultural 
> differences.......
>
> *From:* parminder <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 14, 2013 6:58 PM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the 
> United States Regarding Internet Governance
> On Saturday 13 April 2013 09:05 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>> yes, the concept of no government involvement is nonsense. The Public 
>> Knowledge response (or draft response, it may have changed) included 
>> the following. Not that I entirely agree with it, but it makes some 
>> relevant points about the language.
>> “ we fear that the broad language of the proposed bill may
>> intrude on areas of consumer protection, competition policy, law 
>> enforcement and
>> cybersecurity long considered appropriate for national policy 
>> formulated by governments
>> with input from civil society, business and the technical community.
>
> The 'Public Knowledge' statement is also very clear on respective 
> roles of different groups or stakeholders vis a vis the public policy 
> role of governments. This is the single most contentious issue in 
> global IG today..... A good rejoinder to all those 'all stakeholders 
> are equal in public policy making processes' kind of dangerous 
> anti-democracy statements, that this elist/group also seem to be rife 
> with. 'Public Knowledge' takes a clear and strong position against 
> such a formulation. IT for Change has since long warned that playing 
> with democratic principles at the global level can have extremely 
> dangerous consequences for national and local level democracy 
> practices and principles.
>
> what are basic democratic principles for local and national levels 
> remain unchanged for global levels. We all know that facts as well 
> possibilities at each level are different, and these have to be worked 
> with, however, without breaching larger democratic principles (which 
> are repeated sought to be breached in the name of MSism).... UN based 
> multilateral systems are far from perfect (but so are are our national 
> systems in different ways). But then the processes at multilateral 
> levels are also different - for instance need for consensus for most 
> processes, and the fact that almost always anything agreed to 
> internationally becomes effective only when ratified, and that there 
> are almost zero coercive implementation mechanisms in the hands of 
> multilateral systems (expect for some of the kind which US routinely 
> usurps, but that is a different matter). Still, the democratic 
> practices at global levels should be further improved - with all kinds 
> of new participative, transparency, accountability etc methods..... 
> Which however is very different from using the pretext of 'democracy 
> deficit' to institutionalise practices and institutions that are 'in 
> principle' anit-democratic, like seeking that a corporation should 
> have a similar voting power as a government in international policy 
> making settings.
>
> parminder
>
>
>> For example, the
>> United States has by law protected the privacy of children online 
>> through Child Online
>> Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) for nearly 15 years. Although we 
>> opposed the ITU
>> resolution to require countries to limit spam, the United States 
>> protects its citizens from
>> spam through the CAN-SPAM Act. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), 
>> the Federal
>> Communications Commission (FCC), the Department of Justice and 
>> numerous other
>> federal and state agencies have long played a critical role in 
>> protecting consumers and
>> promoting competition and their existing statutes.
>> We fear that if this bill becomes law, rather than being understood 
>> as simply a resolution
>> directed specifically against the efforts to expand the jurisdiction 
>> of the ITU, these
>> important and long-standing government policies will be undermined. 
>> Our opposition to
>> ceding authority to the ITU to decide how to balance consumer 
>> protection and free
>> expression is not because we see no role for government in protecting 
>> consumers or
>> promoting competition. Rather, we believe those matters are best 
>> decided here at home,
>> by a Congress accountable to the people and enforced by a government 
>> constrained by
>> the Constitution. Similarly, many who oppose addressing cybersecurity 
>> or law
>> enforcement issues at the ITU regard it as entirely appropriate for 
>> Congress or other
>> federal agencies to address these concerns, subject to the 
>> Constitutional limitations of due
>> process and free expression.”
>> Certainly a number of US groups have opposed the language for this 
>> and similar reasons.
>> *From:* Jeremy Malcolm <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, April 13, 2013 12:56 PM
>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> *Subject:* [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the 
>> United States Regarding Internet Governance
>> It doesn't seem to have been mentioned here yet (or maybe only in 
>> passing) that there is a bill on Internet governance being debated in 
>> the Energy & Commerce Committee of the US House of Representatives at 
>> the moment.  There will doubtless be stampede of uncritical support 
>> for it from politicians of all sides (there is no hidden intellectual 
>> property "gotcha"), but unfortunately its premises are fundamentally 
>> flawed.
>> http://energycommerce.house.gov/markup/markup-bill-affirm-policy-united-states-regarding-internet-governance
>> It only has two sections: one on "Findings" and one on "Policy 
>> regarding Internet governance", which flows from the findings.  The 
>> latter simply states:
>> "It is the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet 
>> free from government control and to preserve and advance the 
>> successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet."
>> So this is obviously nonsense; it is not US policy to promote a 
>> global Internet free from government control, only free from the 
>> control of other governments besides itself.  And note that US policy 
>> is only to "preserve and advance" not to "enhance" the 
>> multistakeholder model, which continues the fiction that the 
>> multistakeholder institutions that we have now are adequate both in 
>> their inclusiveness and in the breadth of Internet governance topics 
>> that they cover.
>> Of course, you can argue for more beneficial interpretations by 
>> defining "control" and "multistakeholder model" expansively, but even 
>> so this bill is just going to entrench the standoff between the US 
>> and other countries, which is not going to be helpful in reaching 
>> compromise on the evolution of Internet governance arrangements this 
>> year...
>> -- 
>>
>> *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
>>
>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: 
>> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013
>>
>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org 
>> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/> | 
>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational 
>> <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>>
>> Read our email confidentiality notice 
>> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't 
>> print this email unless necessary.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130414/b9d5ba39/attachment.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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Sun Apr 14 08:31:32 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 08:31:32 -0400
Subject: [governance] Question about inappropriate behavior was RE: []
 US House Bill ...
In-Reply-To: <20130414083829.0945988f@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org>
 <CA+4KnA9peWBPTT5NUBx-0giwZVvDiiKWREy6S8ydOcyLFotT2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <080901ce3852$dd763b70$9862b250$@gmail.com> <cf8a1368-5f84-4b4b-bb19-1b7ac1898dcb@email.android.com>
 <20130414083829.0945988f@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxh2U4_DRijMAzgP4k52ny-mMp8jVoaNccx7bpRamKZO3g@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 2:38 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> [with IGC coordinator hat on]
>
> Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>> Does this statement, which [...]
>> the kind of thing the coordinators look for when deciding to start
>> the netiquette warning process?
>
> I'd like to quite generally discourage public discussion of whether
> some particular statement violates the posting rules or not. If some
> remark has the effect of increasing the degree to which the IGC is a
> hostile environment, then quoting the statement and criticizing it
> will increase that effect.

I'd like to quite generally discourage unfounded public accusations of the type:

"How the term 'government control' has been deviously used to further
entrench hegemonies, and a neoliberal paradigm. "

Until the co-cos help with that, I will continue to ask questions.
You are being asked to carry out your role, not censor victims of
abuse!


-- 
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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com  Sun Apr 14 10:13:20 2013
From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 17:13:20 +0300
Subject: [governance] Question about inappropriate behavior was RE: []
 US House Bill ...
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxh2U4_DRijMAzgP4k52ny-mMp8jVoaNccx7bpRamKZO3g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <CA+4KnA9peWBPTT5NUBx-0giwZVvDiiKWREy6S8ydOcyLFotT2g@mail.gmail.com> <080901ce3852$dd763b70$9862b250$@gmail.com> <cf8a1368-5f84-4b4b-bb19-1b7ac1898dcb@email.android.com> <20130414083829.0945988f@quill.bollow.ch> <CACAaNxh2U4_DRijMAzgP4k52ny-mMp8jVoaNccx7bpRamKZO3g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <516AB980.3020405@gmail.com>

Thank you for this. A few queries to explore this.

Why is an interpretation or narrative to a given perspective "unfounded"?

In the realm of social sciences, as opposed to hard/natural sciences, a 
narrative or interpretation is the best we can offer as reality is complex.

If your statement is that the point about "unfounded public accusations" 
does not have empirical grounding, something that could be established 
with certainty.

And this is also valid, but is also just an interpretation, from a 
worldview that says the facts don't support your point.

If as I read Parminder, one of many critical Third World views, he 
starts of from a particular history or evolution, that gives credence to 
his worldview (his worldview is a simplification of reality, just as 
your critique of his is). Now whether you like or dislike or agree or 
disagree with his approach, idealogy, interpretation is very different 
from an 'unfounded allegation' on what is essentially a narrative of a 
complex social reality. Not to speak for him, but what points in 
Parminder's favour is that even without his worldview, in some 
meaningful order, other groups have a similar diagnosis (like PK), but 
may well disagree and/or agree on prescritions.

My focus on method here is to identify ways of engagement that let us 
identify differences, sometimes at first principles levels which seems 
to be the case in this exchange.

If I have been less than civil in this interjection, I rely on you to 
point it out.

Riaz

On 2013/04/14 03:31 PM, McTim wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 2:38 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> [with IGC coordinator hat on]
>>
>> Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>>> Does this statement, which [...]
>>> the kind of thing the coordinators look for when deciding to start
>>> the netiquette warning process?
>> I'd like to quite generally discourage public discussion of whether
>> some particular statement violates the posting rules or not. If some
>> remark has the effect of increasing the degree to which the IGC is a
>> hostile environment, then quoting the statement and criticizing it
>> will increase that effect.
> I'd like to quite generally discourage unfounded public accusations of the type:
>
> "How the term 'government control' has been deviously used to further
> entrench hegemonies, and a neoliberal paradigm. "
>
> Until the co-cos help with that, I will continue to ask questions.
> You are being asked to carry out your role, not censor victims of
> abuse!
>
>


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 14 10:53:57 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 10:53:57 -0400
Subject: [governance] Question about inappropriate behavior was RE: []
 US House Bill ...
In-Reply-To: <516AB980.3020405@gmail.com>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org>
 <CA+4KnA9peWBPTT5NUBx-0giwZVvDiiKWREy6S8ydOcyLFotT2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <080901ce3852$dd763b70$9862b250$@gmail.com> <cf8a1368-5f84-4b4b-bb19-1b7ac1898dcb@email.android.com>
 <20130414083829.0945988f@quill.bollow.ch> <CACAaNxh2U4_DRijMAzgP4k52ny-mMp8jVoaNccx7bpRamKZO3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <516AB980.3020405@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxinFZkEijkD==f-pE-jc2VsnfiJJ8WzqGcRsQHh+Qxu9Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you for this. A few queries to explore this.
>
> Why is an interpretation or narrative to a given perspective "unfounded"?


un·found·ed
/ˌənˈfoundid/
Adjective
Having no foundation or basis in fact: "her persistent fear that she
had cancer was unfounded".
Synonyms
groundless - baseless - ungrounded - causeless

>
> In the realm of social sciences, as opposed to hard/natural sciences, a
> narrative or interpretation is the best we can offer as reality is complex.


Evidence based decision making can also apply to social sciences.

>
> If your statement is that the point about "unfounded public accusations"
> does not have empirical grounding, something that could be established with
> certainty.
>
> And this is also valid, but is also just an interpretation, from a worldview
> that says the facts don't support your point.
>
> If as I read Parminder, one of many critical Third World views, he starts of
> from a particular history or evolution, that gives credence to his worldview
> (his worldview is a simplification of reality, just as your critique of his
> is). Now whether you like or dislike or agree or disagree with his approach,
> idealogy, interpretation is very different from an 'unfounded allegation' on
> what is essentially a narrative of a complex social reality. Not to speak
> for him, but what points in Parminder's favour is that even without his
> worldview, in some meaningful order, other groups have a similar diagnosis
> (like PK)


Are you suggesting the PK is in support of a vast global conspiracy
theory that US CS is a stooge?
If so, I think you are misreading PJS.


, but may well disagree and/or agree on prescritions.
>
> My focus on method here is to identify ways of engagement that let us
> identify differences, sometimes at first principles levels which seems to be
> the case in this exchange.

This thread, as started by Avri, is about what are the criteria used
by the co-cos in evaluating
speech.

I for one would like to know what they are.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mueller at syr.edu  Sun Apr 14 11:26:24 2013
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 15:26:24 +0000
Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United
 States Regarding Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A8071@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>



So this is obviously nonsense; it is not US policy to promote a global Internet free from government control, only free from the control of other governments besides itself.

Jeremy:
It seems you did not pay very close attention to the deliberations on the bill in the U.S. Congress. Had you listened to Rep. Eshoo, who spoke in opposition to the bill immediately after its introduction, it was noted that the NTIA, FCC and other USG departments linked to the Obama admin. had expressed concern that the bill's opposition to "government control" as stated might actually be interpreted to challenge the U.S. Commerce Department's IANA contract and control over ICANN.

Based on this new information, I look forward to a turnaround on your view of the legislation. ;-) Indeed, the bill's statement of opposition to government control as a principle might indeed cut both ways. For that reason I am more sympathetic to it than people here seem to be.

And note that US policy is only to "preserve and advance" not to "enhance" the multistakeholder model, which continues the fiction that the multistakeholder institutions that we have now are adequate both in their inclusiveness and in the breadth of Internet governance topics that they cover.

[Milton L Mueller] I agree that talk of "The Multistakeholder Model," as if it were a single thing and a well-defined, perfect alternative, is grating. But you and others on this list who now oppose this bear some of the responsibility for elevating this rather empty concept into a full-fledged governance model. Or did I misread your dissertation?

Of course, you can argue for more beneficial interpretations by defining "control" and "multistakeholder model" expansively, but even so this bill is just going to entrench the standoff between the US and other countries, which is not going to be helpful in reaching compromise on the evolution of Internet governance arrangements this year...

[Milton L Mueller] What other countries are you talking about? China? Russia? Saudi Arabia? U.A.E.? Iran? What kind of compromise are you talking about? Concessions to "government control?" Perhaps a bit more government control than we have now in order to keep the Saudis happy?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130414/fe960223/attachment.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 kerry at kdbsystems.com  Sun Apr 14 11:58:23 2013
From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 15:58:23 +0000
Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <fTUOGQ1X1naRFAM8@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch>
 <HaSYk1BNkDaRFAvr@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch>
 <CA+MV=uFxdgt22VpqfFs3ZHFs+_tgbZvz8Xz1ssAXn2hShe_-0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com>
 <fTUOGQ1X1naRFAM8@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <A0615421071EDD4A9F851117D67D538A82398DB3@EXCH01.KDBSystems.local>

> The Internet is a collection of routers, cables and peering agreements.

This is the heart of many debates on Internet governance. If you ask a technologist "What is the Internet?" the above is often their answer. If you ask an Internet user you will probably get a very different answer. It will often be their ISP, the web, Google, Facebook, or something similar. The technology aspect of how the Internet works is rarely considered by them. Many government officials have a poor understanding of the issues and are often in the unsophisticated Internet user category and react accordingly. This causes a lot of problems because when people talk about Internet governance they rarely have the same definition of the Internet. This guarantees there will be conflicts. Managing those conflicts is what the multi-stakeholder model is all about. Governments have a hard time grasping this concept as they are used to being in charge and don't understand they are merely one party at the table.

Kerry Brown

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From avri at ella.com  Sun Apr 14 12:09:52 2013
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 12:09:52 -0400
Subject: [governance] Question about inappropriate behavior  was RE: []
 US House Bill ...
In-Reply-To: <20130414083829.0945988f@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <CA+4KnA9peWBPTT5NUBx-0giwZVvDiiKWREy6S8ydOcyLFotT2g@mail.gmail.com> <080901ce3852$dd763b70$9862b250$@gmail.com> <cf8a1368-5f84-4b4b-bb19-1b7ac1898dcb@email.android.com> <20130414083829.0945988f@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <5D066C4E-B481-4952-9518-25A0D6D94A8C@ella.com>

Hi,

You are discouraging transparency in the Coordinator's use of criteria in making their judgements?

avri


On 14 Apr 2013, at 02:38, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> [with IGC coordinator hat on]
> 
> Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>> Does this statement, which [...]
>> the kind of thing the coordinators look for when deciding to start
>> the netiquette warning process?
> 
> I'd like to quite generally discourage public discussion of whether
> some particular statement violates the posting rules or not. If some
> remark has the effect of increasing the degree to which the IGC is a
> hostile environment, then quoting the statement and criticizing it
> will increase that effect.
> 
> 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 avri at acm.org  Sun Apr 14 12:16:42 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 12:16:42 -0400
Subject: [governance] Question about inappropriate behavior  was RE: []
 US House Bill ...
In-Reply-To: <20130414083829.0945988f@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <CA+4KnA9peWBPTT5NUBx-0giwZVvDiiKWREy6S8ydOcyLFotT2g@mail.gmail.com> <080901ce3852$dd763b70$9862b250$@gmail.com> <cf8a1368-5f84-4b4b-bb19-1b7ac1898dcb@email.android.com> <20130414083829.0945988f@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <6C15A96C-05A0-455B-B70D-1D4FE3DE3523@acm.org>


BTW is this a a warning that if if i discuss such subject i am infringing the rules of this list?
Do the coordinators now control the content of the IGC list?

This is a worrisome trend.


avri

On 14 Apr 2013, at 02:38, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> [with IGC coordinator hat on]
> 
> Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>> Does this statement, which [...]
>> the kind of thing the coordinators look for when deciding to start
>> the netiquette warning process?
> 
> I'd like to quite generally discourage public discussion of whether
> some particular statement violates the posting rules or not. If some
> remark has the effect of increasing the degree to which the IGC is a
> hostile environment, then quoting the statement and criticizing it
> will increase that effect.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Sun Apr 14 12:37:07 2013
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 17:37:07 +0100
Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <A0615421071EDD4A9F851117D67D538A82398DB3@EXCH01.KDBSystems.local>
References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch>
 <HaSYk1BNkDaRFAvr@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch>
 <CA+MV=uFxdgt22VpqfFs3ZHFs+_tgbZvz8Xz1ssAXn2hShe_-0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com>
 <fTUOGQ1X1naRFAM8@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <A0615421071EDD4A9F851117D67D538A82398DB3@EXCH01.KDBSystems.local>
Message-ID: <9R9mW+WzstaRFAJI@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<A0615421071EDD4A9F851117D67D538A82398DB3 at EXCH01.KDBSystems.local>, at 
15:58:23 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013, Kerry Brown <kerry at kdbsystems.com> writes
>> The Internet is a collection of routers, cables and peering agreements.
>
>This is the heart of many debates on Internet governance. If you ask a technologist "What is the Internet?" the above is often their answer. If
>you ask an Internet user you will probably get a very different answer. It will often be their ISP, the web, Google, Facebook, or something
>similar. The technology aspect of how the Internet works is rarely considered by them. Many government officials have a poor understanding of
>the issues and are often in the unsophisticated Internet user category and react accordingly. This causes a lot of problems because when people
>talk about Internet governance they rarely have the same definition of the Internet. This guarantees there will be conflicts.

All of this is true. My day-job is trying to bridge that divide, reduce 
the conflicts etc.

>Managing those conflicts is what the multi-stakeholder model is all about.

And briefing the stakeholders is what I'm all about.

>Governments have a hard time grasping this concept as they are used to being in charge and don't understand they are merely one party at the
>table.

(Although most governments do notice there are others at the table).

But here, on the IGC list, what I'm attempting to do (for the sake of 
avoiding any misunderstanding) is discovering what the various 
correspondents understand to be "the Internet", upon which they wish "no 
government interference".

I asked a question of Avri, perhaps you could answer it also.

Then we'll all get on a lot better, rather than talking past one another 
all the time.

ps If anyone knows what the US House of Representative's draftsman means 
by "the Internet", that would very helpful too.
-- 
Roland Perry

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From anriette at apc.org  Sun Apr 14 12:58:36 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 18:58:36 +0200
Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com>
References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <HaSYk1BNkDaRFAvr@internetpolicyagency.com> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+MV=uFxdgt22VpqfFs3ZHFs+_tgbZvz8Xz1ssAXn2hShe_-0g@mail.gmail.com> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org>

The question is, what is needed to protect and strengthen the internet
commons?
As Avri points out, governments have assisted the theft of the commons.
I would say that the form that this assistance takes ranges from lack of
the basic regulation that is needed to protect it to active protection
of certain vested interests. That is why the notion of an 'unregulated'
internet is so problematic and why the notion of an open and unregulated
internet can so easily be a contradiction in terms.

There needs to be some basic rules that makes sure that the internet
remains 'open and free' in a broad sense.

The risks, or the challenges related to this is that many governments
approach regulation of the internet not from the perspective of
protecting it as a commons, but from the perspective of enabling them to
exercise more control over internet content and use, and user behaviour.

I remain convinced that one of the difficulties in internet governance
is that there is a conceptual/principle deficit of some kind. Not so
much statement of principles that affirm freedom of expression,
'net-neutrality', etc.. Those are good....

I think they real deficit is in how the internet is defined, or what
kind of entity we understand it to be. 

When the management and supply of water is being regulated there are
also lots of contestation. For example between mines, communities who
live in the catchment area, communities who live downstream subject to
seasonal flooding, cities and commercial farms who need dams, and nature
conservation and reservers, where traditional seasonal flooding is often
essential to the survival of many species.

Policy would generally try to understand and balance all these interests
and will be premised on a common understanding that water is a common
resource. The public interest principles will be fairly easily
understood by most that are involved water policy and regulation. But
there will be lots of argument about how it is managed, and used and
often the wrong decisions will be made.

I just had a glance at the CGI.br principles and the IRP 10 principles
and neither statement contains anything that suggests what the internet
- from the perspective of it being a 'commons' or a public good - is. I
know I have been dwelling on this ONE KEY 'principle' deficit for a
while... but I just can't give thinking it is at the root of the
difficulties we have in addressing the conflicts of interest in internet
governance.

Anriette



On 14/04/2013 02:50, Avri Doria wrote:
> All of the Internet, like the land world before it, was once commons. Then, as before, the rich, the powerful and greedy, with the assistance of the governments they bought, and continue to buy, began to misappropriate those commons and called it property.  Each day more of that commons its stolen. Each day more of the linguistic commons is stolen and called intellectual property. The Internet commons is almost gone. This its what government do best - with some very few exceptions - assist in the theft of the commons.
>
> I have no problem with those who create art or new Internet spaces enjoying the fruits of their creativity and inventiveness. A neologism may be owned. A new Internet space may be owned. But the language itself or the Internet should not be.
>
> Diego Rafael Canabarro <diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> At the International Studies Association Annual Convention last week in
>> San
>> Francisco, an official from the US Department of State said: "there's
>> no
>> commons on cyberspace". That perception is closely related to the
>> conflict
>> presented by Mr. Perry bellow in this thread. I'm still struggling with
>> that assertion.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> One of the most significant I'm aware of (and I hope this is within
>>>> the remit of your question):
>>> It definitely is, and it's a conflict that I have not been
>> sufficiently
>>> conscious of, so thank you very much for pointing this out!
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>>
>>>> The private sector has built extensive
>>>> networks [fixed and mobile] using $billons of investment on which
>>>> their shareholders [many of whom are the consumers' pension funds]
>>>> expect a return, versus many customers who feel entitled to have
>>>> unlimited usage for a relatively trivial monthly payment (which
>> they
>>>> sometimes dress up as "Network Neutrality").
>>>>
>>>> I post this not to support either of the above points of view, but
>>>> merely to inform readers of the conflict it unquestionably
>> represents.
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To 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)
>> --
> Avri Doria

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Sun Apr 14 12:59:58 2013
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 17:59:58 +0100
Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <A0615421071EDD4A9F851117D67D538A82398DB3@EXCH01.KDBSystems.local>
References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch>
 <HaSYk1BNkDaRFAvr@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch>
 <CA+MV=uFxdgt22VpqfFs3ZHFs+_tgbZvz8Xz1ssAXn2hShe_-0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com>
 <fTUOGQ1X1naRFAM8@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <A0615421071EDD4A9F851117D67D538A82398DB3@EXCH01.KDBSystems.local>
Message-ID: <+BCmiJYOCuaRFA5i@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<A0615421071EDD4A9F851117D67D538A82398DB3 at EXCH01.KDBSystems.local>, at 
15:58:23 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013, Kerry Brown <kerry at kdbsystems.com> writes
>This causes a lot of problems because when people talk about Internet governance they rarely have the same definition of the Internet. This
>guarantees there will be conflicts. Managing those conflicts is what the multi-stakeholder model is all about.

Just to be clear, I don't think multistakeholder meetings *with a 
negotiated outcome* should be a learning experience *about the topic of 
Internet governance* for any of the negotiators. It should be a place 
where differences of informed opinion are resolved, with participants 
clear about what the issues are, even if they don't agree what approach 
to take.

ps. This is why the IGF is special - with no negotiated outcome everyone 
can attend in order to learn.
-- 
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 kerry at kdbsystems.com  Sun Apr 14 13:16:30 2013
From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 17:16:30 +0000
Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <9R9mW+WzstaRFAJI@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch>
 <HaSYk1BNkDaRFAvr@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch>
 <CA+MV=uFxdgt22VpqfFs3ZHFs+_tgbZvz8Xz1ssAXn2hShe_-0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com>
 <fTUOGQ1X1naRFAM8@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <A0615421071EDD4A9F851117D67D538A82398DB3@EXCH01.KDBSystems.local>
 <9R9mW+WzstaRFAJI@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <A0615421071EDD4A9F851117D67D538A82398EDD@EXCH01.KDBSystems.local>

> But here, on the IGC list, what I'm attempting to do (for the sake of
> avoiding any misunderstanding) is discovering what the various
> correspondents understand to be "the Internet", upon which they wish "no
> government interference".
> 
> I asked a question of Avri, perhaps you could answer it also.
> 
> Then we'll all get on a lot better, rather than talking past one another
> all the time.
> 

This requires more contemplation than I'm inclined to devote to the topic on a fine spring Sunday morning :) I need to get outside for a walk.

I'll answer this tomorrow. It is a very important question that all of us involved in Internet governance need to think about and answer.

Kerry Brown

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sun Apr 14 14:52:48 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 11:52:48 -0700
Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org>
References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <HaSYk1BNkDaRFAvr@internetpolicyagency.com> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+MV=uFxdgt22VpqfFs3ZHFs+_tgbZvz8Xz1ssAXn2hShe_-0g@mail.gmail.com> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org>
Message-ID: <002701ce3941$4ad566c0$e0803440$@gmail.com>

Thanks Anriette for a very useful commentary and Avri for raising the issue...

There is of course, the contemporary (?) debate as to whether to refer to issues such as the management of water supplies as a "management of a commons" or as a "management of a public good"... In both formulations of course, there are inbuilt assumptions--in the first instance, that of the "commons" there is an assumption that the structure of governance/management is occuring in some sort of context where no existing governance/management structures are already in place and thus means must found to create these; which, as Anriette points to, should be such as to satisfy the (legitimate?) needs of all parties.  In the latter case that of the "public good", there is the assumption of the pre-existence of a "public" and thus of some form of governance structures which repesent at some level the collective will of that public. 

Those of an anti-government/anti-State bent will clearly opt for the former formulation while those without such a bias will potentially opt for either depending on the specifics of the circumstance.

Whether in our context the Internet is seen as a "commons" or as a "public good" may thus perhap simply be a matter of taste (or political/ideological pre-disposition).

However, a decision around this may also be associated with issues such as assessments of the role of power--economic, political, social--in the context of governance. One of the major challenges facing those who opt to see the Internet as a commons is how to deal with issues of power differentials  within that commons.  Avri in her disquisition pointed to the power of the State in abrogating the extent of the commons but interestingly she failed to mention the role of private corporations in similarly parcelling out and limiting the extent of the commons and perhaps more importantly the capacity of the commons to self-manage its affairs in contexts where the private sector is already acting/has power. (To use Anriette's example what happens when the water supply is already in whole or in part privatized, how then to treat it as a commons in the absence of State power?)

Any discussion of the Internet as a commons must IMHO as a basic and defining issue deal with how in an Internet treated as a commons, the differential power of the various actors will be managed/controlled/equalized (?).  It is again IMHO totally insufficient to present the Internet as a commons as a paradigm for matters of Internet Governance and specifically as a solution to presumed overweening attempts at control by States without equally dealing with matters of actual patterns of control over significant elements of the Internet by unaccountable private corporations and individual States pursuing their own specific self-interests.

One reason to opt for a paradigm of the Internet as a global public good is precisely because within that model are conceptual elements and strategies for managing/controlling the role of otherwise unaccountable private sector actors and equally that of rogue States which choose to ignore the role of the global interest in the pursuit of local/national interests.

Whether some commons/publc good hybrid model is possible where concerns with respect to government control (as for example with respect to Freedom of Expression) and parallel concerns with respect to private control or individual national control (as for example in ensuring the public interest in matters such as privacy, equality in the distribution of opportunities to realize benefits, and so on) can be mutually accommodated is perhaps our most important task in this context.

Mike 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2013 9:59 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance

The question is, what is needed to protect and strengthen the internet commons?
As Avri points out, governments have assisted the theft of the commons.
I would say that the form that this assistance takes ranges from lack of the basic regulation that is needed to protect it to active protection of certain vested interests. That is why the notion of an 'unregulated'
internet is so problematic and why the notion of an open and unregulated internet can so easily be a contradiction in terms.

There needs to be some basic rules that makes sure that the internet remains 'open and free' in a broad sense.

The risks, or the challenges related to this is that many governments approach regulation of the internet not from the perspective of protecting it as a commons, but from the perspective of enabling them to exercise more control over internet content and use, and user behaviour.

I remain convinced that one of the difficulties in internet governance is that there is a conceptual/principle deficit of some kind. Not so much statement of principles that affirm freedom of expression, 'net-neutrality', etc.. Those are good....

I think they real deficit is in how the internet is defined, or what kind of entity we understand it to be. 

When the management and supply of water is being regulated there are also lots of contestation. For example between mines, communities who live in the catchment area, communities who live downstream subject to seasonal flooding, cities and commercial farms who need dams, and nature conservation and reservers, where traditional seasonal flooding is often essential to the survival of many species.

Policy would generally try to understand and balance all these interests and will be premised on a common understanding that water is a common resource. The public interest principles will be fairly easily understood by most that are involved water policy and regulation. But there will be lots of argument about how it is managed, and used and often the wrong decisions will be made.

I just had a glance at the CGI.br principles and the IRP 10 principles and neither statement contains anything that suggests what the internet
- from the perspective of it being a 'commons' or a public good - is. I know I have been dwelling on this ONE KEY 'principle' deficit for a while... but I just can't give thinking it is at the root of the difficulties we have in addressing the conflicts of interest in internet governance.

Anriette



On 14/04/2013 02:50, Avri Doria wrote:
> All of the Internet, like the land world before it, was once commons. Then, as before, the rich, the powerful and greedy, with the assistance of the governments they bought, and continue to buy, began to misappropriate those commons and called it property.  Each day more of that commons its stolen. Each day more of the linguistic commons is stolen and called intellectual property. The Internet commons is almost gone. This its what government do best - with some very few exceptions - assist in the theft of the commons.
>
> I have no problem with those who create art or new Internet spaces enjoying the fruits of their creativity and inventiveness. A neologism may be owned. A new Internet space may be owned. But the language itself or the Internet should not be.
>
> Diego Rafael Canabarro <diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> At the International Studies Association Annual Convention last week 
>> in San Francisco, an official from the US Department of State said: 
>> "there's no commons on cyberspace". That perception is closely 
>> related to the conflict presented by Mr. Perry bellow in this thread. 
>> I'm still struggling with that assertion.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> One of the most significant I'm aware of (and I hope this is within 
>>>> the remit of your question):
>>> It definitely is, and it's a conflict that I have not been
>> sufficiently
>>> conscious of, so thank you very much for pointing this out!
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>>
>>>> The private sector has built extensive networks [fixed and mobile] 
>>>> using $billons of investment on which their shareholders [many of 
>>>> whom are the consumers' pension funds] expect a return, versus many 
>>>> customers who feel entitled to have unlimited usage for a 
>>>> relatively trivial monthly payment (which
>> they
>>>> sometimes dress up as "Network Neutrality").
>>>>
>>>> I post this not to support either of the above points of view, but 
>>>> merely to inform readers of the conflict it unquestionably
>> represents.
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To 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)
>> --
> Avri Doria

--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692




-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sun Apr 14 15:01:04 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 12:01:04 -0700
Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] When public infrastructure goes
 private
References: <78085B8F-3BAF-4926-A96F-CD2B05B73351@warpspeed.com> 
Message-ID: <003001ce3942$70d47680$527d6380$@gmail.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com] On Behalf
Of Dewayne Hendricks
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2013 9:15 AM
To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] When public infrastructure goes private

When public infrastructure goes private
Google is bringing a fiber-optic data network to homeowners in Kansas City,
Mo., and Kan., but without the usual regulations. That means underprivileged
neighborhoods may be left in the digital dust.
By Michael Hiltzik
April 12, 2013
<http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20130412,0,1294414.column>

Consider some of the things that have bound our nation together:

Universal postal service at a flat rate, whether you live in Santa Monica or
Sitka, Alaska. Interstate highways, built with taxpayer funds and free of
tolls. Regulated phone and electric service, with lifeline rates for the
economically disadvantaged.

These were all based on a social contract honoring the notion that essential
infrastructure should be available to all - indeed, that those normally left
by the side of the economic road might be most in need.

But you can kiss that notion goodbye, because today's model of building
public infrastructure is to let private companies do it.

Americans are becoming more dependent on privately operated toll roads to
get where we're going, and on private delivery services likeFedEx and UPS to
carry our parcels. But the greatest shift has occurred in the sector that is
most crucial in the information age: communications and data networks.

That brings us to Google - as happens sooner or later with any discussion
touching on digital technology. The Mountain View, Calif., behemoth has
branched into the Internet service business by introducing a fiber-optic
data network for homeowners in Kansas City, Mo., and its neighboring
namesake in Kansas.

The service, which is expected to be fully functional by the end of this
year, is upending the traditional business and regulatory model for phone,
video and data communications. But Google managed to exempt itself from the
regulations that typically force cable companies to wire all neighborhoods,
rich, poor and in between, for the Internet. The result threatens to leave
underprivileged neighborhoods in the digital dust.

Ceding such a crucial service to a private company with minimal regulation
is something that happened with virtually no public discussion about its
implications for society.

"The dialogue has to happen at the national level, because it can't happen
at the local level," says Shannon Jackson, an anthropologist at the
University of Missouri-Kansas City.

It's unsurprising that Google's activities underscore the evolution of the
infrastructure model, because the company is pervasive. Its Gmail is the
nation's largest single email network, relied on by millions of users for
daily communications. But Google is still a corporation, and if it decided
tomorrow that Gmail didn't produce for its bottom line, nothing could stop
the company from shutting it down. Compare that to the obstacles facing the
U.S. Postal Service in its desire merely to end Saturday mail delivery to
save money; under intense political pressure,USPS last weekdropped the plan.

Google is not the only firm that provides a service on which millions of
users have come to depend but which is wholly subject to private economic
decision-making. Facebook claims more than a billion users worldwide, but
its network is heavily geared toward exploiting their personal information
to make money for itself.

[snip]

Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: <http://www.warpspeed.com/wordpress>

 


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 14 15:19:02 2013
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 19:19:02 +0000
Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United
 States Regarding Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A8071@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org>
 <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A8071@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A8101@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>

I've blogged about this; it contains a link to the video and a direct quotation from Rep. Eshoo that I am sure all of us will find interesting.
http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/04/14/an-internet-free-from-government-control-a-worthy-principle/

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2013 11:26 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jeremy Malcolm
Subject: RE: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance


So this is obviously nonsense; it is not US policy to promote a global Internet free from government control, only free from the control of other governments besides itself.

Jeremy:
It seems you did not pay very close attention to the deliberations on the bill in the U.S. Congress. Had you listened to Rep. Eshoo, who spoke in opposition to the bill immediately after its introduction, it was noted that the NTIA, FCC and other USG departments linked to the Obama admin. had expressed concern that the bill's opposition to "government control" as stated might actually be interpreted to challenge the U.S. Commerce Department's IANA contract and control over ICANN.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130414/0c9a779f/attachment.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 David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu  Sun Apr 14 19:00:21 2013
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 19:00:21 -0400
Subject: [governance] Message to IGC/ was formal notice to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A501D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5162642A.2040901@apc.org>	<20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info> <ABFF7E5D-23E1-4119-B41B-0BEC03068880@gmail.com> <456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net> <20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch> <20130408113058.GA31767@hserus.net> <20130408140805.5f69559a@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A501D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <30469487-C537-44B5-B95D-802DDAC8C1CD@post.harvard.edu>

On Apr 8, 2013, at 10:41 PM:

> as much hostility and aggravation on one side as the other.

An evidentiary based review of the list archive confirms that this is  
not so - "the situation is very, very asymmetric."

> [A coordinator] has intervened in this dispute


The co-coordinators intervened - not one of the coordinators.

> he basically agrees with one side of the dispute and wishes to  
> single out one person


Again, see above - not the case.

> one of the coordinators

Incorrect.  See above.

On Apr 9, 2013, at 1:58 PM:
> it is against the basic principle of freedom of speech


Freedom can be appropriately complicated.  As seen in the recent  
discussion about the need for some basic rules, to underpin freedom.   
In this case, rules that proscribe an atmosphere of fear, of personal  
attacks.


More generally.

Only when we take seriously the requirement to discuss facts and logic  
- but, definitively, not discuss each other - is a conducive  
atmosphere possible.  After that, we may get to other possibilities,  
such as 'taking a matter off list.'


That said.

The lower the temperature of the words - not rhetoric or, as has been  
said, theater - the more likely discussion may be  useful.

And that goes for both 'sides' - most decidedly, for all.


In my view, needless to say,

David


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Sun Apr 14 20:37:43 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:37:43 +0800
Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United
 States Regarding Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A8071@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A8071@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <FC1A31ED-2602-4833-9741-190BB98988EC@ciroap.org>

On 14/04/2013, at 11:26 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
 
> So this is obviously nonsense; it is not US policy to promote a global Internet free from government control, only free from the control of other governments besides itself.  
>  
> Jeremy:
> It seems you did not pay very close attention to the deliberations on the bill in the U.S. Congress. Had you listened to Rep. Eshoo, who spoke in opposition to the bill immediately after its introduction, it was noted that the NTIA, FCC and other USG departments linked to the Obama admin. had expressed concern that the bill’s opposition to “government control” as stated might actually be interpreted to challenge the U.S. Commerce Department’s IANA contract and control over ICANN.

On the contrary, I knew that Eshoo had expressed concerns but also that those concerns had been ignored: the Public Knowledge website is helpful in including booth Eshoo's letter (A) and a blog about how it fared (B).

A: http://www.publicknowledge.org/files/Letter%20to%20Chairman%20Walden%20from%20Ranking%20Member%20Eshoo%2002-25-13.pdf
B: http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/will-walden-wipe-out-dmca-just-hack-net-neutr


> Based on this new information, I look forward to a turnaround on your view of the legislation. ;-)

Based on my new information, I'm looking forward to your turnaround too. :-)

> Of course, you can argue for more beneficial interpretations by defining "control" and "multistakeholder model" expansively, but even so this bill is just going to entrench the standoff between the US and other countries, which is not going to be helpful in reaching compromise on the evolution of Internet governance arrangements this year...
>  
> [Milton L Mueller] What other countries are you talking about? China? Russia? Saudi Arabia? U.A.E.? Iran? What kind of compromise are you talking about? Concessions to “government control?” Perhaps a bit more government control than we have now in order to keep the Saudis happy?


No, resuming the unfinished work of the WGIG and WSIS towards a model of enhanced cooperation in Internet governance policy making, as now before the new CSTD working group.

-- 
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

WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013

@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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130415/5b708f1d/attachment.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 avri at acm.org  Sun Apr 14 21:25:41 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 21:25:41 -0400
Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <9R9mW+WzstaRFAJI@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <HaSYk1BNkDaRFAvr@internetpolicyagency.com> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+MV=uFxdgt22VpqfFs3ZHFs+_tgbZvz8Xz1ssAXn2hShe_-0g@mail.gmail.com> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <fTUOGQ1X1naRFAM8@internetpolicyagency.com> <A0615421071EDD4A9F851117D67D538A82398DB3@EXCH01.KDBSystems.local> <9R9mW+WzstaRFAJI@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <82DC3510-3E51-4464-BD67-42D0EE5CDA5C@acm.org>


On 14 Apr 2013, at 12:37, Roland Perry wrote:

> 
> But here, on the IGC list, what I'm attempting to do (for the sake of avoiding any misunderstanding) is discovering what the various correspondents understand to be "the Internet", upon which they wish "no government interference".
> 
> I asked a question of Avri, perhaps you could answer it also.

I tend to think of the Internet as an emergent, and emerging, reality consisting of hardware, protocols and software, and human intentionality brought together by a common set of design principles and constrained by policies fashioned by the stakeholders.

I beleive  "no government interference" is an inaccurate representation of what I wish for.  I wish for "no government control,"  I also wish for government participation as equal/equivalent stakeholders in Internet governance.  I am sure that would be considered government interference by some. And would be considered "no government interference" by others.

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 dave at difference.com.au  Sun Apr 14 22:36:09 2013
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:36:09 +0800
Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <+BCmiJYOCuaRFA5i@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <HaSYk1BNkDaRFAvr@internetpolicyagency.com> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+MV=uFxdgt22VpqfFs3ZHFs+_tgbZvz8Xz1ssAXn2hShe_-0g@mail.gmail.com> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <fTUOGQ1X1naRFAM8@internetpolicyagency.com> <A0615421071EDD4A9F851117D67D538A82398DB3@EXCH01.KDBSystems.local> <+BCmiJYOCuaRFA5i@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <EE3B826A-C712-430D-8D7B-A169444FA7E5@difference.com.au>


On 15/04/2013, at 12:59 AM, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:

> In message <A0615421071EDD4A9F851117D67D538A82398DB3 at EXCH01.KDBSystems.local>, at 15:58:23 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013, Kerry Brown <kerry at kdbsystems.com> writes
>> This causes a lot of problems because when people talk about Internet governance they rarely have the same definition of the Internet. This
>> guarantees there will be conflicts. Managing those conflicts is what the multi-stakeholder model is all about.
> 
> Just to be clear, I don't think multistakeholder meetings *with a negotiated outcome* should be a learning experience *about the topic of Internet governance* for any of the negotiators. It should be a place where differences of informed opinion are resolved, with participants clear about what the issues are, even if they don't agree what approach to take.

	A learning experience should never be the goal of such meetings, but it will be an inevitable side effect. Internet governance is evolving quickly enough that there is always something for us to learn.
	Regards
		David
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Apr 14 23:54:56 2013
From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:24:56 +0530
Subject: [governance] Question about inappropriate behavior was RE: []
 US House Bill ...
In-Reply-To: <6C15A96C-05A0-455B-B70D-1D4FE3DE3523@acm.org>
References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org>
	<CA+4KnA9peWBPTT5NUBx-0giwZVvDiiKWREy6S8ydOcyLFotT2g@mail.gmail.com>
	<080901ce3852$dd763b70$9862b250$@gmail.com>
	<cf8a1368-5f84-4b4b-bb19-1b7ac1898dcb@email.android.com>
	<20130414083829.0945988f@quill.bollow.ch>
	<6C15A96C-05A0-455B-B70D-1D4FE3DE3523@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAEP5zKRa8De5OMXJEB218MYAZPp-WiqTbwG=bJEe3uTKigpQQA@mail.gmail.com>

Nobert while I do agree with you on the statement of "then quoting the
statement and criticizing it
 will increase that effect." - I feel this needs to be discussed openly.
Now more than ever - after the earlier appeal and all this makes the
coordinators look bad. Let the Caucus discuss and come to a reasonable
consensus on what's OK and what's not.

In fact I usually avoid posting publicly, but this time I'm seeing stuff
come out that hasnt been discussed in ages - so it does encourage me (and
I'm sure others) to participate, voice my views and really feel like we're
getting somewhere.

I'd encourage the coordinators to monitor and help focus the discussion
instead of privatize/avoid it.

Just my 2c

-C


On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>
> BTW is this a a warning that if if i discuss such subject i am infringing
> the rules of this list?
> Do the coordinators now control the content of the IGC list?
>
> This is a worrisome trend.
>
>
> avri
>
> On 14 Apr 2013, at 02:38, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
> > [with IGC coordinator hat on]
> >
> > Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
> >> Does this statement, which [...]
> >> the kind of thing the coordinators look for when deciding to start
> >> the netiquette warning process?
> >
> > I'd like to quite generally discourage public discussion of whether
> > some particular statement violates the posting rules or not. If some
> > remark has the effect of increasing the degree to which the IGC is a
> > hostile environment, then quoting the statement and criticizing it
> > will increase that effect.
> >
> > 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130415/ce901e10/attachment.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 avri at acm.org  Mon Apr 15 00:39:31 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 00:39:31 -0400
Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <002701ce3941$4ad566c0$e0803440$@gmail.com>
References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <HaSYk1BNkDaRFAvr@internetpolicyagency.com> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+MV=uFxdgt22VpqfFs3ZHFs+_tgbZvz8Xz1ssAXn2hShe_-0g@mail.gmail.com> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <002701ce3941$4ad566c0$e0803440$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1A69CA05-6519-4CCE-BD08-76C735A603C4@acm.org>


> Avri in her disquisition pointed to the power of the State in abrogating the extent of the commons but interestingly she failed to mention the role of private corporations in similarly parcelling out and limiting the extent of the commons and perhaps more importantly the capacity of the commons to self-manage its affairs in contexts where the private sector is already acting/has power.

Actually I think I said they were doing it at the behest of their rich and powerful allies, aka business - though I did not differentiate between public and private corporations.

Specifically:

>> Then, as before, the rich, the powerful and greedy, with the assistance of the governments they bought, and continue to buy, began to misappropriate those commons and called it property.


What I view differently is something like Facebook that created a new word and a new world, that makes contractual agreements with its users - selling their information in a return for a service those users (myself among them) value.   I do not see this as part of the commons, though it relies on the services of the commons.

also

> 
> On 14 Apr 2013, at 05:56, Roland Perry wrote:
> 
>> Just so I understand, can you give some examples of things you think have been [mis]appropriated, that used to be [Internet] commons and aren't any longer.
> 

Some of the things I think of as government enabled theft in the Internet:

- trademark of common words, on the Internet or in general.
- exorbitant fees for wireless bandwidth/access charged in some regions, especially when protected by government sanction  mono/duopololy

avri


On 14 Apr 2013, at 14:52, michael gurstein wrote:

> Thanks Anriette for a very useful commentary and Avri for raising the issue...
> 
> There is of course, the contemporary (?) debate as to whether to refer to issues such as the management of water supplies as a "management of a commons" or as a "management of a public good"... In both formulations of course, there are inbuilt assumptions--in the first instance, that of the "commons" there is an assumption that the structure of governance/management is occuring in some sort of context where no existing governance/management structures are already in place and thus means must found to create these; which, as Anriette points to, should be such as to satisfy the (legitimate?) needs of all parties.  In the latter case that of the "public good", there is the assumption of the pre-existence of a "public" and thus of some form of governance structures which repesent at some level the collective will of that public. 
> 
> Those of an anti-government/anti-State bent will clearly opt for the former formulation while those without such a bias will potentially opt for either depending on the specifics of the circumstance.
> 
> Whether in our context the Internet is seen as a "commons" or as a "public good" may thus perhap simply be a matter of taste (or political/ideological pre-disposition).
> 
> However, a decision around this may also be associated with issues such as assessments of the role of power--economic, political, social--in the context of governance. One of the major challenges facing those who opt to see the Internet as a commons is how to deal with issues of power differentials  within that commons.  Avri in her disquisition pointed to the power of the State in abrogating the extent of the commons but interestingly she failed to mention the role of private corporations in similarly parcelling out and limiting the extent of the commons and perhaps more importantly the capacity of the commons to self-manage its affairs in contexts where the private sector is already acting/has power. (To use Anriette's example what happens when the water supply is already in whole or in part privatized, how then to treat it as a commons in the absence of State power?)
> 
> Any discussion of the Internet as a commons must IMHO as a basic and defining issue deal with how in an Internet treated as a commons, the differential power of the various actors will be managed/controlled/equalized (?).  It is again IMHO totally insufficient to present the Internet as a commons as a paradigm for matters of Internet Governance and specifically as a solution to presumed overweening attempts at control by States without equally dealing with matters of actual patterns of control over significant elements of the Internet by unaccountable private corporations and individual States pursuing their own specific self-interests.
> 
> One reason to opt for a paradigm of the Internet as a global public good is precisely because within that model are conceptual elements and strategies for managing/controlling the role of otherwise unaccountable private sector actors and equally that of rogue States which choose to ignore the role of the global interest in the pursuit of local/national interests.
> 
> Whether some commons/publc good hybrid model is possible where concerns with respect to government control (as for example with respect to Freedom of Expression) and parallel concerns with respect to private control or individual national control (as for example in ensuring the public interest in matters such as privacy, equality in the distribution of opportunities to realize benefits, and so on) can be mutually accommodated is perhaps our most important task in this context.
> 
> Mike 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen
> Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2013 9:59 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance
> 
> The question is, what is needed to protect and strengthen the internet commons?
> As Avri points out, governments have assisted the theft of the commons.
> I would say that the form that this assistance takes ranges from lack of the basic regulation that is needed to protect it to active protection of certain vested interests. That is why the notion of an 'unregulated'
> internet is so problematic and why the notion of an open and unregulated internet can so easily be a contradiction in terms.
> 
> There needs to be some basic rules that makes sure that the internet remains 'open and free' in a broad sense.
> 
> The risks, or the challenges related to this is that many governments approach regulation of the internet not from the perspective of protecting it as a commons, but from the perspective of enabling them to exercise more control over internet content and use, and user behaviour.
> 
> I remain convinced that one of the difficulties in internet governance is that there is a conceptual/principle deficit of some kind. Not so much statement of principles that affirm freedom of expression, 'net-neutrality', etc.. Those are good....
> 
> I think they real deficit is in how the internet is defined, or what kind of entity we understand it to be. 
> 
> When the management and supply of water is being regulated there are also lots of contestation. For example between mines, communities who live in the catchment area, communities who live downstream subject to seasonal flooding, cities and commercial farms who need dams, and nature conservation and reservers, where traditional seasonal flooding is often essential to the survival of many species.
> 
> Policy would generally try to understand and balance all these interests and will be premised on a common understanding that water is a common resource. The public interest principles will be fairly easily understood by most that are involved water policy and regulation. But there will be lots of argument about how it is managed, and used and often the wrong decisions will be made.
> 
> I just had a glance at the CGI.br principles and the IRP 10 principles and neither statement contains anything that suggests what the internet
> - from the perspective of it being a 'commons' or a public good - is. I know I have been dwelling on this ONE KEY 'principle' deficit for a while... but I just can't give thinking it is at the root of the difficulties we have in addressing the conflicts of interest in internet governance.
> 
> Anriette
> 
> 
> 
> On 14/04/2013 02:50, Avri Doria wrote:
>> All of the Internet, like the land world before it, was once commons. Then, as before, the rich, the powerful and greedy, with the assistance of the governments they bought, and continue to buy, began to misappropriate those commons and called it property.  Each day more of that commons its stolen. Each day more of the linguistic commons is stolen and called intellectual property. The Internet commons is almost gone. This its what government do best - with some very few exceptions - assist in the theft of the commons.
>> 
>> I have no problem with those who create art or new Internet spaces enjoying the fruits of their creativity and inventiveness. A neologism may be owned. A new Internet space may be owned. But the language itself or the Internet should not be.
>> 
>> Diego Rafael Canabarro <diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> At the International Studies Association Annual Convention last week 
>>> in San Francisco, an official from the US Department of State said: 
>>> "there's no commons on cyberspace". That perception is closely 
>>> related to the conflict presented by Mr. Perry bellow in this thread. 
>>> I'm still struggling with that assertion.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> One of the most significant I'm aware of (and I hope this is within 
>>>>> the remit of your question):
>>>> It definitely is, and it's a conflict that I have not been
>>> sufficiently
>>>> conscious of, so thank you very much for pointing this out!
>>>> 
>>>> Greetings,
>>>> Norbert
>>>> 
>>>>> The private sector has built extensive networks [fixed and mobile] 
>>>>> using $billons of investment on which their shareholders [many of 
>>>>> whom are the consumers' pension funds] expect a return, versus many 
>>>>> customers who feel entitled to have unlimited usage for a 
>>>>> relatively trivial monthly payment (which
>>> they
>>>>> sometimes dress up as "Network Neutrality").
>>>>> 
>>>>> I post this not to support either of the above points of view, but 
>>>>> merely to inform readers of the conflict it unquestionably
>>> represents.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> 
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To 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)
>>> --
>> Avri Doria
> 
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From avri at acm.org  Mon Apr 15 00:44:49 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 00:44:49 -0400
Subject: [governance] Message to IGC/ was formal notice to Suresh
In-Reply-To: <20130408140805.5f69559a@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5162642A.2040901@apc.org> <20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info> <ABFF7E5D-23E1-4119-B41B-0BEC03068880@gmail.com> <456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net> <20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch> <20130408113058.GA31767@hserus.net> <20130408140805.5f69559a@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <71061265-1578-4CC3-9CC1-52AAA886A48B@acm.org>

Still catching up.  So much fascinating email to catch up on.


On 8 Apr 2013, at 08:08, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> Maybe one solution would be for the people who agree with you on what
> kind of policy is desirable, to join that list?


Love it or leave it?
Is that what I hear?
Agree or leave it?

avri

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Apr 15 00:51:04 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:21:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in
 Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org>
References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <HaSYk1BNkDaRFAvr@internetpolicyagency.com> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+MV=uFxdgt22VpqfFs3ZHFs+_tgbZvz8Xz1ssAXn2hShe_-0g@mail.gmail.com> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org>
Message-ID: <516B8738.1030608@itforchange.net>



Anriette/ All

I find this posting, and later ones in the thread very interesting. 
Indeed a good amount of confusion in this group's internal interactions 
owe to the fact that while we have some broad process rules, we have 
very little in terms of substance that we can take as a starting point 
for our political/ advocacy work. Recognising the Internet as a commons/ 
public good, and seeking that its basic governance principles flow from 
such a basic understanding of the Internet, is good and useful basic 
agreement to try to reach for this group,

I propose that the caucus adopts this as a/ the basic principle for 
IGC's political/ advocacy work.

I propose that we even go beyond and adopt a working definition of the 
Internet, absence of which itself has been identified as a major problem 
that renders many of our discussions/ positions here unclear. Avri 
proposes the following definition, which I find very encouraging....

    "Internet as an emergent, and emerging, reality consisting of
    hardware, protocols and software, and human intentionality brought
    together by a common set of design principles and constrained by
    policies fashioned by the stakeholders."


I propose small modifications to it

    "Internet as an emergent, and emerging, reality consisting of
    hardware, protocols and software, human intentionality, and a new
    kind of social spatiality, brought together by a common set of
    design principles and constrained by policies fashioned by due
    democratic processes."


So what I propose for this caucus to adopt is as follows

    "We recognise the Internet as an emergent, and emerging, reality
    consisting of hardware, protocols and software, human
    intentionality, and a new kind of social spatiality, brought
    together by a common set of design principles and constrained by
    policies fashioned by due democratic processes. Accordingly, the
    Internet is to be considered as a global commons and a global public
    good. The design principles and policies that constitute the
    governance of the Internet should must flow from such recognition of
    the Internet as a commons and a public good."

The text can of course be improved a lot, but I thought it is good to 
put forward something that the caucus can work upon...

parminder



On Sunday 14 April 2013 10:28 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> The question is, what is needed to protect and strengthen the internet
> commons?
> As Avri points out, governments have assisted the theft of the commons.
> I would say that the form that this assistance takes ranges from lack of
> the basic regulation that is needed to protect it to active protection
> of certain vested interests. That is why the notion of an 'unregulated'
> internet is so problematic and why the notion of an open and unregulated
> internet can so easily be a contradiction in terms.
>
> There needs to be some basic rules that makes sure that the internet
> remains 'open and free' in a broad sense.
>
> The risks, or the challenges related to this is that many governments
> approach regulation of the internet not from the perspective of
> protecting it as a commons, but from the perspective of enabling them to
> exercise more control over internet content and use, and user behaviour.
>
> I remain convinced that one of the difficulties in internet governance
> is that there is a conceptual/principle deficit of some kind. Not so
> much statement of principles that affirm freedom of expression,
> 'net-neutrality', etc.. Those are good....
>
> I think they real deficit is in how the internet is defined, or what
> kind of entity we understand it to be.
>
> When the management and supply of water is being regulated there are
> also lots of contestation. For example between mines, communities who
> live in the catchment area, communities who live downstream subject to
> seasonal flooding, cities and commercial farms who need dams, and nature
> conservation and reservers, where traditional seasonal flooding is often
> essential to the survival of many species.
>
> Policy would generally try to understand and balance all these interests
> and will be premised on a common understanding that water is a common
> resource. The public interest principles will be fairly easily
> understood by most that are involved water policy and regulation. But
> there will be lots of argument about how it is managed, and used and
> often the wrong decisions will be made.
>
> I just had a glance at the CGI.br principles and the IRP 10 principles
> and neither statement contains anything that suggests what the internet
> - from the perspective of it being a 'commons' or a public good - is. I
> know I have been dwelling on this ONE KEY 'principle' deficit for a
> while... but I just can't give thinking it is at the root of the
> difficulties we have in addressing the conflicts of interest in internet
> governance.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
> On 14/04/2013 02:50, Avri Doria wrote:
>> All of the Internet, like the land world before it, was once commons. Then, as before, the rich, the powerful and greedy, with the assistance of the governments they bought, and continue to buy, began to misappropriate those commons and called it property.  Each day more of that commons its stolen. Each day more of the linguistic commons is stolen and called intellectual property. The Internet commons is almost gone. This its what government do best - with some very few exceptions - assist in the theft of the commons.
>>
>> I have no problem with those who create art or new Internet spaces enjoying the fruits of their creativity and inventiveness. A neologism may be owned. A new Internet space may be owned. But the language itself or the Internet should not be.
>>
>> Diego Rafael Canabarro <diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> At the International Studies Association Annual Convention last week in
>>> San
>>> Francisco, an official from the US Department of State said: "there's
>>> no
>>> commons on cyberspace". That perception is closely related to the
>>> conflict
>>> presented by Mr. Perry bellow in this thread. I'm still struggling with
>>> that assertion.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One of the most significant I'm aware of (and I hope this is within
>>>>> the remit of your question):
>>>> It definitely is, and it's a conflict that I have not been
>>> sufficiently
>>>> conscious of, so thank you very much for pointing this out!
>>>>
>>>> Greetings,
>>>> Norbert
>>>>
>>>>> The private sector has built extensive
>>>>> networks [fixed and mobile] using $billons of investment on which
>>>>> their shareholders [many of whom are the consumers' pension funds]
>>>>> expect a return, versus many customers who feel entitled to have
>>>>> unlimited usage for a relatively trivial monthly payment (which
>>> they
>>>>> sometimes dress up as "Network Neutrality").
>>>>>
>>>>> I post this not to support either of the above points of view, but
>>>>> merely to inform readers of the conflict it unquestionably
>>> represents.
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To 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)
>>> --
>> Avri Doria

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130415/f4bc627c/attachment.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Apr 15 01:07:03 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:37:03 +0530
Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <002701ce3941$4ad566c0$e0803440$@gmail.com>
References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <HaSYk1BNkDaRFAvr@internetpolicyagency.com> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+MV=uFxdgt22VpqfFs3ZHFs+_tgbZvz8Xz1ssAXn2hShe_-0g@mail.gmail.com> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <002701ce3941$4ad566c0$e0803440$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <516B8AF7.3070600@itforchange.net>


On Monday 15 April 2013 12:22 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
> Thanks Anriette for a very useful commentary and Avri for raising the issue...
>
> There is of course, the contemporary (?) debate as to whether to refer to issues such as the management of water supplies as a "management of a commons" or as a "management of a public good"... In both formulations of course, there are inbuilt assumptions--in the first instance, that of the "commons" there is an assumption that the structure of governance/management is occuring in some sort of context where no existing governance/management structures are already in place and thus means must found to create these; which, as Anriette points to, should be such as to satisfy the (legitimate?) needs of all parties.  In the latter case that of the "public good", there is the assumption of the pre-existence of a "public" and thus of some form of governance structures which repesent at some level the collective will of that public.
>
> Those of an anti-government/anti-State bent will clearly opt for the former formulation while those without such a bias will potentially opt for either depending on the specifics of the circumstance.
>
> Whether in our context the Internet is seen as a "commons" or as a "public good" may thus perhap simply be a matter of taste (or political/ideological pre-disposition).

I think there is more to the difference between the use of these two 
terms. Commons mostly (though not always) refers to resources that are 
already naturally present, and thus its governance largely consists of 
negative responsibilities and obligations. Public goods are similar to 
commons in that eveyone should have equal or equitable right to them, 
but generally public goods have to be produced and distributed equitably 
through positive action. Now, such a need for creation and distribution 
by positive action does bring in the role of a well resourced actor 
working in common/ public interest (including possessing the resource of 
'coercive action' if necessary) which well is what governments 
definitionally are. ( I understand that 'positive assets' can also be 
created through a FOSS like commons approach but that has its limitation 
and need almost always to be complemented by 'public' efforts to ensure 
equitable rights for all.)


Therefore, since the Internet and its equitable enjoyment requires both 
some kind of guarantees of unrestrained access to what can be considered 
as naturally existing conditions (like freedom of expression, the right 
to freely innovate etc)  and ability to enjoy conditions that need to be 
created through positive action, requiring large scale resources and 
coordination effort, we indeed require a hybrid commons/ public goods 
approach to it (employing a term that you use below).

parminder
>
> However, a decision around this may also be associated with issues such as assessments of the role of power--economic, political, social--in the context of governance. One of the major challenges facing those who opt to see the Internet as a commons is how to deal with issues of power differentials  within that commons.  Avri in her disquisition pointed to the power of the State in abrogating the extent of the commons but interestingly she failed to mention the role of private corporations in similarly parcelling out and limiting the extent of the commons and perhaps more importantly the capacity of the commons to self-manage its affairs in contexts where the private sector is already acting/has power. (To use Anriette's example what happens when the water supply is already in whole or in part privatized, how then to treat it as a commons in the absence of State power?)
>
> Any discussion of the Internet as a commons must IMHO as a basic and defining issue deal with how in an Internet treated as a commons, the differential power of the various actors will be managed/controlled/equalized (?).  It is again IMHO totally insufficient to present the Internet as a commons as a paradigm for matters of Internet Governance and specifically as a solution to presumed overweening attempts at control by States without equally dealing with matters of actual patterns of control over significant elements of the Internet by unaccountable private corporations and individual States pursuing their own specific self-interests.
>
> One reason to opt for a paradigm of the Internet as a global public good is precisely because within that model are conceptual elements and strategies for managing/controlling the role of otherwise unaccountable private sector actors and equally that of rogue States which choose to ignore the role of the global interest in the pursuit of local/national interests.
>
> Whether some commons/publc good hybrid model is possible where concerns with respect to government control (as for example with respect to Freedom of Expression) and parallel concerns with respect to private control or individual national control (as for example in ensuring the public interest in matters such as privacy, equality in the distribution of opportunities to realize benefits, and so on) can be mutually accommodated is perhaps our most important task in this context.
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen
> Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2013 9:59 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance
>
> The question is, what is needed to protect and strengthen the internet commons?
> As Avri points out, governments have assisted the theft of the commons.
> I would say that the form that this assistance takes ranges from lack of the basic regulation that is needed to protect it to active protection of certain vested interests. That is why the notion of an 'unregulated'
> internet is so problematic and why the notion of an open and unregulated internet can so easily be a contradiction in terms.
>
> There needs to be some basic rules that makes sure that the internet remains 'open and free' in a broad sense.
>
> The risks, or the challenges related to this is that many governments approach regulation of the internet not from the perspective of protecting it as a commons, but from the perspective of enabling them to exercise more control over internet content and use, and user behaviour.
>
> I remain convinced that one of the difficulties in internet governance is that there is a conceptual/principle deficit of some kind. Not so much statement of principles that affirm freedom of expression, 'net-neutrality', etc.. Those are good....
>
> I think they real deficit is in how the internet is defined, or what kind of entity we understand it to be.
>
> When the management and supply of water is being regulated there are also lots of contestation. For example between mines, communities who live in the catchment area, communities who live downstream subject to seasonal flooding, cities and commercial farms who need dams, and nature conservation and reservers, where traditional seasonal flooding is often essential to the survival of many species.
>
> Policy would generally try to understand and balance all these interests and will be premised on a common understanding that water is a common resource. The public interest principles will be fairly easily understood by most that are involved water policy and regulation. But there will be lots of argument about how it is managed, and used and often the wrong decisions will be made.
>
> I just had a glance at the CGI.br principles and the IRP 10 principles and neither statement contains anything that suggests what the internet
> - from the perspective of it being a 'commons' or a public good - is. I know I have been dwelling on this ONE KEY 'principle' deficit for a while... but I just can't give thinking it is at the root of the difficulties we have in addressing the conflicts of interest in internet governance.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
> On 14/04/2013 02:50, Avri Doria wrote:
>> All of the Internet, like the land world before it, was once commons. Then, as before, the rich, the powerful and greedy, with the assistance of the governments they bought, and continue to buy, began to misappropriate those commons and called it property.  Each day more of that commons its stolen. Each day more of the linguistic commons is stolen and called intellectual property. The Internet commons is almost gone. This its what government do best - with some very few exceptions - assist in the theft of the commons.
>>
>> I have no problem with those who create art or new Internet spaces enjoying the fruits of their creativity and inventiveness. A neologism may be owned. A new Internet space may be owned. But the language itself or the Internet should not be.
>>
>> Diego Rafael Canabarro <diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> At the International Studies Association Annual Convention last week
>>> in San Francisco, an official from the US Department of State said:
>>> "there's no commons on cyberspace". That perception is closely
>>> related to the conflict presented by Mr. Perry bellow in this thread.
>>> I'm still struggling with that assertion.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One of the most significant I'm aware of (and I hope this is within
>>>>> the remit of your question):
>>>> It definitely is, and it's a conflict that I have not been
>>> sufficiently
>>>> conscious of, so thank you very much for pointing this out!
>>>>
>>>> Greetings,
>>>> Norbert
>>>>
>>>>> The private sector has built extensive networks [fixed and mobile]
>>>>> using $billons of investment on which their shareholders [many of
>>>>> whom are the consumers' pension funds] expect a return, versus many
>>>>> customers who feel entitled to have unlimited usage for a
>>>>> relatively trivial monthly payment (which
>>> they
>>>>> sometimes dress up as "Network Neutrality").
>>>>>
>>>>> I post this not to support either of the above points of view, but
>>>>> merely to inform readers of the conflict it unquestionably
>>> represents.
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To 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)
>>> --
>> Avri Doria
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 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 lis